The Mistranslation Argument

[Audacity]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some crucial word in the Bible has been mistranslated leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it brings up the issue of the Bible's trustworthiness.

One such case involves Isaiah 45:7 where God declares he creates evil.

........(KJV)
........"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."​

"Evil" occurs in 14 (47%) of the 30 translations I looked at. Reasoning that no translator would select a word that is more unfavorable to god than not, and that "evil" is the predominant translation, I think it's fair to conclude it's most likely the correct translation: God said he creates evil. Those objecting to this translation of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil" say the proper translation should be something else (there are several notions as to what it should be * ). In any case, the Bible in which this supposed incorrect "evil" appears in Isaiah 45:7 continues to mislead hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Christians as to the true character of God. Hardly a decent thing to do.

Worse yet, it leads to the conclusion that if this one translation can be wrong and misleading, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite crucial to one's theology. If, in fact, "evil" is what God actually said then 53% of the Bible versions are "lying" to and misleading its readers. AND, if "calamity" is, for instance, what God actually said, then 90% of the Bible versions are "lying" to and misleading its readers.

It does no good to argue, as has been done, that such errors in translation are insignificant or meaningless to the overall message, because one doesn't actually know this to be the case. It would be wishful thinking at its most desperate. It's also sometimes argued that a particular word has to be correct because it also appears in the same context in different passages. But this only points to a translator's objective to be consistent. One wouldn't expect different words to be used to describe the same subject.

Moreover, given the assertion that Biblical scripture was at least inspired by God, one has to ask why these mistaken translations appear in the Bible at all. One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings. Got your pick it seems.


*Translations of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 versions of the Bible.

...WORDS....NUMBER...%
"Bad times"........ 1.... 3%
"Calamity"..........3... 10%
"Disaster(s)"........5... 16%
"Discord"............1.... 3%
"Doom"..............1.... 3%
"Evil"...............14... 47%
"Hard times" .......1.... 3%
"Troubles"...........2.... 6%
"Woe" ...............2.... 6%​

If you take exception to what I've said please share your thoughts---without ad homs if you would.

[Jac3510]

Better to look at the translations in question. For those who don't want to look them up:

• Modern Translations (Highly regarded):
  • I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things. (NET)
    I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things. (ESV)
    The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these. (NASB)
    I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things. (NKJV)
    I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things. (HCSB)
    I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. (NIV)
    I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things. (NRSV)
    I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things. (RSV)
    I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things. (NLT)
  Modern Translations (Not widely known/minimal scholarship)
  • I form light and create darkness, make prosperity and create doom; I am the Lord, who does all these things. (CEB)
    I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the Lord, do all of this. (CEV)
    I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things. (ERV)
    I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the Lord, do all these things. (GW)
    I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the Lord, who does all these things. (ISV)
    I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this. (JUB)
    I form light and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things. (LEB)
    I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things. (MEV)
    I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, Yahweh, do all these things. (NOG)
    I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause troubles. I, the Lord, do all these things. (NCV)
  Old Translations:
  • I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJV)
    I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things. (KJ21)
    I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (ASV)
    forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things. (Darby)
    I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. (DRA)
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (GNV)

That's all of the English Bibles listed on Biblegateway with a few exceptions. The ones I excluded were either paraphrases or selective transliterations. As you can see, Audacity's percentages are simply incorrect. From just this sampling of English Bibles, 17 of 25 use some word other than "evil" (68%). Second, if you only look at modern translations, both those major, heavily researched ones and the minor ones, then 17 of 19 use another word than "evil" (89%). Of all translations that use the word "evil," 6 of 8 (75%) were published before 1901 or were directly based on works published before 1901.

In other words, with exception to two modern English Bibles, the only place you find the word "evil" is in translations over 100 years old. If Audacity wants to claim that 100 year old scholarship ought to overthrow that of modern scholarship, let him make that argument. Further, of the two remaining modern Bibles, the LEB and the JUB, the first was specifically intended to be read along side of the original text and so was not meant for popular consumption, and the second is based on what is frankly a wacky and widely rejected translation theory among linguistics of ALL stripes. Thus, we can literally claim that not a single modern translation that takes modern linguistics into account and that is intended for normal, English-only readers, that 0% of these use the word "evil" in their translation.

