I hope the Renovare study bible will be great; at least it will expose the general public to the idea of spiritual formation.

I think the proliferation of translations has been basically good, and I like to view them as existing on a continuum from literal translation on one end to paraphrases on the other, with transliteration (or translating meanings, i.e. of weights, measures, and currency) in between. (The NIV is a good example of transliteration; it?s not literal, but not a paraphrase.)

Ironically some of the best (worst? Most guilty?) proof-texters I know use more translations per sermon than anyone else; it makes finding just the right wording to support your proof text idea that much easier, and can take you further out of the context of the passage than you could ever imagined. The other irony is that if the proof texter?s message is biblical, there?s usually another verse that actually supports his point better, and in context. Where are the scriptural source-code gurus when you need them?

Translations and transliterations all fall short.

To properly exegete the text you must (must — yeah it sounds elitist, but…) be able to read the text’s original language. So much of the message absolutely depends on the original text, verbatim — especially in the Pentateuch. Any other effort, not relying upon the original text’s language, will truly miss the whole message.

Learning Hebrew or Koine isn’t too hard for most people. Plenty of individuals and books are out there to help those eager to learn. It just takes time, good old fashion work, and an honest desire to know the author’s original message, less the distortions of translation or the incompleteness of transliteration.

Rob-

I think it’s great to learn the original, don’t get me wrong, but if you, knowing the original languages, were to make a translation for me, would it be any different than those available commercially?

On the other hand, if I learned the original languages, what good would it do me if I couldn’t convey that meaning in my own language? I can accept that much nuance is connected to the original language, but it?s tough for me to accept that the original language carries the majority of the text?s meaning?and therefore the majority of its truth.

When asked about the his feelings on the difficult passages of the Bible, Mark Twain (a non-believer) said, ?It?s not the parts of the Bible that I don?t understand that bother me; it?s the parts that I DO understand that bother me!? Most people would do well to grapple with the issues of scripture that are readily evident and understandable to them in their own language. There?s a lifetime of spiritual work to be done in this area for most of us, I think.

Remember that much of the original Bible (5 Books of Moshe) was redacted/written-down (from what would’ve been *even back then* ancient!) oral traditions. The “traditions” (what we’d call lore/stories) were designed to sound good.
The purpose of this was two fold:
[] it helped story-tellers acurately remember the words
[] it caught people’s attention (remember these stories were told often at night around the community fire where all ages were present, not just adults)

A little factoid: Someone like Jesus of Nazareth, who seems to have attended pharasaic school, could have very easily spoken the entire book of Pslams by memory. This was a common ability for Jewish males in his day. How? Well, people relied more heavily on memory than we do today. But, more to the point, the *sound* of the text facilitated people remembering the poems.

So, imagine sitting around the fire listening to oft rhyming stories of Eden, the first murder, the Flood, etc. These stories not only had to sound good, but they had to hold the attention of many different levels of sophistication. That’s why word-plays were often used in the Hebrew Bible. Example: A family might watch the Simpsons together, but the kids and adults often see very different stories.

Without quoting an actual verse (short on time, i’m in the midst of cooking dinner imagine a few sentences taken from the Pentateuch. There is what is best called the “apparent meaning” of the text — this you get by merely translating the text verbatim. But, often there’s a play on words in either how they sound(ed in the original Hebrew). There’s also slang (eg: feet = sex organ in a scroll like Ruth).

if you, knowing the original languages, were to make a translation for me, would it be any different than those available commercially?

Such a translation might look a lot like Talmud. In the center is the original biblical text, and surrounding it would be various notes on the text.

Sure, there are tons of books and guides out there that do the text justice in terms of definition, word plays, and even ancient slang. But, that is no substitute for having a singular body of text that does it one action.

Imagine reading Shakespeare (whose writing has just as many levels) in anything but the original English. That’s what i’m trying to get at.

Could you imagine only reading Shakespeare by way of commentaries? Ugh. You might appreciate the meaningS of the text, sure. But, somehow, it would lack its original feeling and intent, no ?

