Can a person truly understand a text if.........

[YoursTrue]

I'd suggest the answers are going to be very much "it depends".

It could be argued that anything we read is open to interpretation since even with a shared language, culture and knowledge, what the writer actually intends to get down on paper can easily be different to what readers take from it. We see examples of that all the time, even on this very forum.

Translations can obviously add an additional level of complication but the impact will vary massively depending on the clarity of the original, the quality and purpose of the translation and the approach of the reader. Cultural differences are similar; they can obviously have massive impact in some circumstances but could be irrelevant in others. There could even be situations where it helps, say where something is explained in greater detail because it is recognised readers might not be aware of the cultural basis. There is also a question of how close "same culture" would need to be.

I certainly don't think that someone who happens to share the language and culture or a writer can automatically declare that their understanding is more accurate or valid than that of someone who doesn't. There is certainly a good chance there would be aspects they recognise that others don't but they'd still need to be explained and the impact of the meaning of the text justified.

Question regarding your post, also hopefully @Ehav4Ever also -- when Moses was with the Israelites in the wilderness, I am pretty sure Korah and Dathan understood what Moses was saying. They must have spoken and understood the same language. No interpreters needed. But they didn't like it and objected to the leadership of Moses. Meanwhile, while this doesn't directly negate the fact of literal interpretation or translation, it sure means they did not believe what was happening. So they spoke the same language, but did not agree. Something was missed somewhere by some.

 

[MNoBody]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

1-they could and indeed do all the time, although that is highly questionable, given the source
My own efforts at reading old items showed that without linguistic aids, etc, it was unlikely I would really know what they were getting at.
kind of a sealed book, so to speak.

2-no, at best they will present their impression, which may or may not be useful and would need to be determined/considered....[however this does not automatically mean that person x would be off-base merely because they are not really literate according to accepted standards.]

3-yes, depending on the text, of course, if it was the king of Sumeria's laundry list, then likely their knowledge is based off of the translated copies which are already established to some degree and in the case of the laundry list then the question is kind of unnecessary, but we aren't talking laundry lists so otherwise-no.
....ancient writings of sacred matters were sealed books, things of a divine and holy nature, magical, etc. The common people only knew what the shaman caste taught the people, and culled from these live-stock the ones who displayed intelligence and aptitude to be taken into a fraternity [shaman caste] which winnowing would yield eventually only a select few who really knew what all those symbols and images really meant and implied...the rest of the lot have their places and are assigned their roles and are told what they need to know.
Oral teaching definitely closed the loop for mass dissemination of knowledge, since one could read the enigmatic cryptic magical language for a thousand years, and without the key still be way off.
knowledge is power everybody knows, but what was concealed IMO was that knowledge concealed gives power as well, but of another kind.
The fact is, it is doubtful that any culture today is any kind of accurate reflection of anything going on 10,000 yrs ago, the mind-set has been lost.
Egypt for example, had their mythology, their language and architecture, their societal structure, and of all the people in that society only a small group knew what was really going on, the rest were like the scenery in a hollywood set, props and background crowd.
The secretive priest caste insured this activity and kept the status quo intact. the useful idiots don't need to know, so they do not...and it has been that way for all of history.
So even the culture that has kept the traditions for a thousand or more years , well, most never really knew what the wise guys were really saying or what it all really meant, and the wise guys liked it that way.

 

[1213]

...

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

Yes, people can claim, but it does not necessary mean they are right.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Question regarding your post, also hopefully @Ehav4Ever also -- when Moses was with the Israelites in the wilderness, I am pretty sure Korah and Dathan understood what Moses was saying. They must have spoken and understood the same language. No interpreters needed. But they didn't like it and objected to the leadership of Moses. Meanwhile, while this doesn't directly negate the fact of literal interpretation or translation, it sure means they did not believe what was happening. So they spoke the same language, but did not agree. Something was missed somewhere by some.

In order to understand what Korah's and Dathan's issue was you would need to look at Jewish commentaries. Their objection was not because of langauge because of an internal issue since Qorah came from a family of Levites, Qohoth ben-Lewi, that had previously been the leaders before Mosheh and Aharon. Dathan, Aviram, and On all came from the tribe Reuven who were the first born of Ya'aqov (Jaob).

