Inference and Assumption

[sojourner]

2021 Holy Bible Translation Comparison Chart | GOD’S WORD Bible

What a crock of bull. Sorry, but this is wrong on several counts.

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to General Religious Debates***​

 

[ElishaElijah]

Determine empirical facts, such as the presence of a particular culture in a particular place is a physical matter.

you don’t have enough information to determine my spiritual condition.

What I do know is the Holy Spirits voice and language and you aren’t speaking that language.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What a crock of bull. Sorry, but this is wrong on several counts.

How is the chart wrong?

 

[sojourner]

you know there are certain things in the bible that are not written down..to under what is not written down takes Spiritual discernment to understand..

As written in
1 Corinthians 2:14--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned"

Therefore, there are many things in the bible which are not written down..which takes Spiritual discernment to understand by the Spirit of God.
Take for instance in the book of
John 20:11-12,
As Mary stoop down and look into the tomb, Mary saw two angles..
One sitting at the head and One sitting at the feet where the body of Jesus Christ had laid..
Now this will take Spiritual discernment to understand..
What are the two angles revealing in the way that their sitting..
So you see there are things in the bible which are not written down...that takes Spiritual discernment to understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm of things..

You’re talking about two different processes: the process of exegesis, and the process of interpretation. Interpretation rises out of exegesis. Why? Because exegesis strips away the filters through which we read and offers an unbiased reading of what the text actually says. Once we know what the text actually says, we can derive an interpretation of that reading. One does not involve any spiritual influence. The other may.

 

[sojourner]

What I do know is the Holy Spirits voice and language and you aren’t speaking that language.

That’s because we’re dealing with exegetical and historic problems, not spiritual problems.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That’s because we’re dealing with exegetical and historic problems, not spiritual problems.

You need the Holy Spirit to interpret the meaning of Scripture. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and accurate? If not then you can’t consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ and born again.

 

[sojourner]

How is the chart wrong?

First of all paraphrases are wholly different from translations. They involve dramatically different processes. Second, none of the translations listed under “word-for-word” are really word-for-word. No readable translation can be. The middle two categories are a false distinction of the same part of any translational process. “Translating for meaning” and “translation for thought” are the same thing. All translation goes through this process, just as it goes through the “word-for-word” process. The two processes are blended. We try to be as accurate word-for-word as we can, but there aren’t always equivalencies across languages. Further, colloquialisms can get in the way, so an equivalency must be used instead, in order to get the meaning across.

Additionally, there’s a difference in what source material is used. Some translations use one ancient source, some use another. The chart fails to mention these distinctions.

 

[sojourner]

You need the Holy Spirit to interpret the meaning of Scripture. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and accurate? If not then you can’t consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ and born again.

1) we’re not dealing with interpretation, though. We’re dealing with the exegetical process.
2) The Bible is neither always historically and scientifically accurate, nor is it infallible. The whole “inerrancy” issue was not part of Christian thought for the first 1900 years of the church’s existence.
3) you don’t have either the authority or the discernment to dictate ,y spiritual disposition.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That’s because we’re dealing with exegetical and historic problems, not spiritual problems.

You need

First of all paraphrases are wholly different from translations. They involve dramatically different processes. Second, none of the translations listed under “word-for-word” are really word-for-word. No readable translation can be. The middle two categories are a false distinction of the same part of any translational process. “Translating for meaning” and “translation for thought” are the same thing. All translation goes through this process, just as it goes through the “word-for-word” process. The two processes are blended. We try to be as accurate word-for-word as we can, but there aren’t always equivalencies across languages. Further, colloquialisms can get in the way, so an equivalency must be used instead, in order to get the meaning across.

Additionally, there’s a difference in what source material is used. Some translations use one ancient source, some use another. The chart fails to mention these distinctions.

Great and it wasn’t meant to be exhaustive but informative and I found it sufficient and useful for what I was communicating. I’ve found it consistent with what I found using different translations.

 

[sojourner]

You need

Great and it wasn’t meant to be exhaustive but informative and I found it sufficient and useful for what I was communicating. I’ve found it consistent with what I found using different translations.

You don’t exegete much, do you.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The

1) we’re not dealing with interpretation, though. We’re dealing with the exegetical process.
2) The Bible is neither always historically and scientifically accurate, nor is it infallible. The whole “inerrancy” issue was not part of Christian thought for the first 1900 years of the church’s existence.
3) you don’t have either the authority or the discernment to dictate ,y spiritual disposition.[/QUO

You don’t exegete much, do you.

Exegesis is bringing out the meaning of Scripture using certain principles, there are qualifications needed for the interpreter to find out what God meant in the Scriptures. That is the purpose of interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

The


Exegesis is bringing out the meaning of Scripture using certain principles, there are qualifications needed for the interpreter to find out what God meant in the Scriptures. That is the purpose of interpretation.

No, I get that. I deal with it every day as part of my profession. You’re not quite right, though. Exegesis is reading out of the text what’s actually there. It has nothing to do with meaning. Meaning is part of the interpretive process.