Why? Because "evil" is the wrong translation. Objectively. And moreover, if you look at the two main ancient translations that scholars look at--the Vulgate and the LXX--you get this:

• formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec (Vulgate)
  ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα (LXX)

I can tell you for a fact that malum and κακά simply do not mean "evil" in the sense of a moral evil. They can be used for that, but they have a much wider meaning of (brace for it) "calamity." If you want to talk about a word connotating moral evil more specifically, in Latin you would say scelus or peccatum (which appear many times in the Vulgate) and in Greek you would say poneros.

Last thing: before we throw the old translations under the bus, why did they use "evil"? Were they unaware of good scholarship. Turns out, not in this case. A 1755 English dictionary provides the following definitions of "evil":

• 1. Wickedness, a crime
  2. Injury, mischief
  3. Malignity, corruption
  4. Misfortune, calamity
  5. Malady, disease

Compare that to today's definition as found at dicionary.com:

• 1. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
  2. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
  3. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
  4. harm; mischief; misfortune:
  5. anything causing injury or harm:
  6. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:

The idea of "calamity" might be a synonym, but that's just not the way we use the word anymore. In other words, "evil" made good sense in pre-1900 English. That reader would have read the word and thought "calamity," not "wickedness" or anything like it.

----------------------

Why did I waste my time with all that? Sheesh. Bottom line: our translations are, by and large, good ones. But be careful about looking at very old translations and confusing old meanings of English words with new meanings or of reading words used in old translations and automatically interpreting them the way we use them today (i.e., gappism's "replenish" nonsense). Hope that helps any who might have been interested.

[Jac3510]

BTW, you see the same trend in other languages. I'm not going to do the whole exercise again with Spanish Bibles, but let me just give two examples:

• Que formo la luz y crío las tinieblas, que hago la paz y crío el mal. Yo Jehová que hago todo esto. (RVA)
  Yo formo la luz y creo las tinieblas, hago la paz y creo la adversidad. Sólo yo, Jehová, soy el que hago todo esto. (RVR1995)

So here you see mal and adversidad. Again, mal is from an old translation and is an older word with a much wider meaning, one that can certainly include moral evil but also was very much used to refer to calamity or disaster. So we see the modern update of the same version use the word adversidad. You don't have to read or speak Spanish to have an idea of what that word means (and doesn't mean). So, again, same story, different language.

[Jac3510]

Heck, I'm bored, I'll give one more point to expand on my first reply. Let's just look at the KJV text. It's a good case study that you can apply to every single translation (and, btw, the Hebrew text):

• I form the light, and create darkness:
  I make peace, and create evil:
  I the Lord do all these things.

Notice the parallel contrasts. That's a very common feature of Hebrew poetry and preserved in the translation. First, God creates light and darkness--total opposites. That's a merism to mean the two extremes and everything in between. He then says the same thing with what's called synonymous parallelism. Peace and evil are opposite of one another, and both the whole phrase is parallel to "create form light and create darkness" and the individual words (light/peace, darkness/evil) parallel one another. This is another reason that no interpreter who pays attention to the text would see moral evil here. The opposite of peace is not moral evil, nor is moral evil parallel to darkness except in some metaphorical sense. The opposite of peace, however, certainly is calamity. You need light to live and be prosperous--it's good for you, so to speak. And so the first parallel to peace, which you also need to live and be prosperous. But where there is darkness, you can't really live or be prosperous. It's the opposite of light. And just so, where there is no peace, there is disaster or calamity, again, something that if present means you can't live or be prosperous.

God's point, both in this verse and in the entire passage, is that all things come from Him--both good times and bad times. Blessings and curses both come from Him. So when the disaster comes that Isaiah is talking about, don't blame it on your bad luck. Know that God is doing it to you on purpose, and that because He is bringing judgment and discipline. That's why He ends iwth "I the Lord do all these things." There is simply no connotation of moral evil anywhere in this passage (except, perhaps, the calamity God is going to bring against Israel for their moral evil, which is to say, their unrighteousness!).

Okay, now I'm done.

[abelcainsbrother]

I agree with everything Jac said except that Gap Theorists are wrong about "replenish". We know from the evidence in the earth that goes back billions of years "replenish" is right.This means " fill" cannot be right because God's word does not contradict the nature God created.They go hand in hand when we have the right interpretation and they don't when you don't have the right interpretation. You have to start believing things like Dinosaurs lived when Adam and Eve did,etc.

[Audacity]

If Audacity wants to claim that 100 year old scholarship ought to overthrow that of modern scholarship, let him make that argument.

"Evil," "woe," or "bad times," it doesn't make any difference. What is important is the message the variety of interpretations sends.

