I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2011, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2011 12:03 PM by defacto7.)
I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
Quite a long while back, I had a conversation with the senior minister of a very large Presbyterian church in Ft. Lauderdale FL who had been discussing the definition of the word "arrogant" with a scholar of ancient Hebrew. My understanding is that there is actually no direct translation of the word "arrogant" in ancient Hebrew. The English concept of arrogant actually does not exist, although the root "זֵדִ֑ים" for insolent or presumptuous is assumed in translating biblical texts to English... it isn't exactly correct. The Hebrew that is used to fill that concept actually translates, "is unteachable or is unwilling to learn".

I really like this concept as it separates self confidence from a negative "insolent, self righteous, arrogant". Does this matter to a non-theist?? Probably not. But trying to meet on the same conceptual ground as theists is important if atheists are going to "try" to have arguments with theists. The positions they take when their religious texts are inerrant are askew not only because logically the texts are false in origin and content but also because the translational concepts cannot be fully understood by them no matter how much they study the ancient origins. They can use the various versions of concordance but even these can never properly translate those concepts. Ask a Hebrew scholar. Then ask an orthodox Hebrew scholar. Then ask a Christian Hebrew scholar. Then ask a translator of ancient Hebrew... You will probably have many, even wonderful, concepts of an ancient language that is full of nuance that can never be properly understood without a long expose.

I am sorry, but a theist who relies on the in-errancy of their religious texts is errant from the start. They may try to argue that we cannot understand how their god works through these text to reveal to the minds of the TRUE believers who TRULY seek the mysteries and wonder of their god but the fact is their faith is based on whatever they wish to expound as an individual or a collective. (surely the collective is the easier path) The idea that they are "SPECIAL" in god's eyes is what they imply over and over again with their inability to actually have a reasonable conversation. Reasonable meaning in this case, to use logic, stripping the pretense of being better than the rest of us by being "special" or "gifted" by god's benevolent choice that they are more worthy because they have sought him alone and above all logic... And that if we strip away all sources of knowledge other than their holy text we may, just may also be chosen of their deity to have everlasting life.

I cannot understand how one can rationalize with that kind of circular nonsense. Their implied "better than thou" stance I think goes hand in hand with the untranslatable Hebrew word for arrogance... "is unteachable or is unwilling to learn".

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like defacto7's post
20-09-2011, 12:10 PM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
Arguing definitions with a theist is like arguing with a wall about the fact that it is a wall. I can already hear it now "But it's in English now." Which would probably sound more like "Bu' its in 'merican naw." if they are from the south (I am from the south too). Anyone who has ever studied with individuals from another country quickly realize that words don't transfer and even some concepts don't transfer, and these are modern languages and cultures, much less translating and interpreting ancient cultures into modern cultures!!!!

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 01:37 PM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
Does the exact, precise translation of a word really make that much difference to a story that's one big giant logical and situational contradiction from beginning to end?
I don't worry about the nuances: i go straight for the pith. Awful god demands superhuman sacrifice as atonement for being what he made us. Sod that! Moving right along...

However,
Quote:I really like this concept as it separates self confidence from a negative "insolent, self righteous, arrogant". Does this matter to a non-theist??

Yes, semantics do come up with some frequency among non- and anti-theists, notably over the difference between 'agnostic' and 'atheist', but also in the kinds and degrees of belief/ unbelief, cognition, fact, conviction - that sort of thing. I suppose, that's inevitable when people are discussing the processes of thought, in a medium that does not permit direct visual support for one's statements. Also, there is a fairly wide spectrum of linguistic facility and background.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 02:25 PM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(20-09-2011 01:37 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Does the exact, precise translation of a word really make that much difference to a story that's one big giant logical and situational contradiction from beginning to end?
Ha... absolutely not.

Quote:I don't worry about the nuances: i go straight for the pith. Awful god demands superhuman sacrifice as atonement for being what he made us. Sod that! Moving right along...

Go get'm tiger!

Quote:However,
Quote:I really like this concept as it separates self confidence from a negative "insolent, self righteous, arrogant". Does this matter to a non-theist??

Yes, semantics do come up with some frequency among non- and anti-theists, notably over the difference between 'agnostic' and 'atheist', but also in the kinds and degrees of belief/ unbelief, cognition, fact, conviction - that sort of thing. I suppose, that's inevitable when people are discussing the processes of thought, in a medium that does not permit direct visual support for one's statements. Also, there is a fairly wide spectrum of linguistic facility and background.