They were not concerned with not needing interpreters. Mosheh was not an "interpreter" he was a judge and he transmitted "exactly" what Hashem to him to transmit. Their specific statement (רב-לכם--כי כל-העדה כלם קדשים, ובתוכם יהוה; ומדוע תתנשאו, על-קהל יהוה) against Mosheh and Aharon denotes this. I.e. "You and Aharon put yourselves in this position of being the head Judges of the people and also the priesthood. It didn't come from Hashem - you made yourself the king and your brother the Kohen HaGadol. You invented that for yourselves. We come from the families that are supposed to be the leaders here. Everyone here is at the same level."

Yet, if one goes to Shemoth (Exodus) when the Ten Sayings were made the people moved further away from Mount Sinai out of being overwhelmed by the presense of Hashem and Mosheh stated that they could all come and hear Hashem closer like him. They stated that Mosheh should be the one to go and talk to Hashem and what he transmitted from Hashem they would do. I.e. Mosheh didn't in any way put himself in that position and the opportunity was already there. So, essentially Korah and his group were putting themselves in a very dangerous situation. Yet, the claim of Korah and his group didn't just come out of nowhere. There were events prior, not mentioned in the written in the text, that detail more of thier interests.

What is interesting is that the Hebrew Torah explains that even Qorah's sons backed away from him and his claimed. Further, On ben-Phelet also did not perish. According to Jewish sources it is because his wife saved his life. Before the big challenge was supposed to happen she confronted him about how foolish Qorah's claims were and that Qorah was looking to be the leader and if Qorah was the leader then that means On ben-Phelet would not be. When he wouldn't listen you took off her head covering publically and went outside. Because she delayed him he did not share the same fate as the others.

The Hebrew Torah was writte in a cliff notes format and the inforamtion between the lines was tansmitted from ancient Jewish communities to their descendants. Not every translator took those Jewish sources in account and some had an agenda to not include Jewish sources.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am interested in reading people's thoughts

If God has explained those verses to us, then we can be sure of the explanation.

If God has given the key to interpretations, then we can also consider we an have a better understanding.

Regards Tony

 

[amorphous_constellation]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

Yes is some ways, because I don't really think that people's lifestyles, or the things they wrote about 2000 or 3000 years ago are as complicated as they are now. When we reach the story of Lot and his daughters in the cave, it's not like they suddenly write out philosophical tracts that rival Spinoza. No, it's quite a bit cruder than that, oftentimes. Generally, the stories are something you might expect from the human mind from that long ago. In my read of the bible, I thought it was often concerned with either describing war or god's anger, or basic folk-tale type storytelling, nothing much more complicated than that

 

[YoursTrue]

In order to understand what Korah's and Dathan's issue was you would need to look at Jewish commentaries. Their objection was not because of langauge because of an internal issue since Qorah came from a family of Levites, Qohoth ben-Lewi, that had previously been the leaders before Mosheh and Aharon. Dathan, Aviram, and On all came from the tribe Reuven who were the first born of Ya'aqov (Jaob).

I do understand their difference was not because they did not understand the language. So thank you for that. They just didn't get the picture,that God was using Moses, not them. And they took a stand against Moses. So God let them know what's what in reference to that. Also the people watching, He let them know, too.

They were not concerned with not needing interpreters. Mosheh was not an "interpreter" he was a judge and he transmitted "exactly" what Hashem to him to transmit. Their specific statement (רב-לכם--כי כל-העדה כלם קדשים, ובתוכם יהוה; ומדוע תתנשאו, על-קהל יהוה) against Mosheh and Aharon denotes this. I.e. "You and Aharon put yourselves in this position of being the head Judges of the people and also the priesthood. It didn't come from Hashem - you made yourself the king and your brother the Kohen HaGadol. You invented that for yourselves. We come from the families that are supposed to be the leaders here. Everyone here is at the same level."

Yet, if one goes to Shemoth (Exodus) when the Ten Sayings were made the people moved further away from Mount Sinai out of being overwhelmed by the presense of Hashem and Mosheh stated that they could all come and hear Hashem closer like him. They stated that Mosheh should be the one to go and talk to Hashem and what he transmitted from Hashem they would do. I.e. Mosheh didn't in any way put himself in that position and the opportunity was already there. So, essentially Korah and his group were putting themselves in a very dangerous situation. Yet, the claim of Korah and his group didn't just come out of nowhere. There were events prior, not mentioned in the written in the text, that detail more of thier interests.

What is interesting is that the Hebrew Torah explains that even Qorah's sons backed away from him and his claimed.

I am aware of that. I was making a point about mental differences (psychological) yet speaking the same language. Just as today with religion in a way -- God is (will be) the final judge. Of all.