Although the nine translations I've cited have a somewhat similar sense of negative consequence, each is unique in its implication (the only two I see as close to being synonymous are "calamity" and "disaster"), so the fact remains that whichever word(s) conveys god's true creating--if any of them actually do---by default the others fail to do so, and subsequently mislead the reader. Anywhere from 53% to 97% of the Bibles are misinforming their readers as to what god says he does in Isaiah 45:7. Is God a being who creates (note the present tense) all the evil in the world, or does he simply create woe? Pretty radically different kinds of creating. And a pretty radically different kind of a god.

So my point stands: the argument that a particular word in the Bible is not the proper translation has far greater implications than it's singular misrepresentation of scripture. The single example of disagreement among the various Bible translations of Isaiah 45:7 clearly shows the Bible is not as trustworthy as Christians claim: if this one translation can be wrong and misleading who's to say the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite crucial to one's theology. I would think "caution," would be the watchword when making bold assertions based on scripture.

Why did I waste my time with all that? Sheesh.

I think most of us have a very good idea.

Bottom line: our translations are, by and large, good ones.

"By and large" being the operative words. Yet I do agree that today's Bibles are likely to be pretty much what the writers and subsequent translators want the reader to believe. Just gotta pick and choose which best fits one's theology. Need a tough, vengeful kind of god who creates evil? then pick up your KJV. Only need him to create a bit of hard times? then use a NIRV.

[Jac3510]

I'm going to offer one and only one polite reply.

If you think the fact that ra' can be translated in different contexts by different English words (and, that, by different words at different periods in English translation history) suggests that we don't have a good idea of what the word means, then at best you don't understand the translation of any language into another. Take any text from any other language. Let it be Aristotle or Plato; Aquinas or Augustine; let it be Descartes or Gilson; Cervantes or Zafon; Tolstoy or Dostoevsky; Christoffel or Von Goethe . . . it doesn't matter who. If you think that translation from a source language into a receptor language is a one to one code, you are badly misinformed. If you understand that languages don't have one to one codes but want to suggest that this means that readers of the translation are mislead, particularly to an extent that they don't know the meaning of the original, then you are, again, badly misinformed.

I am informing you of something. Our translations are good. Your English Bible--whichever one you choose--is perfectly adequate and sufficient for you to understand the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that underlies whatever text you are reading. Where there are differences among translations, the difference is virtually never enough to skew the meaning of the text, and even in those cases, if a translation is viable, you can have little doubt that it is represented in the scholarship. To see a good example of where I make a case for a specific translation against a majority view and how that might have theological implications, you can read my technical analysis of Rom 5:12ff. Work through that and you can get an idea of how the process works.

With all that said, the conclusion you want to draw that you get a different kind of God is (again, to be polite to you) unsubstantiated. Any of the modern translations of Isa 45:7 . . . bad times or woes or calamity or disaster . . . all of those catch the basic idea of ra'. And so does "evil" if you take it in the older sense. "Evil" does not, by and large, catch the idea of ra' if you understand it in the sense of ethical evil, or wickedness, of sin.

Again, to be as crystal clear as I absolutely can: what you are offering is factually incorrect. I have informed you of that. I have given examples. I have explained the underlying theory. I am asking you here, as politely as I can and far more politely than you deserve, not to continue pushing this line of reasoning. If you still fail to understand some point and want some help getting educated, feel free to ask for that help. If you are going to continue making these remarks, then you'll have gone from making an incorrect argument to an idiotic and asinine assertion that deserves ridicule at best and, in my own assessment strongly runs counter to the board purposes. The mods, of course, would have the final say, but I don't see many other ways to take such a foolish assertion defended. As for my own part, either response you wish to provide, if any, would suit me just fine.

[abelcainsbrother]

If Audacity wants to claim that 100 year old scholarship ought to overthrow that of modern scholarship, let him make that argument.

"Evil," "woe," or "bad times," it doesn't make any difference. What is important is the message the variety of interpretations sends.

Although the nine translations I've cited have a somewhat similar sense of negative consequence, each is unique in its implication (the only two I see as close to being synonymous are "calamity" and "disaster"), so the fact remains that whichever word(s) conveys god's true creating--if any of them actually do---by default the others fail to do so, and subsequently mislead the reader. Anywhere from 53% to 97% of the Bibles are misinforming their readers as to what god says he does in Isaiah 45:7. Is God a being who creates (note the present tense) all the evil in the world, or does he simply create woe? Pretty radically different kinds of creating. And a pretty radically different kind of a god.

