Robert I W, you have said something like this on a couple of occasions:

In fact the erroneous King James version deliberately mistranslates this passage...the original Greek is the word for OR not AND.

How do you know that it was deliberately mistranslated?

I ask the same question of those who impugn bad motives to other translators, such as those who produced the NIV.

Could they have been sincere, but maybe misguided?

I think we should be slow to attribute bad motives to others.

Response to Rick..No I am showing that even Ratranmus was not advocating a real absence as some Protestants imply. I fully accept the Catholic Church’s teaching. as defined in the 13th century.

I do not belive that I have mentoned the King James version ( but I stand corrected if I have)before..but I do believe it is erroneous with its 2translators” deliberately obscuring texts. Another example is Romans ch15:16.. Of course reading both the dedication and the preface of the KJV shows the theological bias of the translators..

So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness.......

I am fairly sure it was you, Robert but I have no intention of trawling through your many posts to see if I’m right.

However, I still wonder if it is fair to say they were deliberately obscuring the texts, or if they were presenting the sense of them as they believed was meant by the authors.

I’m not even sure that the New World Translators think they are distorting the text, so that although I’m sure they do spoil it, I wonder if i should say they did it deliberately, or stick with describing the outcome without claiming to know their motives.

David to the pure all things are pure. I am suspicious , and distrustful of men. The New World translation was effecred by an apostae Catholic priest, Johannes Greber..who deliberately mistranslated John chapter one as “ In the beginning was a word.”.

Hi Martin

Well this is all getting a bit long winded however I admire your determination.  Want to have a beer sometime?

My comments follow your paragraphs.

Agree entirely with your first paragraph however I reject the notion of absolute truth with respect to historical (and in fact any) matter. 

Understanding your theology (and I say paradigm) seem to me to be important in understanding how you arrive at a view.  Be assured it does not in my mind discredit your position, it merely assists me in understanding why you give different weight to data compared to myself.  I would be happy if you articulated your theology.

I am taking a logical postivist view that data exists and that that data is separate from epistemology, that is, the way we understand and ascribe meaning to that data. 

Re John 6.  John starts off with the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, but there is more going on than just the physical feeding of people.  At 26 Jesus steps up the dialogue, the food he offers is more than physical food.  The people try to make sense of this at 28 and Jesus further clarifies at 32 that the true bread comes from god.  They ask for that bread and Jesus makes the claim at 35 that he is that bread.  The people then say how could Jesus be the bread that comes down from heaven?  Jesus ups the ante, at 51 not only is he the living bread but that bread is his flesh.  The people then say, at 52 how can we eat his flesh.  Jesus ups the ante even further particularly at 55, my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 

This reading also accords with a more general reading of John where the mystery of Jesus is increasingly revealed.  It is clear that you and I read this passage entirely differently.  Is it possible that you are influenced by a protestant tradition of taking passages out of context to make a theological point?

You are wrong on Einstein and Newton.  Einstein had more data eg the speed of light is constant hence the two theories describe different data sets.  An appeal to parsimony is only appropriate when comparing models describing the same data set.  That is why I used the Galileo - Aristotle illustration.

In a cultural sense, my appeal to mana is more remote than your appeal to Jewish culture.  Again it is a matter of weight.  I say that understanding Jewish culture is important, but that there are a number of clear (and biblically referenced) departure points between Christianity and Judaism.  I say that the real presence in the eucharist is one of these departure points.  A strong reading of your proposition (that the bible should be read in the context of Judaism) would mean a rejection for example of the trinity, the resurrection and Jesus as the son of God, all incompatible with Judaic thought and as expressed by Jewish “fall guys” throughout the gospels.

I don’t think the ‘mana’ idea is central at all.  I only raised it, as stated previously to address Zwingli’s position that the true presence should be rejected as nonsense - Jesus could never have meant that.  I understand you don’t rely on this particular argument and hence I am not so sure why we are going back and forward on it.

Your rejection of materialist explanations for the origin of life suggest to me that you give more weight to a particular religious position and less weight to empirical and scientific data than I would.  This helps me explain why we reach different conclusions when assessing the same data.

Just in terms of evolution, and not debating the point, I accept that there are significant and unanswered questions regarding the evolution of life, however just because we don’t have answers now doesn’t mean we won’t have answers later, and in any case an appeal to creation only moves the problem back.  Who created God etc.  This is a statement of my position on this matter.  You will note I have articulated beliefs and assumptions underlying my position. It could be further inferred that I have a materialist paradigm - ie a materialist explanation must exist, we just haven’t found it yet.  If you have a different view, I am confident that the points of departure (assuming you are reasonably intelligent and don’t accept nonesense as data) will be found in these beliefs, assumptions and paradigm.

I am not assigning a position to you, just trying to illustrate what seems to me to be an important point.

On your final point, I guess I don’t give the same weight to some things as you do.

cheers

John

Robert ian Williams - 27 August 2008 08:47 AM

David to the pure all things are pure. I am suspicious , and distrustful of men. The New World translation was effecred by an apostae Catholic priest, Johannes Greber..who deliberately mistranslated John chapter one as “ In the beginning was a word.”.

