Every now and then at church or Bible group, someone (usually Pastor) will mention that in the "original" Hebrew or Greek, a word or a passage will actually mean something slightly different from the translation we have been using (English Standard Version). Now, I find it interesting from a trivia point of view, but actually worthless from a practical point of view. The reason? I don't know Biblical Greek or Hebrew so I cannot judge for myself the truth of what he is saying. That's kind of ironic when one of the central tenets of Protestantism is the necessity of reading the Bible for oneself, as opposed to having the church interpret it for you. Without knowing those languages, it is impossible to read the Bible for myself! That is why Islam discourages translations of the Qu'ran (though they certainly do exist) and encourages its members to learn Arabic so that they can read the actual words Mohammad revealed.
It's also ironic because major theological battles have been fought, both with words and with actual weapons, over the meaning of this word and that word. If we can't read the "originals" (and how "original" are they really, that's another issue), then really, we are relying on others' interpretations and choices of words. Now, I have several translations of the Bible and they pretty much say the same thing, at least it is recognizable as the same thing, so I am presuming that they are pretty reliable as far as the core ideas. Lately I have been bringing a 1941 Catholic New Testament which says right on the cover page that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, so I have an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek original. So it is two degrees removed from the original. (Actually it is more complicated than that: it is a revision of a revision of the English translation from the Latin Vulgate!) Yet, when we sit around reading from Ephesians or Philippians or even Acts, one person starting out with a section and going around the room, my second-generation translation fits right in with the rest of them. Not one person has raised their eyebrows and said, "Just what is that you are reading there? That is not a valid translation!"
The point I am making is that because I don't know Latin and Greek and Hebrew, I am unqualified to offer an opinion on the reliability of any translation of the Bible. I can offer an opinion on the translation style. Some I think are much more literary and readable than others. But I cannot vouch for whether they are a true translation. So when someone says, "in the Greek it says" it is Greek to me. I have to take their word for it. Now, I suppose I could use the remaining years of my life studying Latin and Greek and Hebrew to verify what is being said, but frankly I have better things to use my time doing.
Science, too, has its language, one that is as far away from the general public as Greek and Hebrew are to me. It never fails to astound me when people try to engage me in theological/scientific debates (namely evolution/creationism/ID) when they do not know the language of science. They think they know because they have read second-hand. They have read all the creationists' arguments against Darwin, but never Darwin himself. And because they think they know, they don't realize how unqualified they are to discuss the subject.
Whether or not you agree with its findings, science is shaping our world in ways that the average person cannot comprehend. Ignorance is not bliss. Yes, I am somewhat obsessive with this subject, but I do not think that society can afford to put its collective head in the sand regarding what is going on. Just because some people choose to turn their backs does not mean that people like Alex Rosenberg will not write books like "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" and that others will not read them and be influenced by them. And that sooner or later those ideas might burst into someone's cozy little living room Bible Study, and they will be no more prepared to deal with them as I am prepared to debate the meaning of some obscure Greek word.
It's also ironic because major theological battles have been fought, both with words and with actual weapons, over the meaning of this word and that word. If we can't read the "originals" (and how "original" are they really, that's another issue), then really, we are relying on others' interpretations and choices of words. Now, I have several translations of the Bible and they pretty much say the same thing, at least it is recognizable as the same thing, so I am presuming that they are pretty reliable as far as the core ideas. Lately I have been bringing a 1941 Catholic New Testament which says right on the cover page that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, so I have an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek original. So it is two degrees removed from the original. (Actually it is more complicated than that: it is a revision of a revision of the English translation from the Latin Vulgate!) Yet, when we sit around reading from Ephesians or Philippians or even Acts, one person starting out with a section and going around the room, my second-generation translation fits right in with the rest of them. Not one person has raised their eyebrows and said, "Just what is that you are reading there? That is not a valid translation!"
The point I am making is that because I don't know Latin and Greek and Hebrew, I am unqualified to offer an opinion on the reliability of any translation of the Bible. I can offer an opinion on the translation style. Some I think are much more literary and readable than others. But I cannot vouch for whether they are a true translation. So when someone says, "in the Greek it says" it is Greek to me. I have to take their word for it. Now, I suppose I could use the remaining years of my life studying Latin and Greek and Hebrew to verify what is being said, but frankly I have better things to use my time doing.
Science, too, has its language, one that is as far away from the general public as Greek and Hebrew are to me. It never fails to astound me when people try to engage me in theological/scientific debates (namely evolution/creationism/ID) when they do not know the language of science. They think they know because they have read second-hand. They have read all the creationists' arguments against Darwin, but never Darwin himself. And because they think they know, they don't realize how unqualified they are to discuss the subject.
Whether or not you agree with its findings, science is shaping our world in ways that the average person cannot comprehend. Ignorance is not bliss. Yes, I am somewhat obsessive with this subject, but I do not think that society can afford to put its collective head in the sand regarding what is going on. Just because some people choose to turn their backs does not mean that people like Alex Rosenberg will not write books like "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" and that others will not read them and be influenced by them. And that sooner or later those ideas might burst into someone's cozy little living room Bible Study, and they will be no more prepared to deal with them as I am prepared to debate the meaning of some obscure Greek word.
