On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:05:30 -0500 "Darryl Maddox" <dpmaddox@arn.net>
writes:
> Good morning group,
>
> I have to say I am very pleased to find this topic being discussed
> but am
> equally or perhaps more surprised than I am pleased. I am surprised
> because
> I didn't know there were any people left who seriously believed
> this
snip
I understand that the Flat Earth Society, a few years back, had about
7000 members. They claimed that the photos from early spacecraft showed
curvature because of barrel distortion by wide-angle lenses. Then they
said that the orbits were a grand hoax, with pix from a secret
establishment. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance.
>
> 1)Can we establish criteria by which we can determine which parts of
> the
> Bible are literally true, exactly as stated in a particular
> translation?
>
snip
I think the answer has to be "no." The first problem is that language is
ambiguous from within, a problem not solved by translation. I recall an
Italian student I had telling me that the German philosophy students
studying at Italian universities waited till Italian translations of
German works were available. When asked why, since German was their
mother tongue, they replied that the translations were clearer, for the
translator had essentially disambiguated them. But I have to wonder
whether the translator got it right. The author may have intended
something paradoxical.
Second, our understanding changes and may be in error (exempting
my view ;-), of course). So what fits now is not what fit previously, and
we have no absolute warrant that current views may not be modified.
Paul's "we know in part" applies to more than the eschatological. We
simply do our best with the information available to us.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 15:00:42 EDT