Shakespeare in Cantonese anyone ?

I’ve been pondering this issue for a couple of days now. Some of the great benefits of open-source software is that it’s free, cooperatively grown, and you can tell quickly what “works”. Those who shouldn’t be modifying code are quickly identified as such.

Open source theology, however - it’s harder to discern what “works”, and we certainly seem to see a ton more forks in the source tree than in the code analogy

Nathan-
Of course you are right, which is why the source code is so essential. Christianty does not share the same source code with Islam, and heterodox offshoots of Christianity use the same code but in a way that is not historically consistent or respected by the theological community (just as using open-source software in violation of the GNU GPL or whatever it’s licensed under is not acceptable to the open-source software community).

Justin -

This appears, then, to come to an issue of authority. Who (or what) has the authority to decide exactly what set of source code the community will use? What do a bunch of Mac users do with the lonely pc guy in the crowd? How do they legimitately claim the Mac OS is better than Windows, or vice versa? If unity is important, and I think that it is, I’m curious as to how the source-code model of theology deals with these kinds of conflicts.

But say your group is all on the same page, except for some minor variations - how are those smaller issues resolved? Who says yes to this and no to that?

?But we aren?t ideal theologians, and we don?t live in an ideal world. I think theology is merely talk about God, which may have varying degrees of truth to it.?

… I don?t think what you refer to here can really be a base for doing theology. At some point, we have to put a stake in the ground and say ?this is true!?

Okay, I gotta ask. Why?

When we put a stake in the ground and say, “This is Truth” we create by our action an idol to stand in the place of Christ Jesus, Who is in reality The Truth.

…then we will be unable to distinguish good theology from bad theology, Christian theology from Islamic theology

Can you now? I submit that you cannot. What is the difference between Christian theology and Muslim theology in actual practice? Is there one? I submit that there is not. The Muslims believe in Allah. Christians believe in God, and often claim that He is the same God as Allah. The Muslims fight for Allah. Christians fight for God ([Sarcasm mode on]what was it Jesus said about his followers not fighting? Oh, but we can ignore those things he said, can’t we? Oh, yes, Dr. Kennedy says it’s okay to kill people in war… after all, if we obeyed everything Jesus said, we’d never get the Gospel preached. And we’d be killed for believing in God. Can’t have that. And that part about loving your enemies…that’s not important, either, because we’re supposed to love our family more than our enemies.[Sarcasm mode off]). Muslims worship the Koran. Christians worship the Bible.

Roger -

“Okay, I gotta ask. Why?”

What an odd question! The most obvious answer is because we are Christians, and as Christians, we follow a faith that is rooted in a specific set of historical events. If the Incarnation did not happen, if Jesus did not actually die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, then our faith is false. Its built on a lie, preaches a lie and worships a lie. If those things aren’t true, we aren’t true. If you don’t believe those things happened or do not believe they matter, than you are not a Christian as it has historically been understood.

“When we put a stake in the ground and say, ‘This is Truth’ we create by our action an idol to stand in the place of Christ Jesus, Who is in reality The Truth.”

In a certain sense this is indeed true, and it is entirely possible that someone in any religious system will make an idol out of something - but that does not mean that merely putting a stake in the ground absolutely results in idolatry. We all have different levels of faith and the church has long understood that some are called to lives of contemplation and constant devotion, and some are called to be everyday folks. If you or I have not been given the spiritual gifts to move beyond a certain level, staying at that level is not sin and it is not idolatry. Have you read St Dionysius?

“Can you now? I submit that you cannot. What is the difference between Christian theology and Muslim theology in actual practice? Is there one? I submit that there is not.”

