Hacker News Reader

Comment by dqv | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly the problem I see with religion and how literally (some) people interpret religious texts. The texts have gone from spoken word to written and then gone through several translations. Languages have intricacies that change meanings when translated. It’s context-specific and region-specific and time-specific. Words don’t always have the same connotations. Some phrases don’t exist. The translator can put their own biases into the translation despite trying to maintain neutrality. I wouldn’t dare bring this up to a religious person, but I can’t relate to the confidence of accepting their particular linguistic and stylistic variety as being the correct one.

On a more technological note, a COBOL to Java translator has probably made unforeseen mistakes that will change reality for people.

View on HN

My maternal grandparents are evangelical Christians. I once made the mistake of suggesting to them the King James Bible wasn’t the best text to pick if one was inclined to subscribe to biblical literalism.

That’s when I learned that (at least for them and many folks like them) isn’t a scholarly take but just another faith element immune to scrutiny.

Perfect and infallible texts seems like picking easy straw man though. The new testament wasn't designed or intended to be litigated like a constitution or a bill, and arguably it was a Roman response to that very critical approach to the old testament. His most challenging (final) example was that it's better to select out in pursuit of compassion at the hands of a fearful mob than to become old as a member of one.

There is a simpler view that it is the best available reference we have for the intent of a creator, and it sets a pretty high bar. We can use science and other tools to interpret that intent (or even argue against its existence at all), but in terms of leading an exemplary life, we're probably not going to do better than that example, and even attempting it is universally more moral than not.

It's not so much that faith is immune to scrutiny as it's an axiom that criticism doesn't change. If you accept your experience of existence is an artifact of some other persons logic, you can be made to accept anything. The idea of working from a fixed divine example works as an innoculation against a lot of evils (deception as a means to direct cruelty in particular). I think what most atheists find so objectionable isn't the band so much as the fans, and I thought most of Hitchens' arguments reduced to this.

When we look at peoples faith as a conclusion, it presumes some prior logic or argument subject to language, and that logic determines its reality, but when you look at it as an axiom from which the rest of their experience flows, you just have to take it or leave it. We can all certainly reason, but what we are is not mere reason. So I think this difference is at the very core of how we experience identity, and everything that flows from the possibly irreconcilable logics of ideas about it.

I've concluded a lot of people worship their translation and not the God they claim yo care about.

Their God is defined by their translation though, right? So they’re at least acting self-consistently.

They arn't worshiping the God, but the translation itself.

I think an even bigger issue is that anyone would want to read the Bible literally at all.

It's an amalgamation of various writers from different periods in history.

Are you saying that because it is an amalgamation of various writers from different periods in history, therefore no one should be interested in reading it?

I've read very little, but I've quite liked the portions I've read.

Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect.

The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said for science, statistics, and academics.

Both scripture and science are done by humans, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in both of them.

> Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect.

That’s true, but some do.

>The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said for science, statistics, and academics.

I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction. Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations. In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question.

>Both scripture and science are done by humans, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in both of them.

I don’t disagree. My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation.

> That’s true, but some do.

Rarely mentioned (and often avoided during discussion, on this topic or others) is the epistemically sound, quantitative (percentage) of people who "see" "sacred texts as infallible or perfect", something which is not measurable (but rarely realized as such, as far as I can tell).

> I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction.

True, but I often wonder if the persuasiveness (with respect to one's model of reality) of individual data points like this is significantly greater than their actual importance (and therefore misleading).

> Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations.

Within the physical/materialistic realm, but often not noticed is when science [implicitly] makes statements that cross over into the metaphysical realm, which is the territory religion tends to deal with - these (admittedly perhaps not all that frequent) seem to not get a lot of attention from the scientific community/enthusiasts (to be fair, understandably so considering their beliefs). And if one is to draw their attention to it, they tend to react (purely coincidentally, of course) in a way not all that unlike stereotypical religious people when you criticize their model.

> In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question.

So too with science, if one is to (for example) ask whether metaphysics might possibly deserve a seat at the adult table at Thanksgiving dinner.

> My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation.

Have you focused your critical analysis at science to the same degree[1] as you have at religion? (And if you have not, would you necessarily know?)

[1] magnitude and quality, taking into consideration bias, perception, intuitive skills, etc

As I see it (from a high level):

- all models are wrong

- some models are useful

- some things that are models are not realized/perceived as such (ie: reality)

- (almost) all human beings (including genuinely logical & intelligent ones) have strong emotional reactions to criticism of their models, or the discussion of metaphysical matters beyond a certain depth

And as a consequence, hilarity/tragedy ensues, potentially indefinitely.

This is why the study of ancient languages used in religious texts are important. Many churches still conduct some activities in dead languages. For example, the Roman Catholic Church still publishes texts in Latin and trains people in Latin. Other churches study Koine Greek even today. Scholars of theology sometimes study Biblical Hebrew and even Aramaic. The good scholars often use their grasp of history, politics, philosophy etc. while performing their exegesis.

Biblical professor Bart Ehrman has written many books about how the bible was put together. The Comma Johanneum, the most explicit reference to the doctrine of the trinity is not found in the original Greek (or in early non-Latin translations) until Erasmus was pressured (against his desire) to include it in his Greek Bible in 1522.

Also, the first gospel written is thought to be Mark. In the King James Bible, Catholic translations etc. Jesus is seen resurrected by the apostles and others. This does not happen in the earliest versions of Mark.

There are lots of things like this, Ehrman goes into many of them.

Would bible literalism be sensible if you understood Hebrew? Translation is a big problem with Christians specifically, but imo it's not "exactly the problem with religion".

It would still be a stretch. Most of the bible was written in Hebrew or Greek, but for literalism to make any sense, you'd have to be a native speaker, not just of modern Hebrew or Greek, but of their ancient versions. Otherwise, it's like a modern English speaker trying to take Shakespeare literally. It's just not going to make a lot of sense unless you're fully immersed in the language and culture at the time.

The Bible is written in several languages. New testiment is mostly Greek. I've been told 5, but I'm not able to verify that. Not to mention the Hebrew part covers over a thousand years so I can't imagine it didn't change

The Hebrew part (depending on what you consider cannon) was more likely composed/compiled over a few hundred years. Although the stories may be older, the spelling and other elements are from the Babylonian period.

The poems do retain the older Hebrew though.

Hebrew speaker here. The old testament is readable, but difficult. The far larger problem is the lack of context.

Fortunately, the Jews have an unbroken chain of proficient Hebrew speaking Rabbis going back to the beginnings of the faith, and throughout that entire time they have written commentary. So like tracing photographs of a person back to when they were a baby, we have an unbroken chain of context to reference.

The amount of material is daunting. It really is a profession to comprehend it all - whether one believes it to be divine or not.

Even if you understand the Hebrew, much of the original meaning has been lost. I'd recommend Kugel 'How to read the Bible' for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com