So my point stands: the argument that a particular word in the Bible is not the proper translation has far greater implications than it's singular misrepresentation of scripture. The single example of disagreement among the various Bible translations of Isaiah 45:7 clearly shows the Bible is not as trustworthy as Christians claim: if this one translation can be wrong and misleading who's to say the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite crucial to one's theology. I would think "caution," would be the watchword when making bold assertions based on scripture.

Why did I waste my time with all that? Sheesh.

I think most of us have a very good idea.

Bottom line: our translations are, by and large, good ones.

"By and large" being the operative words. Yet I do agree that today's Bibles are likely to be pretty much what the writers and subsequent translators want the reader to believe. Just gotta pick and choose which best fits one's theology. Need a tough, vengeful kind of god who creates evil? then pick up your KJV. Only need him to create a bit of hard times? then use a NIRV.

I know it can seem like because we have different interpretations it can seem like we can't really understand our bible.But actually it is quite normal to have differences in any big group of people just like in science,atheism,Christianity,Islam,etc. The bible is written in a way to where we must study it to have understanding and we can compare differences to see which one lines up best according to the bible. It is not like it is secret. God's word is also revealed more true as time goes on,however it is up to us to discover how and maybe update our understanding when it comes to the bible. It is up to us to seek it out and make sure our interpretation is correct if we really want understanding.

[Audacity]

I'm going to offer one and only one polite reply.

Pretty much all the politeness you have in you? Is that it?

If you think the fact that ra' can be translated in different contexts by different English words (and, that, by different words at different periods in English translation history) suggests that we don't have a good idea of what the word means, then at best you don't understand the translation of any language into another. Take any text from any other language. Let it be Aristotle or Plato; Aquinas or Augustine; let it be Descartes or Gilson; Cervantes or Zafon; Tolstoy or Dostoevsky; Christoffel or Von Goethe . . . it doesn't matter who. If you think that translation from a source language into a receptor language is a one to one code, you are badly misinformed. If you understand that languages don't have one to one codes but want to suggest that this means that readers of the translation are mislead, particularly to an extent that they don't know the meaning of the original, then you are, again, badly misinformed.

I am informing you of something. Our translations are good. Your English Bible--whichever one you choose--is perfectly adequate and sufficient for you to understand the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that underlies whatever text you are reading. Where there are differences among translations, the difference is virtually never enough to skew the meaning of the text, and even in those cases, if a translation is viable, you can have little doubt that it is represented in the scholarship. To see a good example of where I make a case for a specific translation against a majority view and how that might have theological implications, you can read my technical analysis of Rom 5:12ff. Work through that and you can get an idea of how the process works.

With all that said, the conclusion you want to draw that you get a different kind of God is (again, to be polite to you) unsubstantiated.

Oh Brian Brian, Brian, being polite must be such a chore for you. And with your apologetics being so strained as to be on the verge of breaking I almost feel sorry for you, but I don't because we both know how irrelevant they are. And until you actually address the issue I presented I really can't care about your continued digression. Yes, that's right, you are that transparent.

Again, to be as crystal clear as I absolutely can: what you are offering is factually incorrect. I have informed you of that. I have given examples. I have explained the underlying theory. I am asking you here, as politely as I can and far more politely than you deserve, not to continue pushing this line of reasoning.

All you've done is address inconsequential points, those you apparently feel comfortable with. But, whatever.

Because no one deserves your politeness unless they agree with you. Yes I know.

If you still fail to understand some point and want some help getting educated, feel free to ask for that help. If you are going to continue making these remarks, then you'll have gone from making an incorrect argument to an idiotic and asinine assertion that deserves ridicule at best and, in my own assessment strongly runs counter to the board purposes.

Just couldn't quite make it through your post without a few ad homs could you. No surprise though. In any case, I do recognize how you're letting the mods know that if I don't 1) agree with you, or 2) keep my mouth shut and stop bringing up issues that embarrass YOU, that in your opinion I should be silenced. Personally, I think the board has more spine than to let you decide when its purposes have been violated. If my thread here had been out of line I'm sure it would have been brought to my attention way before you had a chance to show off your Google search skills. That you bring it up now, at the end of your ability to address the real issue I presented, is obviously self serving and hardly the courageous thing to do. But then slinging ad homs isn't a courageous thing to do either.

The mods, of course, would have the final say, but I don't see many other ways to take such a foolish assertion defended. As for my own part, either response you wish to provide, if any, would suit me just fine.