I also deal with the discernment of and condition of the spirit as part of my profession. I’m fully cognizant of how to go about the interpretive process. We’re not there yet. We’re still on the exegetical process. You’re conflating the two, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, I get that. I deal with it every day as part of my profession. You’re not quite right, though. Exegesis is reading out of the text what’s actually there. It has nothing to do with meaning. Meaning is part of the interpretive process.

I also deal with the discernment of and condition of the spirit as part of my profession. I’m fully cognizant of how to go about the interpretive process. We’re not there yet. We’re still on the exegetical process. You’re conflating the two, as I mentioned earlier.

Oh I get it, you sound more like modern day Pharisee and I’m just a tradesman.

 

[nPeace]

So what do you make of the fact that there is 0 archaeological evidence for a mass invasion of Israelites into Canaan following the Exodus? 0. This implies that the Israelites had always been in Canaan.

0 archeological evidence?
Perhaps I misread what I read regarding the three hypotheses regarding Israel in the land of Canaan.
I'm searching right now for that article. When I find it, I'll double check, but I am sure... as far as I recall though, these three hypotheses were based on archaeological evidence.

I have not read through these I found by a quick search,
Theories ofthe Israelite occupation ofthe Land of Canaan

Spoiler: Excerpt

This work investigates the Israelite occupation of the Land of Canaan as reflected in the biblical tradition in order to conclude how the Israelites came to occupy the Promised Land. In order to arrive at that end, this work reviews the current theories of occupation, analyzes the biblical books ofJoshua and Judges, reviews the current archaeological evidence and investigates the roles of the terrain and military tactics in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Three Conquests of Canaan

but I did read through the one I had found, which basically said, the evidence is there. The dating is the problem.

 

[sojourner]

Oh I get it, you sound more like modern day Pharisee and I’m just a tradesman.

Well, however you want to dress it up with nomenclature. It’s like a doctor trying to teach the lawyer about law, or a lawyer trying to teach a mechanic about engines. You sound as if I think I’m “better” than you in some way. Remember though: you’re the one who’s questioning my spiritual disposition, so you’ll pardon if my back’s up a little.

 

[sojourner]

0 archeological evidence?
Perhaps I misread what I read regarding the three hypotheses regarding Israel in the land of Canaan.
I'm searching right now for that article. When I find it, I'll double check, but I am sure... as far as I recall though, these three hypotheses were based on archaeological evidence.

I have not read through these I found by a quick search,
Theories ofthe Israelite occupation ofthe Land of Canaan

Spoiler: Excerpt

This work investigates the Israelite occupation of the Land of Canaan as reflected in the biblical tradition in order to conclude how the Israelites came to occupy the Promised Land. In order to arrive at that end, this work reviews the current theories of occupation, analyzes the biblical books ofJoshua and Judges, reviews the current archaeological evidence and investigates the roles of the terrain and military tactics in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Three Conquests of Canaan

but I did read through the one I had found, which basically said, the evidence is there. The dating is the problem.

I’d say that’s a huge problem. No evidence along the correct timeline.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, I get that. I deal with it every day as part of my profession. You’re not quite right, though. Exegesis is reading out of the text what’s actually there. It has nothing to do with meaning. Meaning is part of the interpretive process.

I also deal with the discernment of and condition of the spirit as part of my profession. I’m fully cognizant of how to go about the interpretive process. We’re not there yet. We’re still on the exegetical process. You’re conflating the two, as I mentioned earlier.

her•me•neu•tics hûr″mə-noo͞′tĭks, -nyoo͞′-
►

• n.
  The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.
• n.
  The art or science of interpretation or exegesis; also, the study of or instruction in the principles of exegesis: as, a professor of hermeneutics.
• n.
  The science of interpretation and explanation; exegesis; esp., that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained.

 

[sojourner]

her•me•neu•tics hûr″mə-noo͞′tĭks, -nyoo͞′-
►

• n.
  The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.
• n.
  The art or science of interpretation or exegesis; also, the study of or instruction in the principles of exegesis: as, a professor of hermeneutics.
• n.
  The science of interpretation and explanation; exegesis; esp., that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained.

Yes, and part of the hermeneutic we use is precisely as I stated: first we exegete, then an interpretation is formulated. That’s the definition of laws whereby the meaning of the scriptures is to be ascertained. The “hermeneutic” you suggest in your posts blurs that definition.

 

[sojourner]

0 archeological evidence?
Perhaps I misread what I read regarding the three hypotheses regarding Israel in the land of Canaan.
I'm searching right now for that article. When I find it, I'll double check, but I am sure... as far as I recall though, these three hypotheses were based on archaeological evidence.

I have not read through these I found by a quick search,
Theories ofthe Israelite occupation ofthe Land of Canaan

Spoiler: Excerpt

This work investigates the Israelite occupation of the Land of Canaan as reflected in the biblical tradition in order to conclude how the Israelites came to occupy the Promised Land. In order to arrive at that end, this work reviews the current theories of occupation, analyzes the biblical books ofJoshua and Judges, reviews the current archaeological evidence and investigates the roles of the terrain and military tactics in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Three Conquests of Canaan

but I did read through the one I had found, which basically said, the evidence is there. The dating is the problem.

One more thing: Why would I be interested in reading a bachelor’s thesis when I’ve read several post-doctoral works on the subject?