Religion (or lack thereof) and Autism/Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm religious in a small way but, I keep my own thoughts and beliefs to myself for, I wish not to be seen as Witch or something of the like.Anyways, that is where I stand on this sincerely...

Agnostic as to the existence of anything supernatural, *a* creator, more like atheist when it comes to the "omnis" as I find that a logical contradiction with the existence of evil in the world.

~Kate

FOR THE RECORD: There are various TRANSLATIONS of the Bible, and they are for the most part just fine.

In GENERAL (but not always), modern-day Bible translations are taken from ancient manuscripts. Perhaps the most recognized Old Testament source text is the Masoretic manuscript. At times there HAD been some scholarly debate as to its reliability. However, recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (of which included the Hebrew bible) show that the copying accuracy to be somewhere around 95% or better. In fact, the "errors" within the OT have to do with letter substitutions, grammatical errors, and some numerical inconsistencies which are either easily explained and/or irrelevant to the central message of the text. I'm actually reading through the OT and am slowly making my way across Isaiah, so you have to understand that the OT is a HUGE work on its own. Given the size of its body of work and fewer than 5% of the whole work being scribal errors that are barely even worth mentioning, one has no need at all to worry that modern-day translations have a firm foundation on which to base their text.

Most translations were written by theological scholars who devoted their lives to an in-depth study of the original language(s) of the Bible. Something that is notable about translation is that not all words/phrases/figures of speech translate so neatly into other languages, so sometimes a translator is stuck for finding a language equivalent. I'm not convinced that the KJV writers really made the effort or even had the means to understand what was written--I think they wrote the KJV as literally as possible, and given KJV period-English that makes the Bible extremely difficult to understand in a literal sense. I use a Holman study Bible with extensive footnotes, not JUST giving alternate translations, literal meanings, but also explanations in context. Some Bible "critics" like to nitpick the book of Proverbs, for example. Well, the book of Proverbs is a book of wisdom and is full of very broad, general statements. To criticize a proverb is to fail to understand exactly what a proverb IS. Another example of figurative language in the Bible is the colorful sayings of Jesus. Jesus often spoke in exaggerated terms to make a point, and we know that such use of language is not unique to Jesus in the Bible and that such speech was common in Jewish culture throughout their history. In particular, Jesus used whatever was convenient or within view--such as suggesting His followers to command a mountain to throw itself into the ocean. Most likely Jesus was speaking at a place near a tall mountain and could just as easily used another picture had circumstances been different. We often misinterpret that scripture, but the people who were with Jesus would have known EXACTLY what He meant.

By the time of Jesus and the apostles, Greek had become a trade language in the region. What you will find is that when scripture is quoted in the NT, typically in the epistles, the writers quote from the Septuagint (sometimes referred to as the LXX). They did this not because the LXX is preferable to, say, the MT, but because it was written in a language that more people could understand. Modern-day translators probably use the MT the most but WILL fall back on the LXX if something in the MT seems unclear.

I'm not as familiar with NT sources, but my understanding is that the source languages are Greek and Aramaic (and some Hebrew) as they were the predominant languages of the region at the time. The NT manuscripts show near 100% accuracy. The also represent the shortest amount of time passing from the events they record to the actual writing. That means the authors did not waste very much time getting those events on paper or allow themselves much time at all to forget about what had happened. In modern times, when this happens, it means that the recorded events most likely actually happened!

So if the source texts of the Bible are reliable and free from any significant errors, and if a Biblical scholar is knowledgeable of the languages of the Bible, and if a Bible translation is taken from one of these manuscripts, then there is no need at all to worry whether your Bible translation is the right one or not. I like to read the HSCB, but the NIV and the ASV are known to be perfectly acceptable translations along with the good, old-fashioned King Jimmy if you are so inclined. The ONLY translation that I'm aware of that seems a little iffy is the New World translation, which appears to me to be crafted to favor a particular religious agenda, denies the deity of Christ, and has been disputed as to the reputation and qualifications of its translators. Another Bible "translation" (I use that word loosely here) that is popular with younger people, especially teenagers, is The Message. The purpose of this Bible is more of a devotional reading, but a lot of young people misunderstand this and take it to be a "legit" Bible, which it is NOT. It's not a BAD text, I'm just saying one should recognize it for what it is and not assume it to be the very words that Jesus spoke.

Sorry for going on and on, but misunderstanding of the Bible happen to be a pet peeve of mine. If you need help with something, feel free to ask any time!

Weird seeing NT used here at WP for something other than "neurotypical".