I have had difficulty answering my own question posed in last entry. But here I shall try. I believe I would rather have to defend what I had done, rather than what I had NOT done. I would hope that my actions, while perhaps misguided or unsuccessful or misunderstood or foolish, would have come from good intentions, never intending any of the above consequences. We are on this earth to BE, to act and react, to try, to be dynamic creatures for our short time here. Most of our real living does not take place in living rooms, eh? But the person who is guilty of not responding, acting, saying, has relinquished his/her power. She has failed to grab every moment and opportunity afforded her. He has refused the gift of being.
Confession #62: Having expounded on the above, I confess I am more guilty, I believe, of what I have not done or said. I hope the final quarter of my life will be meaningful because I will have changed that pattern.
This blog’s other question dealt with killing versus murder. Is there a difference? According to original Hebrew bible, there is very much a difference. If you kill someone from the back it is murder. If you kill someone from the front, it is not. If you kill in defense, war, accident, it is not murder. But, you say, the Commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Period. Ah, but this is where the power of language lies. Again, the wording from the earliest form of the Bible states, Thou Shalt Not Murder. Big, big difference. (So go ahead and squash that cockroach in defense of your household's health.)
Has wording been changed due to one’s agenda, or convenience, or syntax, or some monk’s tired hands in copying the bible manually?
And do we form arguments, even lay laws today based on the so-called literal meaning of this document? Do we shake one finger sanctimoniously at others while another finger points to an isolated word in this recording as we hammer down on our fellow human beings? Are we hiding behind words, words, words, to keep our little brains from having to do the real work, the messy work of THINKING? Using our own divine sense of reason? Allowing our own minds and hearts to listen very quietly and still for God’s voice to speak to us?
Confession #63: I think those who are literalists are more lazy than anything. It is just easier to leave your own God-given critical thinking at the door, lay down your own intelligent ideas at your feet as you pick up this book and let your own brain muscle turn to mush around paper and ink. There, I’ve said it, and it only took me 7 months of this endeavor to admit it.
And do we form arguments, even lay laws today based on the so-called literal meaning of this document? Do we shake one finger sanctimoniously at others while another finger points to an isolated word in this recording as we hammer down on our fellow human beings? Are we hiding behind words, words, words, to keep our little brains from having to do the real work, the messy work of THINKING? Using our own divine sense of reason? Allowing our own minds and hearts to listen very quietly and still for God’s voice to speak to us?
Confession #63: I think those who are literalists are more lazy than anything. It is just easier to leave your own God-given critical thinking at the door, lay down your own intelligent ideas at your feet as you pick up this book and let your own brain muscle turn to mush around paper and ink. There, I’ve said it, and it only took me 7 months of this endeavor to admit it.
4 comments:
Hey Val--
So we're still chillin' in the OT, right? 'Cause then I think Helen's right--it's do unto others, etc. It is about action, but that's OT. Once Jesus shows up, it's a revolution. He says it's not enough to forgo adultery--if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, then the sin has been committed (apparently, the ladies get a free pass). So it's not just actions, it's intentions. He says that he comes in fulfillment of all laws and then gives to ultimate laws: love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. No mistranslation from the Hebrew here since the NT was written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic. Just my two cents . . . btw, still enjoying your blog!
Since I know so much more about the NT, it's sometimes hard for me to restrain from getting into what I know is coming. This role as "bible virgin" forces me to approach each page here as if new to it all.
From thought comes action, so if we begin with the right thought, as Jesus directs, shouldn't right action follow? I hope so.
"No mistranslation from the Hebrew," but is one of your points that mistranslating is not possible from Greek or Aramaic into now English?
Definitely not--mistranslation is possible from any of the mentioned languages ;-) And who knows better than us the power the translator has over the original. Like Seamus Heaney's Beowulf, where he replaces the "Behold!" and "Hark!" of previous translations with "So." Speaking of translating from the Hebrew, last semester while researching for my World Lit class, I found and read the most interesting lit. crit. article regarding the superiority of the King James Version, specifically as it pertains to the OT. The author's primary line of argument was focused on the use of figurative language by the Hebrews and the accuracy of the KJV translations precisely because of its poetic force. An internet site, biblegateway.com lets you cross-compare various translations of a given passage.
This is such a handy site. Some fascinating linguistic differences. However, there does not appear to be any Hebrew version listed, even for OT passages. Granted, translations all stem from that, but this is where authenticity plays in.
Post a Comment