I think it is true that Fred Franz and his mates referred to Greber’s translation, but I’ve never heard that he was in any way involved in the NWT.

It’s not “a word” by the way, it’s “a god.”

John wrote:

A strong reading of your proposition (that the bible should be read in the context of Judaism) would mean a rejection for example of the trinity, the resurrection and Jesus as the son of God, all incompatible with Judaic thought and as expressed by Jewish “fall guys” throughout the gospels.

Not necessarily. A proper understanding of Judaism might identify Jesus and the Holy Spirit with Yahweh’s word and breath, which although present in the Old Testament, were not thought of as distinct from Yahweh or the father.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting about resurrection… many Jews including the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection.

Just in terms of evolution, and not debating the point, I accept that there are significant and unanswered questions regarding the evolution of life, however just because we don’t have answers now doesn’t mean we won’t have answers later, and in any case an appeal to creation only moves the problem back.  Who created God etc.

To ask who created God shows that they don’t really understand what a deity is. Only finite things of the physical universe have a beginning, and a cause, which God is not.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:18 AM

Want to have a beer sometime?

A fine idea, but logistically it may be rather difficult to accomplish.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:18 AM

Re John 6.  John starts off with the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, but there is more going on than just the physical feeding of people.  At 26 Jesus steps up the dialogue, the food he offers is more than physical food.  The people try to make sense of this at 28 and Jesus further clarifies at 32 that the true bread comes from god.  They ask for that bread and Jesus makes the claim at 35 that he is that bread.  The people then say how could Jesus be the bread that comes down from heaven?  Jesus ups the ante, at 51 not only is he the living bread but that bread is his flesh.  The people then say, at 52 how can we eat his flesh.  Jesus ups the ante even further particularly at 55, my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

This reading also accords with a more general reading of John where the mystery of Jesus is increasingly revealed.  It is clear that you and I read this passage entirely differently.  Is it possible that you are influenced by a protestant tradition of taking passages out of context to make a theological point?

I see nothing here which discounts a metaphorical reading. You also forget there is a theme of Jesus’ words being misunderstood in John’s gospel. Bread sustains for a day. The metaphorical reading understands Jesus to be saying that coming and believing (which are set in metaphorical opposition to ‘eating’ in vv. 35-40, also elsewhere in the chapter) are what feed us for eternal life.

OTOH, reading the narrative as purely eucharistic does take it out of context, as I’ve pointed out previously on a number of occasions.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:29 AM

You are wrong on Einstein and Newton.  Einstein had more data eg the speed of light is constant hence the two theories describe different data sets.  An appeal to parsimony is only appropriate when comparing models describing the same data set.  That is why I used the Galileo - Aristotle illustration.

But I was not talking about Einstein and Newton, but their theories. When Einstein first proposed SR it was not automatically accepted by everyone (indeed, GR took decades to find solid empirical validation). At the point the theory was published, scientists had to weigh up the two. Had they simply said “which is simpler,” Newton’s theories would have won. My claim is that your appeal to parsimony is identical to this: there is more evidence, as I keep highlighting, but you ignore it. That is equivalent to you assessing Einstein and Newton but discounting the empirical evidence suggesting that the speed of light (in vacuo, of course) is constant.

So you are wrong in saying that I am wrong. I chose the analogy as you have before you two options: Einstein’s theory and Newton’s. You choose Newton’s because it is simpler but at the cost of ignoring crucial pieces of evidence. So also you choose an interpretation of John 6 that is simpler but at the expense of some of the data.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:29 AM

In a cultural sense, my appeal to mana is more remote than your appeal to Jewish culture.  Again it is a matter of weight.

So you acknowledge that the concept of “mana” has less weight than appeals to the cultural and social milieu out of which the text arose?

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:29 AM

I say that understanding Jewish culture is important, but that there are a number of clear (and biblically referenced) departure points between Christianity and Judaism.  I say that the real presence in the eucharist is one of these departure points.

On what basis? Especially given that the Supper is instituted within the context of the Passover and leans heavily on Passover traditions and language, essentially reinterpreting the Supper as a Christian Passover wherein God’s great act of redemption is remembered (i.e. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross as opposed to the exodus). By way of contrast, I take the above as an admission that your understanding of the Supper is foreign to the social, cultural, and religious milieu of the text.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:29 AM

A strong reading of your proposition (that the bible should be read in the context of Judaism) would mean a rejection for example of the trinity, the resurrection and Jesus as the son of God, all incompatible with Judaic thought and as expressed by Jewish “fall guys” throughout the gospels.

Yet the NT writers were, for the most part, Jews, and Jews who held a very high view of the OT. And the OT forms a very significant part of the background for reading the NT. So they sought to express the ideas you think are incompatible with Judaism within a framework which derived from and affirmed the Scriptures that they had. Consequently, even the ideas you highlight above are understood within the cultural and religious context of first-century Judaism, and are held to be compatible with them. I would further argue that the items you’ve pointed to are not incompatible with the OT and are more strongly opposed within Judaism later in history as a reaction against Christianity.