Yup, there it is.

........"The mods, of course, would have the final say."

Not that people should simply ignore my "foolish assertion," but that something be done about Audacity himself. Guess I'll have to wait and see how much influence you have over the mods.

Personally, I dislike how you insist on putting your replies on a personal basis: you against whomever you disagree with, rather than keeping to the issues themselves. And that I've been forced to play your game here in order to set things straight doesn't help resolve the issue at all. I suggest that you take stock of your posting practices and stop being so arrogant, personally antagonistic, and purposely impolite.

In any case, should you actually decide to tackle the issues I've brought up, I await a reply. If you can't, then please direct your hostility elsewhere.

Thank you

[Jac3510]

I'm going to offer one and only one polite reply.

Pretty much all the politeness you have in you? Is that it?

For you, yes. And I was straining to get even the little I managed to muster. That you feel like you deserve even a moticum of the same level of respect as other people here--several of whom I disagree with and who disagree with me on very fundamental issues and yet manage to have reasonable conversation--is pitiful. And frankly, it's demeaning to them.

Oh Brian Brian, Brian, being polite must be such a chore for you. And with your apologetics being so strained as to be on the verge of breaking I almost feel sorry for you, but I don't because we both know how irrelevant they are. And until you actually address the issue I presented I really can't care about your continued digression. Yes, that's right, you are that transparent.

I take the time to respond to drivel that deserves nothing more than mockery, and you go on this sort of tangent. Not surprising, given your initial OP--along with the rest of your "arguments" you make on these boards. You're like my seven year old daughter who became convinced that one times one was two because one plus one was and, after all, times is just a type of addition. Very proud of her discovery. At least she was open to correction even though she at first tried to correct her teacher. But you, you fool (in the biblical sense--I won't bother giving you the Hebrew word here because you'll just claim we can't know what it means), aren't open to correction and instead seek to instruct those who know more. And you do this is as a guest in this "house." You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Because no one deserves your politeness unless they agree with you. Yes I know.

Incorrect. No one deserves politeness unless they are respectable people. You are not respectable. You are antagonistic for no other purpose than to be antagonistic. You are, very literally, a bad human being. A good human is one who is rational, for rationality is a part of our essence, and to be "good" is therefore to act in accordance with that essence or nature. But over and over you demonstrate your slavishness to your emotional reactions, and far from having rational discourse, you spew vile, blithering, hateful rhetoric. That makes you bad at being human. You don't deserve to be here, much less my respect. It's an insult to those who are respectable in their disagreement to treat you the same as them, for such is to say that their own respectability is no more or less respectable than your disgusting attitude.

You want respect? Start showing it, both to the people here and the intellectual tradition(s) represented.

Just couldn't quite make it through your post without a few ad homs could you. No surprise though. In any case, I do recognize how you're letting the mods know that if I don't 1) agree with you, or 2) keep my mouth shut and stop bringing up issues that embarrass YOU, that in your opinion I should be silenced. Personally, I think the board has more spine than to let you decide when its purposes have been violated. If my thread here had been out of line I'm sure it would have been brought to my attention way before you had a chance to show off your Google search skills. That you bring it up now, at the end of your ability to address the real issue I presented, is obviously self serving and hardly the courageous thing to do. But then slinging ad homs isn't a courageous thing to do either.

Someone doesn't know what an ad hominem is, which isn't surprising, given your pitiful history here. I extended you a great deal of charity in suggesting your OP was rooted in ignorance. Ignorance isn't the kind of thing to be ashamed of. It is, however, shameful to defend one's own ignorance and persist in error. That is the idiocy I pointed out. All you had to do was simply offer a rational reply, but it's clear you didn't know how.

Yup, there it is.

Yes, there it is. And reported as well.

Personally, I dislike how you insist on putting your replies on a personal basis: you against whomever you disagree with, rather than keeping to the issues themselves. And that I've been forced to play your game here in order to set things straight doesn't help resolve the issue at all. I suggest that you take stock of your posting practices and stop being so arrogant, personally antagonistic, and purposely impolite.