Further, On ben-Phelet also did not perish. According to Jewish sources it is because his wife saved his life. Before the big challenge was supposed to happen she confronted him about how foolish Qorah's claims were and that Qorah was looking to be the leader and if Qorah was the leader then that means On ben-Phelet would not be. When he wouldn't listen you took off her head covering publically and went outside. Because she delayed him he did not share the same fate as the others.

The Hebrew Torah was writte in a cliff notes format and the inforamtion between the lines was tansmitted from ancient Jewish communities to their descendants. Not every translator took those Jewish sources in account and some had an agenda to not include Jewish sources.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am aware of that. I was making a point about mental differences (psychological) yet speaking the same language. Just as today with religion in a way -- God is (will be) the final judge. Of all.

So, that brings us all back to an very important point. If someone who knows a "language" can be fooled and fool themselves so much more can someone who doesn't know the language, the text, the culture, or even the intentions of the giver of the text. Thus, the Torah never mentions any "religion" and Hashem gave the Torah and the method of knowing how it is to be properly understood. Further, Hashem noted that the keys of the text are found in the Jewish nation. Thus, since Hashem is "the" Judge and by his own words the Torah can be done, in any generation, and that the proper understanding will always exist somewhere in the Jewish nation - we can easily conclude that no man/woman can go against the Judge once the Judge has spoken.

 

[MNoBody]

So, that brings us all back to an very important point. If someone who knows a "language" can be fooled and fool themselves so much more can someone who doesn't know the language, the text, the culture, or even the intentions of the giver of the text. Thus, the Torah never mentions any "religion" and Hashem gave the Torah and the method of knowing how it is to be properly understood. Further, Hashem noted that the keys of the text are found in the Jewish nation. Thus, since Hashem is "the" Judge and by his own words the Torah can be done, in any generation, and that the proper understanding will always exist somewhere in the Jewish nation - we can easily conclude that no man/woman can go against the Judge once the Judge has spoken.

just look at how much misunderstanding by people who spend their whole lives together and speak the same language there is in the world, regardless of what nation they are a part of......some may have a little less of this than other nations, but it is endemic globally and no house has not been ravaged by this confused tongue/mind issue that plagues man through his days.
yet somehow we muddle through and get by and survive another day....for another round of the same bs the next.....makes one wonder when some kind deity will ever appear in man's life.....history shows none, they are all cruel and despotic, loving ignorant children for some odd reason... IMO.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, that brings us all back to an very important point. If someone who knows a "language" can be fooled and fool themselves so much more can someone who doesn't know the language, the text, the culture, or even the intentions of the giver of the text. Thus, the Torah never mentions any "religion" and Hashem gave the Torah and the method of knowing how it is to be properly understood. Further, Hashem noted that the keys of the text are found in the Jewish nation. Thus, since Hashem is "the" Judge and by his own words the Torah can be done, in any generation, and that the proper understanding will always exist somewhere in the Jewish nation - we can easily conclude that no man/woman can go against the Judge once the Judge has spoken.

Here's the problem I see with that. Interpretations are many, and can vary, even among those who claim to be of the same religion. using the same language. I go back to Moses for this as an example, the controversy between Moses, Dathan and Korah.

 

[YoursTrue]

just look at how much misunderstanding by people who spend their whole lives together and speak the same language there is in the world, regardless of what nation they are a part of......some may have a little less of this than other nations, but it is endemic globally and no house has not been ravaged by this confused tongue/mind issue that plagues man through his days.
yet somehow we muddle through and get by and survive another day....for another round of the same bs the next.....makes one wonder when some kind deity will ever appear in man's life.....history shows none, they are all cruel and despotic, loving ignorant children for some odd reason... IMO.

OK, I get your point. I believe that it all started (the trouble on earth) with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. So until God settles it, we will be having difficulties, to be it mildly. But it will be settled. The Bible speaks of a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness is to dwell. Isaiah 65:17,18 brings this out --
"For behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for I will create Jerusalem to be a joy and its people to be a delight"
So God Almighty let His people know that one day He will bring peace and happiness to mankind.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, that brings us all back to an very important point. If someone who knows a "language" can be fooled and fool themselves so much more can someone who doesn't know the language, the text, the culture, or even the intentions of the giver of the text. Thus, the Torah never mentions any "religion" and Hashem gave the Torah and the method of knowing how it is to be properly understood. Further, Hashem noted that the keys of the text are found in the Jewish nation. Thus, since Hashem is "the" Judge and by his own words the Torah can be done, in any generation, and that the proper understanding will always exist somewhere in the Jewish nation - we can easily conclude that no man/woman can go against the Judge once the Judge has spoken.