I guess that's what I was getting at. There is this chasm between how theists and reasonists (I think I just made up a word) argue. There is only so much ability to find common ground if there are 2 different ways of interpreting a language or concept. It is pretty obvious to me that many of the arguments from the great thinkers in this forum are tuned to a language that is straight forward and scientific you might say. The language that is used by the believers has different nuances that are there to guard them from loosing a battle of words. Having been on both sides of the fence, I do my best to see if I can make a bridge between the 2 systems so maybe the argument of reason can actually get to the heart of it's antithesis. I believe the only way to have a useful intercourse is to strip away the nonsense by understanding the nonsense then approaching the nonsense on it's own territory. It's probably a useless endeavor but I am looking closely at the conversations in any case.

Thanks for your input, by the way.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 07:39 AM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(20-09-2011 02:25 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(20-09-2011 01:37 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Does the exact, precise translation of a word really make that much difference to a story that's one big giant logical and situational contradiction from beginning to end?
Ha... absolutely not.

Quote:I don't worry about the nuances: i go straight for the pith. Awful god demands superhuman sacrifice as atonement for being what he made us. Sod that! Moving right along...

Go get'm tiger!

Quote:However,
Quote:I really like this concept as it separates self confidence from a negative "insolent, self righteous, arrogant". Does this matter to a non-theist??

Yes, semantics do come up with some frequency among non- and anti-theists, notably over the difference between 'agnostic' and 'atheist', but also in the kinds and degrees of belief/ unbelief, cognition, fact, conviction - that sort of thing. I suppose, that's inevitable when people are discussing the processes of thought, in a medium that does not permit direct visual support for one's statements. Also, there is a fairly wide spectrum of linguistic facility and background.

I guess that's what I was getting at. There is this chasm between how theists and reasonists (I think I just made up a word) argue. There is only so much ability to find common ground if there are 2 different ways of interpreting a language or concept. It is pretty obvious to me that many of the arguments from the great thinkers in this forum are tuned to a language that is straight forward and scientific you might say. The language that is used by the believers has different nuances that are there to guard them from loosing a battle of words. Having been on both sides of the fence, I do my best to see if I can make a bridge between the 2 systems so maybe the argument of reason can actually get to the heart of it's antithesis. I believe the only way to have a useful intercourse is to strip away the nonsense by understanding the nonsense then approaching the nonsense on it's own territory. It's probably a useless endeavor but I am looking closely at the conversations in any case.

Thanks for your input, by the way.

Re "The language that is used by the believers has different nuances that are there to guard them from loosing a battle of words."

That's the impression I get too. That is really unfortunate for them, isn't it? It means their whole agenda is focused on being considered "right," at any cost, rather than discovering truth. I think we can all be a little guilty of not listening, but most theists appear to have no genuine interest in
-sticking to the topic
- genuinely listening to the other party
- doing any reading on the topic at hand. They just seem to like noise ie words words words, and it doesn't matter that the words make no sense.

I have no trouble communicating with 99% of my patients, but I just can't find any common ground with most theists. Every sentence contains unsubstantiated assumptions and the sentences flow out one after the other, and you can't interrupt them.

As a result the art of conversation is devalued, and none of us learn.

Re "I believe the only way to have a useful intercourse is to strip away the nonsense by understanding the nonsense then approaching the nonsense on it's own territory."

I agree. I have made a study of the history of the bible and biblical figures and attempted to put it all in context. The problem is most of them don't understand even their own nonsense. And....the ones that know the least will be the loudest amongst them.

I'm hoping there are theists who are more rational, and more willing to listen and truly engage in a subject than the characters who prop up as theists on this forum. I know these people do exist. CALLING ALL INTELLIGENT RATIONAL GOD BOTHERERS. PLEASE JOIN OUR FORUM!!!!! LOL
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2011 08:04 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
I have a beautiful red leather gold-embossed bible with ornate capitals (Got it free at the thift store, and it came with a clutch of somebody's newspaper clippings about 20th century saints. I assume the owner died, and her heirs didn't care enough to keep her cherished bible. Sad!) Easy to look things up in.
I don't interpret*; i just quote directly. How can they argue? Well, watch theophilus: he'll ignore the main point and quibble a side issue. Deflection, straw-men and misdirection won't respond even to the most meticulous of semantic scholarship.

Sample from a neighbouring thread.

Quote:RE: I've Often Wondered....

lucradis Wrote:
How does it work mentally? To accept the words of the bible as truth one must accept that people in the past have heard God speak to them. So How would a psychotherapist or even a standard therapist deal with this? How do they so casually rule out actual holy intervention and be comfortable writing them off?

Theopilus replied:
The Bible contains a lot of information about how to tell if a person is really speaking for God. Anyone who knows what the Bible teaches can soon tell the difference between a true prophet of God and someone who is delusional.

See? Empty the ocean with a teaspoon, why don'cha?