What makes you think I, or anyone else, cares about what you like? My God, your arrogance is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, should your personal preferences have any sort of weight for any of us here? And, moreover, you tell multiple lies in this very paragraph. I don't get personal with people with whom I disagree. I get personal with people who demonstrate not an intellectual disagreement--that's perfectly fine and admirable where properly defended and warranted--but where the fault is personal. You remind me of some creationists who argue that evolution is false because we still have monkeys. And when they are shown the error of their arguments, they persist and insist that it is, in fact, those evilushunists who are wrong. Such Christians are an embarrassment, for their problem isn't intellectual but moral. And that's your problem. And that's why I make it personal. You don't deserve the dignity of an an intellectual response because you lack the basic good faith to have such a converastion as your reply here shows. But more, it would be a disservice TO YOU to respond in some disspassionate, coldly logical, or even polite manner. To allow you to spew ignorant vitriol and then grant you the dignity of a series of thoughtful replies on validates the idiocy. You should understand that there is a profound difference in respecting someone and loving them. I have zero respect for you, and that's because I love you. You can snicker or mock that all you want, but it's true. I don't feel any challenge to any of my beliefs when I talk to you, because you don't offer that sort of challenge. But I feel a great deal of indignity on the one hand at your cavelier attitude with which you treat such sacred matters, and on the other hand I feel a great deal of pity and grief at your blindness. It breaks my heart to see you so debase yourself, because whether you know it or not, you are God's creation. You are capable of far more good and glory than all the universe combined. And you spit in God's face and throw it away. So, no, I won't respect someone like that. It would be unloving to do so.

Second, as already coverd, the issue isn't over disagreement. I disagree with a lot of people here on a lot of issues. There are very, very few whom I hold in contempt, and in all cases, it is because of their own behavior. Even your screen name, intentionally or not, is vitriolic (especially when given the way you present yourself). I'd have no problem and would probably greatly enjoy discussing matters that we greatly and fundamentally disagree on. But you won't have it. You have to attack and assume ignorance. You aren't capable of learning or listening. You're a blind stranger trying to give a tour to the owners of their own house.

Lastly, you don't have to play anyone's game. All you have to do is have a litte humility and respect the board rules. You can't do that. You've not done it since your first days here. That should tell you a lot about yourself, but as is typical with people like you, all you can do is look at and blame others. You're to be pitied, not treated as if you're arguing from a valid position when you are the farthest thing from it.

In any case, should you actually decide to tackle the issues I've brought up, I await a reply. If you can't, then please direct your hostility elsewhere.

I already did respond to the issues you raised. That you decided not to learn anything or respond demonstrates your problem.

[Audacity]

I'm going to offer one and only one polite reply.

Pretty much all the politeness you have in you? Is that it?

For you, yes. And I was straining to get even the little I managed to muster. That you feel like you deserve even a moticum of the same level of respect as other people here--several of whom I disagree with and who disagree with me on very fundamental issues and yet manage to have reasonable conversation--is pitiful. And frankly, it's demeaning to them.

Oh Brian Brian, Brian, being polite must be such a chore for you. And with your apologetics being so strained as to be on the verge of breaking I almost feel sorry for you, but I don't because we both know how irrelevant they are. And until you actually address the issue I presented I really can't care about your continued digression. Yes, that's right, you are that transparent.

I take the time to respond to drivel that deserves nothing more than mockery, and you go on this sort of tangent. Not surprising, given your initial OP--along with the rest of your "arguments" you make on these boards. You're like my seven year old daughter who became convinced that one times one was two because one plus one was and, after all, times is just a type of addition. Very proud of her discovery. At least she was open to correction even though she at first tried to correct her teacher. But you, you fool (in the biblical sense--I won't bother giving you the Hebrew word here because you'll just claim we can't know what it means), aren't open to correction and instead seek to instruct those who know more. And you do this is as a guest in this "house." You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Because no one deserves your politeness unless they agree with you. Yes I know.

Incorrect. No one deserves politeness unless they are respectable people. You are not respectable. You are antagonistic for no other purpose than to be antagonistic. You are, very literally, a bad human being. A good human is one who is rational, for rationality is a part of our essence, and to be "good" is therefore to act in accordance with that essence or nature. But over and over you demonstrate your slavishness to your emotional reactions, and far from having rational discourse, you spew vile, blithering, hateful rhetoric. That makes you bad at being human. You don't deserve to be here, much less my respect. It's an insult to those who are respectable in their disagreement to treat you the same as them, for such is to say that their own respectability is no more or less respectable than your disgusting attitude.

You want respect? Start showing it, both to the people here and the intellectual tradition(s) represented.