God did not give the Torah to any nation other than Israel. He let the people know how He felt about things, through visible signs as well as the prophets. Obviously this was a very powerful statement. Even for outsiders. Of course, He let non-Israelites know how He felt about things when the Flood came,also His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Here's the problem I see with that. Interpretations are many, and can vary, even among those who claim to be of the same religion. using the same language. I go back to Moses for this as an example, the controversy between Moses, Dathan and Korah.

In Torath Mosheh there has always been the ability to intrepet "certain" things any way a person wants. This is in the case of areas that are not halakha. In halakha, when Hashem stated things be done a certain way, Jews who hold by the Torah do it that way. That is why all kosher Tefillin for the head have four compartments on the top box, that is why also have the Hebrew letter (ש) on them, that is why the one on the arm has only one compartment, all tzitzith have 8 strings, all Torah scrolls have the same order of books, all mikvah's have a set amount of natural water that have ot be in them, why the birkat kohanim is done at the same part of the prayer service, why Birkat HaMazon covers the same information, why for Torath Mosheh Jews the Haggim are determined by the same calender method, and the qualifications for the Sanhedrin were the same.

As, I mentioned before the Hebrew text makes it clear that Korah and the others had a specific claim they were making. Further, that claimed got settled pretty quickly when the method Hashem gave to resolve it was done. I.e. there was no real contraversy when you see what the claims that Korah and others made and when their claims were verified with what a) Hashem had stated in the past, and b) when their claims were tested against the will of Hashem. The Hebrew text even states that Korah's own sons stood away from him and did not suffer his fate (ובני-קרח, לא-מתו). So, if his own sons backed away from and did not share his fate then that tells you that it was as much as a contraversy.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

God did not give the Torah to any nation other than Israel.

No one said that Torah from Mount Sinai/613 Mitzvoth to any other nation. The word Torah at its core just means "Teaching." The word actually shows up, in the Hebrew text, prior to there being a nation of Israel. I.e. Hashem had already given mitzvoth to all of humanity from the start. This is even mentioned in the end of Sefer Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes 12:13 when it states
(סוף דבר, הכל נשמע: את-האלהים ירא ואת-מצותיו שמור, כי-זה כל-האדם).

 

[YoursTrue]

In Torath Mosheh there has always been the ability to intrepet "certain" things any way a person wants. This is in the case of areas that are not halakha. In halakha, when Hashem stated things be done a certain way, Jews who hold by the Torah do it that way. That is why all kosher Tefillin for the head have four compartments on the top box, that is why also have the Hebrew letter (ש) on them, that is why the one on the arm has only one compartment, all tzitzith have 8 strings, all Torah scrolls have the same order of books, all mikvah's have a set amount of natural water that have ot be in them, why the birkat kohanim is done at the same part of the prayer service, why Birkat HaMazon covers the same information, why for Torath Mosheh Jews the Haggim are determined by the same calender method, and the qualifications for the Sanhedrin were the same.

As, I mentioned before the Hebrew text makes it clear that Korah and the others had a specific claim they were making. Further, that claimed got settled pretty quickly when the method Hashem gave to resolve it was done. I.e. there was no real contraversy when you see what the claims that Korah and others made and when their claims were verified with what a) Hashem had stated in the past, and b) when their claims were tested against the will of Hashem. The Hebrew text even states that Korah's own sons stood away from him and did not suffer his fate (ובני-קרח, לא-מתו). So, if his own sons backed away from and did not share his fate then that tells you that it was as much as a contraversy.

Did anything in Torah say how to conduct things if the temple got destroyed? I mean yes, certain ones, like Nehemiah, were impelled to build up the temple when it was in disrepair. (So what happened?)

 

[YoursTrue]

No one said that Torah from Mount Sinai/613 Mitzvoth to any other nation. The word Torah at its core just means "Teaching." The word actually shows up, in the Hebrew text, prior to there being a nation of Israel. I.e. Hashem had already given mitzvoth to all of humanity from the start. This is even mentioned in the end of Sefer Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes 12:13 when it states
(סוף דבר, הכל נשמע: את-האלהים ירא ואת-מצותיו שמור, כי-זה כל-האדם).