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:29 AM

I don’t think the ‘mana’ idea is central at all.  I only raised it, as stated previously to address Zwingli’s position that the true presence should be rejected as nonsense - Jesus could never have meant that.  I understand you don’t rely on this particular argument and hence I am not so sure why we are going back and forward on it.

Because, ISTM, even though you downplay it now, it was originally the entire basis for your rejection of the metaphorical reading: sure it looks like metaphor, but it is religious talk so it doesn’t need to follow normal linguistic rules. It was at this point that you originally introduced “mana.”

Continued…

John Charles Storer - 27 August 2008 10:50 AM

Your rejection of materialist explanations for the origin of life suggest to me that you give more weight to a particular religious position and less weight to empirical and scientific data than I would.  This helps me explain why we reach different conclusions when assessing the same data.

It may well explain something: a materialist explanation that denies any role for God in superintending the formation of his creation is, to my mind, not able to be reconciled with the very strong biblical affirmations that God is Creator. It also suggests that your view of religion is that it is entirely confined to the metaphysical: God does not interfere with the physical world. This would go some way to explain your ability to read transubstantiation into the NT since it would ultimately have no physical consequences. Presumably this methodology would also have you explain the resurrection as a purely “spiritual” event?

Hi Dannii

Defining your way out of difficulties doesn’t address the underlying problem.  More to the point, if god doesn’t need a cause then why demand one for the universe?

ps the jews seemed to get very excited by Jesus’ assertion that he was the son of god.  See for example John 6.

John

Hi Martin

Where are you writing from?  I am in Wollongong.

If there is nothing to dismiss a metaphorical reading, there is less to dismiss a literal reading.  In my view, the writer uses the misunderstanding of Jesus words to gradually present a mystery, and through a question and answer style, that believers eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.

It is clear we have different views here.  As I have said repeatedly, this is probably more to do with differences in paradigms than differences in data.  You don’t seem to agree, I can only guess that this is because you are not comfortable with any form of relative truth.  As I have argued previously, absolute and testable truth is not available in science and certainly not available in historical enquiry.  Stronger or weaker concurrence is all we can hope for.

Re Einstein and Newton.  If you want to believe that black is white, I can’t disabuse you.  I suggest you read my previous post more closely to see the difference between appealing to parsimony to choose between two theories sharing a common data set and between rejecting one theory and accepting another in the light of additional data.  Alternatively you seem to be arguing by false analogy by conflating your view with einstein and mine with newton.  It is not that you have more evidence, you just give different weights to different evidence compared to myself.  You are the only person who can articulate why you use a particular weighting system.

The conclusion about mana is so obvious as to be trivial.  Regardless it does not discount the view, merely articulates a basis for giving relative weight.

This is a recursive argument.  You state there is no eucharist because there is no departure point, I state that the existence of the eucharist demonstrates a departure point.  The supper needs to be read in the light of, but not restricted by, the cultural context.

One of the gospels presents Jesus as the fulfillment the old testament, without researching, I can’t remember which one.  I am not sure that the other gospel writers take the same view.  There is a difference in contextualising christianity in Judaism and rewriting christianity as Judaism.  I think that in the matter of the real presence, you are doing the latter.  Why do you focus on this one aspect but (presumably) accept say the trinity which is quite at odds with Judaism?  (Despite Danii’s special pleading above).

If you thought the idea of mana was the entire basis for my rejection of your recourse to a metaphorical reading, then I have done a very poor job of articulating my position.  I see it as reasonably remote, and only of relevance when addressing Zwingli’s critique of the eucharist as nonsense.

My argument is this.  A plain reading is favoured over a metaphorical reading for reasons of parsimony.  That is only adopt a metaphorical reading if it leads to problems.  Now I can see that a plain reading leads to the real presence in the eucharist so you adopt a metaphorical reading to avoid that (for you) theological problem.  I don’t have that problem so I don’t have to appeal to metaphor.  Furthermore, invocation of the real presence in the eucharist does not create problems elsewhere for me.  Such a reading is compatible with the synoptics and with Paul, with further support being found in the early church fathers.

Your last argument is an argument against yourself.  You deny metaphysics in the real presence but accord an active intervention by god in history.  I personally have no tension between God the creator and materialist explanations for the existence of life.  An alternative view suggests to me a reluctance on your part to accept an allegorical view of genesis although strongly supported by empirical scientific knowledge and in marked contrast to your apparent ease in accepting metaphor in the bible in respect of a central mystery of christianity, being the real presence in the eucharist.

I don’t see how your last sentence is a logical outcome of anything.

cheers

John

Hi Martin

Where are you writing from?  I am in Wollongong.

careful, they have a bucket of tar and a bag of feathers for you, mate.

Who’s they? Yossarian (or was it Dunbar?) asked suspiciously.