Just couldn't quite make it through your post without a few ad homs could you. No surprise though. In any case, I do recognize how you're letting the mods know that if I don't 1) agree with you, or 2) keep my mouth shut and stop bringing up issues that embarrass YOU, that in your opinion I should be silenced. Personally, I think the board has more spine than to let you decide when its purposes have been violated. If my thread here had been out of line I'm sure it would have been brought to my attention way before you had a chance to show off your Google search skills. That you bring it up now, at the end of your ability to address the real issue I presented, is obviously self serving and hardly the courageous thing to do. But then slinging ad homs isn't a courageous thing to do either.

Someone doesn't know what an ad hominem is, which isn't surprising, given your pitiful history here. I extended you a great deal of charity in suggesting your OP was rooted in ignorance. Ignorance isn't the kind of thing to be ashamed of. It is, however, shameful to defend one's own ignorance and persist in error. That is the idiocy I pointed out. All you had to do was simply offer a rational reply, but it's clear you didn't know how.

Yup, there it is.

Yes, there it is. And reported as well.

Personally, I dislike how you insist on putting your replies on a personal basis: you against whomever you disagree with, rather than keeping to the issues themselves. And that I've been forced to play your game here in order to set things straight doesn't help resolve the issue at all. I suggest that you take stock of your posting practices and stop being so arrogant, personally antagonistic, and purposely impolite.

What makes you think I, or anyone else, cares about what you like? My God, your arrogance is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, should your personal preferences have any sort of weight for any of us here? And, moreover, you tell multiple lies in this very paragraph. I don't get personal with people with whom I disagree. I get personal with people who demonstrate not an intellectual disagreement--that's perfectly fine and admirable where properly defended and warranted--but where the fault is personal. You remind me of some creationists who argue that evolution is false because we still have monkeys. And when they are shown the error of their arguments, they persist and insist that it is, in fact, those evilushunists who are wrong. Such Christians are an embarrassment, for their problem isn't intellectual but moral. And that's your problem. And that's why I make it personal. You don't deserve the dignity of an an intellectual response because you lack the basic good faith to have such a converastion as your reply here shows. But more, it would be a disservice TO YOU to respond in some disspassionate, coldly logical, or even polite manner. To allow you to spew ignorant vitriol and then grant you the dignity of a series of thoughtful replies on validates the idiocy. You should understand that there is a profound difference in respecting someone and loving them. I have zero respect for you, and that's because I love you. You can snicker or mock that all you want, but it's true.

Ah yes, the soul-saving: I shot you in the back because that's what all we good guys do. No, Brian, good people don't shoot others in the back. Only those with issues do.

I don't feel any challenge to any of my beliefs when I talk to you, because you don't offer that sort of challenge. But I feel a great deal of indignity on the one hand at your cavelier attitude with which you treat such sacred matters, and on the other hand I feel a great deal of pity and grief at your blindness. It breaks my heart to see you so debase yourself, because whether you know it or not, you are God's creation. You are capable of far more good and glory than all the universe combined. And you spit in God's face and throw it away. So, no, I won't respect someone like that. It would be unloving to do so.

Second, as already coverd, the issue isn't over disagreement. I disagree with a lot of people here on a lot of issues. There are very, very few whom I hold in contempt, and in all cases, it is because of their own behavior. Even your screen name, intentionally or not, is vitriolic (especially when given the way you present yourself). I'd have no problem and would probably greatly enjoy discussing matters that we greatly and fundamentally disagree on. But you won't have it. You have to attack and assume ignorance. You aren't capable of learning or listening. You're a blind stranger trying to give a tour to the owners of their own house.

Lastly, you don't have to play anyone's game. All you have to do is have a litte humility and respect the board rules. You can't do that. You've not done it since your first days here. That should tell you a lot about yourself, but as is typical with people like you, all you can do is look at and blame others. You're to be pitied, not treated as if you're arguing from a valid position when you are the farthest thing from it.

In any case, should you actually decide to tackle the issues I've brought up, I await a reply. If you can't, then please direct your hostility elsewhere.

I already did respond to the issues you raised.

In your sadly warped mind.

Thing is Brian, stable people don't stoop to name calling and disparagements such as

You are not respectable.
You are, very literally, a bad human being.
you spew vile, blithering, hateful rhetoric.
[you're] bad at being human.
your pitiful history here.
the idiocy I pointed out.
you tell multiple lies
you . . . spew ignorant vitriol
Your cavalier attitude
you so debase yourself

AND FROM THE Is homosexuality harmful" THREAD.

Audacity is simply too obtuse
[He] doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's a first grader
He foolishly . . .
and ignorantly . . .


