Do you need a Ph.D. to understand the Bible?

[Toto]

James McGrath says yes.

Yes you do.

I guess we should all give up.

To be fair, McGrath's target is Ken Ham, who thinks that any idiot can just pick of the Bible and read it and believe in it.

You will not understand the entire Bible without people who have expertise in Hebrew and expertise in Greek. Not just a smattering, not just a copy of Strong’s concordance or an interlinear. In order to get from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text to an understanding in English, you need linguists, experienced translators, and also scholars of history who can clarify cultural and historical references, all involved in the process.

When these individuals have done their job well, you can pick up an English translation, read it, and it will not seem hard to understand at all. Indeed, it may be so deceptively easy that you manage to ignore the hard work that went into producing the text you hold in your hands.

But I wonder if this is even correct - if the PhD translator could actually produce an adequate text, the rest of us would not need a PhD. But in fact, the translation is never exact.

[semiopen]

Karl's opinion in Sling_Blade is worth noting -

I've learned to read some; took me four years to read the Bible. I reckon I understand a good deal of it.

The instigator of Ham's blog is

Iowa View: 1 man, 1 woman isn't the Bible's only marriage view

So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.

The editorial seems like a reasonable discussion of the subject. The only biblical issue seems to be that two men apparently aren't supposed to have anal sex. This is not directly related to marriage.

Unless there is a commandment not to annoy morons -

the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple

.

I don't think the translation is a problem, mostly that he just threw in this quote which doesn't apply to the issue.

[steve_bnk]

If by read you mean understand the bible and its context in history and socio-political events surrounding Jewish history, it takes a detailed study of history.

If by read you mean as in reading Aesop's Fables or Shakespeare and deriving human meaning, does one need a PHD? Over intellectualizing can be an impediment to undemanding. Looking for the convoluted when the answer is simple.

[Chili]

[quote=""Toto""]James McGrath says yes.

Yes you do.

I guess we should all give up.

To be fair, McGrath's target is Ken Ham, who thinks that any idiot can just pick of the Bible and read it and believe in it.

You will not understand the entire Bible without people who have expertise in Hebrew and expertise in Greek. Not just a smattering, not just a copy of Strong’s concordance or an interlinear. In order to get from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text to an understanding in English, you need linguists, experienced translators, and also scholars of history who can clarify cultural and historical references, all involved in the process.

When these individuals have done their job well, you can pick up an English translation, read it, and it will not seem hard to understand at all. Indeed, it may be so deceptively easy that you manage to ignore the hard work that went into producing the text you hold in your hands.

But I wonder if this is even correct - if the PhD translator could actually produce an adequate text, the rest of us would not need a PhD. But in fact, the translation is never exact.[/QUOTE]


I think it is just opposite Toto, and that makes the famous KJV the most flat earth 'wooden' translation of all, and of course these will those who insist that their world is round, while they will never come 'full circle' in it to only 'then' know the place for the first time.

Of course inside the rigor of Brittish Analytic Criticism they are correct, but that is a very narrow playing field all of their own which makes them the dumbest people on earth, still riding their own little playhorse of old.

<edit>

[stephan huller]

<edit>

[Vallhall]

A question regarding the PhD and expertise in translations. Do these PhD focus on redundant philology alone, or do they include conceptual cognitive linguistics?

Not that philology is other than a marvelous tool. Just that it by itself, according to linguistics since Chomsky revolution, more or less made it redundant by itself.

[aa5874]

[quote=""Toto""]James McGrath says yes.

Yes you do.

I guess we should all give up.

To be fair, McGrath's target is Ken Ham, who thinks that any idiot can just pick of the Bible and read it and believe in it.

You will not understand the entire Bible without people who have expertise in Hebrew and expertise in Greek. Not just a smattering, not just a copy of Strong’s concordance or an interlinear. In order to get from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text to an understanding in English, you need linguists, experienced translators, and also scholars of history who can clarify cultural and historical references, all involved in the process.

When these individuals have done their job well, you can pick up an English translation, read it, and it will not seem hard to understand at all. Indeed, it may be so deceptively easy that you manage to ignore the hard work that went into producing the text you hold in your hands.

But I wonder if this is even correct - if the PhD translator could actually produce an adequate text, the rest of us would not need a PhD. But in fact, the translation is never exact.[/QUOTE]

Again, we see more blatant contradictions by McGrath.

The Bible must be very easy to understand because it was translated to English by "linguists, expereienced translators and scholars of history."

[outhouse]

I agree, YES.


If anyone has seen pastor Scott going into Greek and details, She makes it seem like another context alltogether then what is read normally by the average layman.

[Chili]

[quote=""stephan huller""]<edit>[/quote]

<edit>

[Chili]

[quote=""outhouse""]I agree, YES.


If anyone has seen pastor Scott going into Greek and details, She makes it seem like another context alltogether then what is read normally by the average layman.[/quote]

But Greek allegory points at the same end as bible allegory does. I.e. They encourage the courageous and we forgive the [cheerful] sinner his sins. So now what?

Much like in Papua New Guinea "it is better to steal your vegetables than grow them yourself." And so what do they do? They put a fence around it to make sure that nobody can steal theirs, and that is much like we do over here.