* little furry pants on fire! I do, so, interpret, and not always benevolently

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
21-09-2011, 08:42 AM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(20-09-2011 11:58 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Quite a long while back, I had a conversation with the senior minister of a very large Presbyterian church in Ft. Lauderdale FL who had been discussing the definition of the word "arrogant" with a scholar of ancient Hebrew. My understanding is that there is actually no direct translation of the word "arrogant" in ancient Hebrew. The English concept of arrogant actually does not exist, although the root "זֵדִ֑ים" for insolent or presumptuous is assumed in translating biblical texts to English... it isn't exactly correct. The Hebrew that is used to fill that concept actually translates, "is unteachable or is unwilling to learn".

I really like this concept as it separates self confidence from a negative "insolent, self righteous, arrogant". Does this matter to a non-theist?? Probably not. But trying to meet on the same conceptual ground as theists is important if atheists are going to "try" to have arguments with theists. The positions they take when their religious texts are inerrant are askew not only because logically the texts are false in origin and content but also because the translational concepts cannot be fully understood by them no matter how much they study the ancient origins. They can use the various versions of concordance but even these can never properly translate those concepts. Ask a Hebrew scholar. Then ask an orthodox Hebrew scholar. Then ask a Christian Hebrew scholar. Then ask a translator of ancient Hebrew... You will probably have many, even wonderful, concepts of an ancient language that is full of nuance that can never be properly understood without a long expose.

I am sorry, but a theist who relies on the in-errancy of their religious texts is errant from the start. They may try to argue that we cannot understand how their god works through these text to reveal to the minds of the TRUE believers who TRULY seek the mysteries and wonder of their god but the fact is their faith is based on whatever they wish to expound as an individual or a collective. (surely the collective is the easier path) The idea that they are "SPECIAL" in god's eyes is what they imply over and over again with their inability to actually have a reasonable conversation. Reasonable meaning in this case, to use logic, stripping the pretense of being better than the rest of us by being "special" or "gifted" by god's benevolent choice that they are more worthy because they have sought him alone and above all logic... And that if we strip away all sources of knowledge other than their holy text we may, just may also be chosen of their deity to have everlasting life.

I cannot understand how one can rationalize with that kind of circular nonsense. Their implied "better than thou" stance I think goes hand in hand with the untranslatable Hebrew word for arrogance... "is unteachable or is unwilling to learn".

Hello Defacto, hope you don't mind me commenting on this post, and this will probably be the only entry, but I would suggest that the concept of arrogance, though for obvious reasons is not "translated from english to Hebrew," is definitely seen in scripture. Here is a place to start, if you are interested in looking at this:

Pro 8:13 The fear 3374 of the LORD 3068 [is] to hate 8130 evil 7451: pride 1344, and arrogancy 1347, and the evil 7451 way 1870, and the froward 8419 mouth 6310, do I hate 8130.

Isa 13:11 And I will punish 6485 the world 8398 for [their] evil 7451, and the wicked 7563 for their iniquity 5771; and I will cause the arrogancy 1347 of the proud 2086 to cease 7673, and will lay low 8213 the haughtiness 1346 of the terrible 6184.

Jer 48:29 We have heard 8085 the pride 1347 of Moab 4124, (he is exceeding 3966 proud 1343) his loftiness 1363, and his arrogancy 1346, and his pride 1347, and the haughtiness 7312 of his heart 3820.


These are taken from Strong's Concordance, see here for the link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/tr...1347&t=KJV

The general topic of pride covers a lot of things that could be individually separated and examined and categorized with different english translations.

Hope I am not suggesting a "better than thou" attitude, just wanted to give you another direction to consider what you propose.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
21-09-2011, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2011 10:53 AM by defacto7.)
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(21-09-2011 08:42 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Defacto, hope you don't mind me commenting on this post, and this will probably be the only entry, but I would suggest that the concept of arrogance, though for obvious reasons is not "translated from english to Hebrew," is definitely seen in scripture. Here is a place to start, if you are interested in looking at this:

Pro 8:13 The fear 3374 of the LORD 3068 [is] to hate 8130 evil 7451: pride 1344, and arrogancy 1347, and the evil 7451 way 1870, and the froward 8419 mouth 6310, do I hate 8130.

Isa 13:11 And I will punish 6485 the world 8398 for [their] evil 7451, and the wicked 7563 for their iniquity 5771; and I will cause the arrogancy 1347 of the proud 2086 to cease 7673, and will lay low 8213 the haughtiness 1346 of the terrible 6184.

Jer 48:29 We have heard 8085 the pride 1347 of Moab 4124, (he is exceeding 3966 proud 1343) his loftiness 1363, and his arrogancy 1346, and his pride 1347, and the haughtiness 7312 of his heart 3820.


These are taken from Strong's Concordance, see here for the link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/tr...1347&t=KJV

The general topic of pride covers a lot of things that could be individually separated and examined and categorized with different english translations.