Well-grounded adults simply don't resort to these kinds of vitriolic attacks---"You are, very literally, a bad human being"--- unless they have some kind of issue tearing them apart (the first hint that something was amiss was your strange insistence on addressing me in the third person in the "Is homosexuality harmful?" thread).

So, although my first impulse here was to retaliate, I've come to recognize that you're dealing with personal demons of some kind. Therefore, you have my sincere sympathies, and to help you out I won't aggravate your condition by engaging you in further discussions, but if it helps you cope go ahead and attack me all you need to.

Take care,

Audacity

[jenna]

sorry, cant help myself here

[Jac3510]

sorry, cant help myself here

Pass me some. There's nothing left of his "argument" in this thread anymore, and since he's resorted to online psychoanalysis, perhaps I can at least get some entertainment out of him now.

[Kurieuo]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some crucial word in the Bible has been mistranslated leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it brings up the issue of the Bible's trustworthiness.

It's a valid argument, provide one provides their reasons. There are really different layers to Scripture one can investigate at in order to satisfy their curiosity and come their own position. And, there could even be more than one acceptable Scriptural position we can choose from that seem to be valid.

Take a walk into a Christian bookshop for example. Walk to the children's section and just look over what they offer for children Bible-wise. You know, young children aren't going to know this word or that word, know the different positions even regarding certain theological positions (if even many Christian adults do). In fact, bibles for very young children while they follow the general main stories leave a whole lot out and have lots of pictures. I don't like children's bibles, but nonetheless see how they're appropriate and do reveal certain things found in the Bible.

Then you have more detailed cartoon books, for older children perhaps 6-10 even 12 year old. Such, normally today, transition to NIRV which is like the NIV but meant to be better/easier reading -- though I digress (if someone is reading such, then at least pick up an NIV which is more accurate or NASB or ESV. In any case, for teenagers, there are often side commentaries, which provides greater explanation, answers common questions, discusses different positions.

Then you just have raw Bible translations without commentary. For the adult though, I'd recommend bibles with side commentaries anyhow.

Now, at the scholarship level, you have lexicons, all sorts of commentaries written by this person and that person. You start getting into theology at a scholarly level -- and really I think such is something all Christians should do. It isn't hard today with free software like E-Sword, TheWord and MySword and online sites like BlueLetterBible.org and BibleGateway.com. You can quickly compare versions, and where you want more detail look up passages in the BlueLetterBible.org to see the actual word original used in the original language, or compare different commentaries and insights.

So then, the mistranslation argument, isn't so much an argument. Rather, it's just a fact of the matter that the sources for our translations come from an original source, manuscripts, that are in a language with much fewer words than English. As such, I believe what we have are alternative positions and understandings. Some after much discussions in scholarly circles, and Christendom, have been lowered and largely dismissed (e.g., The Gap to ACB's displeasure who is forever trying to get people biting on it again). There are I believe good reasons for this, which have been discussed on this board numerous times, although ACB will never see matters that way.

What you can't do, is claim that the position you perhaps take, the one's which the Skeptic's Annotated Bible takes, which is to take such a superficial reading of Scripture while at every turn as much as possible pushing contradiction after contradiction without any real understanding of what is being said.

You know, we witness the same thing in science too. As scientific knowledge increases, certain hypotheses and theories fall to the wayside and are replaced with better ones which cannot be ruled out. As theological knowledge increases, which heavily depends upon Scripture and reason (and I'd say experience and nature and tradition), certain positions too included interpretations, fall into disrepute. That, is how epistemology works, how knowledge works, in sorting out mere opinion from more grounded beliefs and positions.

Consider this, if a Young Earth Creationist comes along proclaiming evolution isn't true because of this and this (apologies to YECs for singling you guys out), and they receive a response that they just don't understand the science -- is that a fallacy? Not necessarily, as many Creationists perhaps aren't as up on science and even hate it because it they think it rivals their beliefs and certain positions that they hold to and cherish. So then, likewise, when someone who doesn't have an ounce of understanding of different theological positions, doesn't understand even the manuscripts and different translations, who hasn't had any training or even self-learning in investigate the original language, many commentaries out there of great Christian teachers and theologians, then well -- they're fighting in arguments way above their weight-class.

[Nessa]

sorry, cant help myself here

I'm personally holding out for the showdown at high noon...



Seriously though, while not taking sides, I think to keep the emotionalism out of this would help*


*the irony of me saying that is not lost on me