I submit that I can and that there is. Further, I submit you are merely playing pretty games that sound nice but are meaningless. There is a great deal of difference in actual practice. Muslims pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Do Christians? Muslims make the hajj. Do Christians? Muslims fast during Ramadan. Do Christians? Christians partake in communion/Eucharst. Do Muslims? Christians pray to Christ. Do Muslims? Christians worship the Trinity. Do Muslims? These practices are all driven by a very specific theology - to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

“If there were a real difference in actual practice between good theology and bad theology, between Christianity and Islam, everyone would remark, as the Romans did, on what good people those Christians are.”

First, it is clear from your sarcastic remarks that you do indeed believe there is a difference between the practice of good theology and bad theology. Your own words betray you. If Christians lived up to their theology - and you suggest they, in fact, do not - then people would remark on them. That we fail in that regard does not necessarily make our theology false or make the differences with Islamic theology meaningless. And you have certainly failed to defend this position with any degree of merit.

“Are you sure? Did you ever read ?Godel, Escher, and Bach: an eternal golden braid? by Douglas Hofstadter?”

Nope, but why would I if reason is overrated?

“Not at all.”

A boundary implies a belief that one side is true/right, and the other side is false/wrong. Whether that distinction actually exists is another matter.

“I do not assume that any person has a firm enough grasp of the reality of God to adequately express Him to anybody. Nor do I think that any person could have such a firm grasp on the reality and truth and nature of God.”

Then what is the point of revelation? What was the point of the incarnation, if not for God to bring himself near? Ironically, though, you fall victim to this same delusion. You assume that YOU have a firm enough grasp of the reality of God and his nature to lecture ME on my alleged inability to know anything of him. Just because you are claiming he is too big to be known does not mean you aren’t claiming greater knowledge than I do. You say he can’t be known, I say he can because of the Incarnation - not fully, not even close, but God is not completely unknowable.

“Therefore, the idea that any of us can put a stake in the ground and claim ‘this is true about God’ is patently ridiculous on its face, because How Do You KNOW that ‘X is true about God’? Have you seen Him Face to Face to confirm that statement? In the end, such statements boil down to ‘This is right because I think that it is right.’ Or, perhaps, ‘This is right because God told me that it is right.’”

So you clearly do not believe in revelation, then. And no, such arguments do not need to boil down to personal claims to authority - I can just as well point to the church and lay claim to her teachings as authoritative. Now, I’m sure you will reject them, but on what basis do you do so? Personal authority, perhaps? So once again, you are failing in the same way - you reject a specific authority based on what you personally believe. You have put a stake in the ground and said “it is true about God that we cannot know him” or “it is true about God that he is beyond all comprehension.” That yours is negative and mine is positive makes no difference at all - its still a stake in the ground.

“Hardly. You simply remove from discussion any view of God that doesn?t conform to your dictates or reside within your boundaries. You?re not talking about ‘Truth’ at all; you?re simply doing God-talk according to your own definition, which isn?t necessarily the same as God?s, and may have no intersection with actual reality.”

I am happily discussing your view of God, so no, I’m not removing anything from the discussion - not any more than you are, at least. You, too, are simply doing God-talk according to your definition which may have no intersection with actualy reality, and which certainly has little intersection with historic Christian understanding. Now, you may presume that you know better than 2,000 years of saints and theologians, but I find that kind of hubris a bit alarming. Ultimately, your stance leaves no room for discussion of any kind - it simply dismisses any statements about any of God’s attributes or qualities.

Ted -

I agree that theology has alwasy been open source, in its own way. The Ecumenical Councils of the Church were entirely open source - every bishop had a voice in the deliberations, which included representatives from the entire church, at least for the first few - things changed a bit down the road, obviously. Your point about the possibility of anyone becoming a published author echoes my previous posts - how do we know what they are contributing is worth listening to, much less able to modify what we have previously held? Our theology is not necessarily true; on that I agree with Roger, but what is the point of claiming it if we aren’t even going to say we believe it is true to some degree?

Sorry–

I meant to say “…it seems a shame to argue over them or over theologize them.”

I just got a voice recognition program(Dragon NatruallySpeaking 8), and it hasn’t figured out my lisp yet