Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is beside the point, the word bara has more than one definition so it is irrelevant how many times one definition is used over the other in this issue.
Not when it comes to context.
Quote:
I'm not sure what your even talking about. The common meaning you appeal to is based upon the traditional teaching tools of men. It is a fallacy to try to imply that because what I see disagrees with what you see that the default godly position therefore must be in your favor.
It's not a godly position but rather one of good translational principals.
Quote:
What people believe is not the issue. In general people will appeal to traditional translations of the bible as authoritative as you seem to be doing, whether they interpret those authoritative renderings the same is not the issue here. You are saying as most people say that because "create" is used in the traditionally accepted translations it is therefore correct and that in reality has no bearing upon whether it is correct or not.
Forget "interpretation" for the moment. What I'm saying is that "create" is the most proper translation for that particular text within that context. And the overwhelming support of those who translate scripture agree with that view, without regards to whether or not the text agrees with what they believe.
Look, you can always find someone who does not agree with common translational principals. But in so doing, it does not really help your case nor does it support your endeavors to look for them.
For instance: There are those who think the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. Not many but there are some....Most likely here in Alabama...lol
Most people however, would disagree with the flat earth belief based upon good and sound principals that say otherwise.
The same holds true for translation principals and those who make every effort to faithfully translate the text as it is. Even for those who do not believe what the text says.
Sure it is, context determines which definition is used. The reasonings you have given for disagreeing with a context has nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
Quote:
It's not a godly position but rather one of good translational principals.
Well, that is your opinion, but that doesn't prove what you believe is correct.
Quote:
Forget "interpretation" for the moment. What I'm saying is that "create" is the most proper translation for that particular text within that context. And the overwhelming support of those who translate scripture agree with that view, without regards to whether or not the text agrees with what they believe.
And your appeal to what is proper has no actual bearing on the reality of it's truth or not.
Quote:
Look, you can always find someone who does not agree with common translational principals. But in so doing, it does not really help your case nor does it support your endeavors to look for them.
The only case I am making is that your appeal to why it's true doesn't make it true, I could be wrong also, but I believe it right now based upon my pursuits.
Quote:
For instance: There are those who think the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. Not many but there are some....Most likely here in Alabama...lol
Most people however, would disagree with the flat earth belief based upon good and sound principals that say otherwise.
You are comparing something that is demonstratable to the pursuit of something that is unseen and largely unprovable by the same methods we have determined about the earths shape. Apples and oranges.
Quote:
The same holds true for translation principals and those who make every effort to faithfully translate the text as it is. Even for those who do not believe what the text says.
Well, that is the ultimate point, the whole methodology of religious belief is based upon mens determinations.
Whether you agree or not that a context means to use the word "create" or the phrase "cut down" is largely irrelevant.
The fact remains that the word bara has both definitions and that has been determined by the efforts of men to translate the text.
Anyone can claim that their methods and conclusions are the true godly ones no matter what structure you adhere to. Appealing to the status quo doesn't define that something is true.
Sure it is, context determines which definition is used.
Of course it does...you prior post stated:
"it is irrelevant how many times one definition is used over the other".
To which I responded "not when it comes to context".
Quote:
The reasonings you have given for disagreeing with a context has nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
Well, that is your opinion, but that doesn't prove what you believe is correct.
And your appeal to what is proper has no actual bearing on the reality of it's truth or not.
The only case I am making is that your appeal to why it's true doesn't make it true, I could be wrong also, but I believe it right now based upon my pursuits.
You are comparing something that is demonstratable to the pursuit of something that is unseen and largely unprovable by the same methods we have determined about the earths shape. Apples and oranges.
Well, that is the ultimate point, the whole methodology of religious belief is based upon mens determinations.
Whether you agree or not that a context means to use the word "create" or the phrase "cut down" is largely irrelevant.
The fact remains that the word bara has both definitions and that has been determined by the efforts of men to translate the text.
Anyone can claim that their methods and conclusions are the true godly ones no matter what structure you adhere to. Appealing to the status quo doesn't define that something is true.
lol....I guess we'll agree to disagree. It's really becoming pointless...
"it is irrelevant how many times one definition is used over the other".
To which I responded "not when it comes to context".
Ok, I see what you mean now, but what I am pointing out is that context is the determining factor. Context could determine that one definition of a word ends up being used more times than another definition is used, but those percentages alone have nothing to do with it.
Ok, I see what you mean now, but what I am pointing out is that context is the determining factor. Context could determine that one definition of a word ends up being used more times than another definition is used, but those percentages alone have nothing to do with it.
To which I agree. Context is the determining factor. That's why I stated in my previous post (#244) to "look" at the context where "cut down" was used (2 places I think) and not in others.
To which I agree. Context is the determining factor. That's why I stated in my previous post (#244) to "look" at the context where "cut down" was used (2 places I think) and not in others.
Ok we are in agreement over that basic point, where we differ is over the assertion of who is believing the correct context and why.
Ok we are in agreement over that basic point, where we differ is over the assertion of who is believing the correct context and why.
And prior to believing what is, or is not, correct context, the first order would be to use unbiased translation principals. In this way the translation (the very words of the text) ultimately will establish and reinforce whatever context emerges.
In many ways that is what Hebrew/English or Greek/English interlinears seek to accomplish. That's one reason interlinears are often preferred for study purposes. So that the text speaks for itself and lets the reader develop their own context while reading.
And prior to believing what is, or is not, correct context, the first order would be to use unbiased translation principals. In this way the translation (the very words of the text) ultimately will establish and reinforce whatever context emerges.
I agree with that, and we may have a differnce as to how we see unbiased translation principals.
Unbiased translation principals to me would be to acknowledge first all the available definitions of a word.
Any selection of one definition is then based on a biased context.
I agree with that, and we may have a differnce as to how we see unbiased translation principals.
Unbiased translation principals to me would be to acknowledge first all the available definitions of a word.
Any selection of one definition is then based on a biased context.
Exactly. And then, allow the most fundamental, natural and primary meaning of each word to emerge through the translation process. And ultimately those words will define their own context.
Here is an example of Isa 45:7, using an interlinear, so you can see the actual Hebrew word and how it is being translated:
Exactly. And then, allow the most fundamental, natural and primary meaning of each word to emerge through the translation process. And ultimately those words will define their own context.
At that point you are biasing the context by assuming you need to apply the primary meaning of a word in any case before knowing the context.
I believe a context that can say "cut down" in Isa 45:7. You don't, you believe a different context, it is that simple and your is not more inherantly correct than mine and vice verse. I could be wrong and so could you.
Thats as unbiased as we can get here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
