Understanding God and All God Says

AvalancheTheCat,
You typed:
=============
But in your OP you wonder "about the God of the bible and what He has put in the bible."

Are you now saying that your god didn't put stuff in the bible?
=============

I guess, I mistyped. Perhaps a better way to type is. . .

"about the God of the bible and what has been put in the bible about what is, what He wants, and what will be."

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
When it comes to translation,the bible should not differ than the original writings.

So I presume you are saying that every translation should be faithful to the original?

But that is impossible.

It is impossible to give a thorough and accurate translation from one language to another.

Take the simple Italian "ciao". Translate that to English!

Wolfgang,
Is there some reason why "ciao" can't mean something to the human mind? Can't it be typed out? Why is "ciao" so hard to define?

Nonetheless, there are times when the bible has words in italics which is not in the original writings. The italic words are to make the meaning of the original writings more clear. The italic words are italics so that a reader can see that it is not part of the original writings.

Lastly, did Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek have words which cannot be translated? If at all possible, accurate translation is necessary. Otherwise going to the original languages is required by the reader.

Whatever the case, putting what is clearly not there is incorrect. But italics is still not used to translate the original languages into the King James Version. The reader needs to be informed in the case of a word meaning 2 or more different things in translation. Perhaps, the case of Ruth laying at the feet of Boaz, from what I have heard, is an example where the reader can be informed of a double meaning in the original Hebrew.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Wolfgang,
Is there some reason why "ciao" can't mean something to the human mind? Can't it be typed out? Why is "ciao" so hard to define?

We are talking about translation not meaning.

Wolfgang,
Translation should provide the meaning of God in th4e translation. If Christ says to keep on asking continually, then that is what it should be translated as. Otherwise, the reader should be informed of an incomplete meaning in the 2nd language. That is why we need to go to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for the bible's translation in such cases.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
... if we automatically think that our translated language in a bible has all the answers to our responsibilities toward God, then we can be misled.

Where else would you find your "responsibilities toward god" ???

"Responsibilities toward God" would come in the original writings. Translations can be misleading due to incompleteness of the translation language or any other thing that applies.

The King James Version in English does not show all exact meanings in specific translation because Greek for the bible has Mood, Voice, and Tense, for instance.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint

The King James Version in English does not show all exact meanings in specific translation because Greek for the bible has Mood, Voice, and Tense, for instance.

So to understand exactly what the bible means one must understand Aramaic and Greek.

Which means that full understanding is outside the ability of the vast majority.

Does that sound like a good way for a god to communicate with mortals?

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Why can't we have a [b]starting point of thinking that the bible literally means what it says in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?[/b]

Because that's a horrible starting point.

I see a book full of legends, parables, metaphor and poetry; the last thing I want to do is take it all literally. Taking it all literally leads to absurdities:

- Quoting Genesis, as if it were a scientific text, to reject the theory of evolution and the big bang.
- Claiming that the Noah's Ark story actually happened.
- Thinking Jonah actually lived inside a whale for 3 days.
- Thinking that the planet stopped spinning so that Joshua could win a battle.

Etc. etc. etc.

- Quoting Genesis, as if it were a scientific text, to reject the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Then don't take it as a science book.
Just because some vocal people take it that way doesn't mean you have to.

I think it is evident that it is not to be taken as an exhaustive account of how God created everything.

- Claiming that the Noah's Ark story actually happened.

I think as Jesus taught from it with seriousness, we also should regard it with seriousness.

- Thinking Jonah actually lived inside a whale for 3 days.

It says it was an especially appointed fish. And for all we know Jonah may have died and been brought back to life.

I think it just says he was in the belly of the fish - one especially appointed to the task.

This is another account which Jesus apparently took seriously. You do what you wish. But I say if it was taken seriously by Jesus Christ, then I should take it seriously.

- Thinking that the planet stopped spinning so that Joshua could win a battle.

This miracle of God causing the sun and moon to at least appear to be stationary, in this day and age, should not present THAT much of a problem.

How God did this, I surely do not know. But since the discoveries of the warping of space time as Relativity predicts, I no longer regard this as unimaginable.

Suppose God caused some object like a black hole to pass through the solar system bending the light somehow ?

It doesn't demand that the earth stopped rotating, I think.
This side of Einstein I don't think the appearance of the sun and moon being stationary for too long is an impossibility.

Especially it should not be one for the One who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.

The miracle is MATCHED by a similar one in the days of Hezekiah when God made the sundial shadow reverse directions.

Many astounding feats of God in the Bible come in pairs of TWO. He matches certain miracles with another for a pair. It is as if God was saying "That's right. You read it right. I did thus and such."

Originally posted by sonship

This I like.

Originally posted by sonship

- Quoting Genesis, as if it were a scientific text, to reject the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Then don't take it as a science book.
Just because some vocal people take it that way doesn't mean you have to.

I think it is evident that it is not to be taken as an exhaustive account of [b]how God created everything.

[ ...[text shortened]... for a pair. It is as if God was saying "That's right. You read it right. I did thus and such."[/b]

This not so much.

Originally posted by sonship

- Quoting Genesis, as if it were a scientific text, to reject the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Then don't take it as a science book.
Just because some vocal people take it that way doesn't mean you have to.

I think it is evident that it is not to be taken as an exhaustive account of [b]how God created everything.

[ ...[text shortened]... for a pair. It is as if God was saying "That's right. You read it right. I did thus and such."[/b]

what you said about the miracles happening in pairs. That was good.

Originally posted by sonship

- Quoting Genesis, as if it were a scientific text, to reject the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Then don't take it as a science book.
Just because some vocal people take it that way doesn't mean you have to.

I think it is evident that it is not to be taken as an exhaustive account of [b]how God created everything.

[ ...[text shortened]... for a pair. It is as if God was saying "That's right. You read it right. I did thus and such."[/b]

I don't take Genesis as a science book.

No, I can't take Noah's Ark seriously. It doesn't matter who endorsed it, Jesus included. I can't even picture those two little penguins waddling/swimming all the way from Antarctica, around the horn of Africa, to Iraq without either tiring and drowning, or getting munched by a hungry predator, or perishing of heat stroke in the unfamiliar desert climes. Jesus got this one wrong if he took it seriously.

For all we know, Jonah might have been captured by aliens who had a ship that looked a lot like a whale. Yes, difficulties just melt away when we play the 'for all we know' game!

When people explain away Joshua with scientific theories like Relativity, I'm reminded of the saying: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If, as you suggest, the path of light was altered, the rays would come in more and more slanted, causing temperatures to drop rapidly. Unless (and really, why not? Plausibility got thrown out the window long ago.) there where several black holes moving in concert that kept the sun's rays coming in at the right angle to keep everyone roasty toasty and primed for killing.