So as I said before, there are various branches, folds, beliefs, (whatever you want to call them) within the Jewish religion. That's almost, now that I think about, like saying someone is "Buddhish," or "atheisticish..." But anyway -- getting back to the various beliefs in Judaism (a better word maybe? and that's a question), it appears to me that you are saying one (1) simply cannot understand the Torah unless he can read Hebrew, and (2) if a person cannot read Hebrew, and I say this selectively, it needs to be explained to him by someone who does. AND -- who interprets it according to what? his beliefs? I mean there is, after all, the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movement, branch, fold, beliefs, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one said that Torah from Mount Sinai/613 Mitzvoth to any other nation. The word Torah at its core just means "Teaching." The word actually shows up, in the Hebrew text, prior to there being a nation of Israel. I.e. Hashem had already given mitzvoth to all of humanity from the start. This is even mentioned in the end of Sefer Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes 12:13 when it states
(סוף דבר, הכל נשמע: את-האלהים ירא ואת-מצותיו שמור, כי-זה כל-האדם).

Adam did not keep God's commandment. So what happened? Furthermore, conscience goes beyond the laws written in the Torah. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn aptly wrote, and I paraphrase, there is a universal conscience. Doesn't need written laws. BUT -- it does bring up some interesting points.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Adam did not keep God's commandment. So what happened? Furthermore, conscience goes beyond the laws written in the Torah. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn aptly wrote, and I paraphrase, there is a universal conscience. Doesn't need written laws. BUT -- it does bring up some interesting points.

I think you need to watch the videos I supplied. This was answered in them. Yet, you have to watch them from start to finish. You also have to understand that your view of Adam and the story about him is formed from what you have learned from JW.

There is a different perspective that has existed from thousands of years back based on the Hebrew text and information passed on from the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai throughout Jewish communities.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So as I said before, there are various branches, folds, beliefs, (whatever you want to call them) within the Jewish religion. That's almost, now that I think about, like saying someone is "Buddhish," or "atheisticish..." But anyway -- getting back to the various beliefs in Judaism (a better word maybe? and that's a question), it appears to me that you are saying one (1) simply cannot understand the Torah unless he can read Hebrew, and (2) if a person cannot read Hebrew, and I say this selectively, it needs to be explained to him by someone who does. AND -- who interprets it according to what? his beliefs? I mean there is, after all, the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movement, branch, fold, beliefs, etc.

Let me ask you the following questions.

1. You mention different "branches" of Judaism. How old are each of what you consider a "branch" and what caused their founding?
2. Please give me a few names of Jews who held by each branch of Judaism you mention for the following time periods in history.
   • 3,000 years ago
   • 2,500 years ago
   • 2,000 years ago
   • 1,500 years ago
   • 500 years ago
3. Are each one of the branches you mention found in all Jewish communities around the world? If not, why? For example, which branches of Judaism, as you mentioned, were found in North African, Middle Eastern, and Asian Jewish communities?
4. What do each of these branches you mention claim about Mount Sinai? Do they all claim that Hashem "Himself" gave the entire written Torah to Mosheh (Moses) before he passed away? If not, what do they say "historically" happened instead?
5. Is it proper to consider something historically accurate if it is neither ancient or authoratative?

If one wants to understand something "corrently" you definately need the right tools for that. A person who knows nothing about electricity and the principles behind engineering design it can't claim to be a reliably licensed Electrician. Sure, anyone can come along thousands of years later and just make up their own Electrician's license but that doesn't make them a reliable source. Of course, someone can come along thousands of years later and just make something up on the fly and people can choose to rely on that. By like token if you don't know Hebrew you are reliable on someone's ability and willingness to translate. You are further, never certain if they did what they did correctly or if they simply made up things here and there to fit a certain theology they wanted to create.

If the giver of the Torah gave those tools, and someone comes along and decides not to follow them obviously they cannot claim to "correctly" understand what the giver of the Torah meant.

There have been some situations where I have shown you how something you provided was mistranslated and you chose to ignore it. I am not criticising you for it but it has happened a couple of time. Again, what this boils down to is that you "believe" and "accept" a certain group of translators as your middle men between you and the text.

We could easily debate this issue till the sun fades away. So, I suggest that we agree to disagree and simply wait this one out.

I think what I may need to do to help people understand what I mean about knowing the language and the culture around the text is the following. I am going to translate several critical sections of the New Testament using the same type of translation methods used by certain Christian translators for the Tanakh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Did anything in Torah say how to conduct things if the temple got destroyed? I mean yes, certain ones, like Nehemiah, were impelled to build up the temple when it was in disrepair. (So what happened?)

Yes, the Torah states exactly what to do when there was no Temple. (Please note that there was only a Temple long after the Mishkan and the Mishkan only came about a long time after Adam and Avraham.) That was also covered in one of the videos I posted for you. I will repost it below. Again, you have to watch it from start to finish or else you will miss the point.