Hope I am not suggesting a "better than thou" attitude, just wanted to give you another direction to consider what you propose.

S.T.

Absolutely, ST. The concept exists but from what I understand it is a twist in the function of the word since the translator needs to decide if that is in fact what the ancient scripts are trying to say.

So I guess my point is 2 fold, one - the beauty of the literal translation of the word, and two - the misrepresentation that can happen when translating an ancient script. I really appreciate the literal translation of this particular word because I believe the English definition has been tainted by religious concepts. For instance, if you say arrogant in English (or at least in the US), it congers up everything from self-confidence to better than thou... hang your head low and say, "gee shucks it ain't nothin" when given a compliment because you can't accept it lest you be tagged arrogant. That's not it. It's kind of lying that your no good so people don't think your head is too big. Make any sense?

On the other point, When ancient scripts can be so ambiguous that even the scholars can't put it into "perfect" context, I can't possibly figure out how people can make them infallible... unless you add the convinient feature of "being chosen by god to understand" which implies they are on some higher plain than the rest of us or "really, really, truly, truly seek to understand, exorcising all other sources of information that are not their sacred text" which implies that others aren't able to work hard enough for god to notice or care.

Your input highly appreciated, ST.

Arrogant - is unteachable or is unwilling to learn. 'Love that word.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 11:38 AM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(21-09-2011 10:39 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(21-09-2011 08:42 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Defacto, hope you don't mind me commenting on this post, and this will probably be the only entry, but I would suggest that the concept of arrogance, though for obvious reasons is not "translated from english to Hebrew," is definitely seen in scripture. Here is a place to start, if you are interested in looking at this:

Pro 8:13 The fear 3374 of the LORD 3068 [is] to hate 8130 evil 7451: pride 1344, and arrogancy 1347, and the evil 7451 way 1870, and the froward 8419 mouth 6310, do I hate 8130.

Isa 13:11 And I will punish 6485 the world 8398 for [their] evil 7451, and the wicked 7563 for their iniquity 5771; and I will cause the arrogancy 1347 of the proud 2086 to cease 7673, and will lay low 8213 the haughtiness 1346 of the terrible 6184.

Jer 48:29 We have heard 8085 the pride 1347 of Moab 4124, (he is exceeding 3966 proud 1343) his loftiness 1363, and his arrogancy 1346, and his pride 1347, and the haughtiness 7312 of his heart 3820.


These are taken from Strong's Concordance, see here for the link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/tr...1347&t=KJV

The general topic of pride covers a lot of things that could be individually separated and examined and categorized with different english translations.

Hope I am not suggesting a "better than thou" attitude, just wanted to give you another direction to consider what you propose.

S.T.

Absolutely, ST. The concept exists but from what I understand it is a twist in the function of the word since the translator needs to decide if that is in fact what the ancient scripts are trying to say.

So I guess my point is 2 fold, one - the beauty of the literal translation of the word, and two - the misrepresentation that can happen when translating an ancient script. I really appreciate the literal translation of this particular word because I believe the English definition has been tainted by religious concepts. For instance, if you say arrogant in English (or at least in the US), it congers up everything from self-confidence to better than thou... hang your head low and say, "gee shucks it ain't nothin" when given a compliment because you can't accept it lest you be tagged arrogant. That's not it. It's kind of lying that your no good so people don't think your head is too big. Make any sense?

On the other point, When ancient scripts can be so ambiguous that even the scholars can't put it into "perfect" context, I can't possibly figure out how people can make them infallible... unless you add the convinient feature of "being chosen by god to understand" which implies they are on some higher plain than the rest of us or "really, really, truly, truly seek to understand, exorcising all other sources of information that are not their sacred text" which implies that others aren't able to work hard enough for god to notice or care.

Your input highly appreciated, ST.

Arrogant - is unteachable or is unwilling to learn. 'Love that word.

Just a quick note (picking up another truck and thought I would pop in).

Just going to respond in order rather than break this up. Some good points are raised and it applies not just to interpretation of the ancient manuscripts and languages in relation to "scripture," but as you point out, we can see even in our time where interpretation is sometimes needed. Take for instance, those in certain parts of the south. I don't know if it just me but I have a hard time understanding those who speak, I think it is called, Creole.

Anyway, paragraph 1-usually the content of the passage will reveal the context, such as in the above verses, there is a starting point in understanding which can progress to the original language, as well as cross referencing how these words are used in other passages. Having done that, we balance that with the teaching (or intent) of the current passage, then with the teaching of the book, then the teaching of the entire collection of books (or relevant resources).

The translators of the KJV used the english word arrogancy to translate this particular word which also accompanies words similar, but for some reason the original writer felt compelled to differentiate, or, use several words to describe a particular behavioral type.

While I have not had time to look into this further, I will say that I love when questions or points are raised that give me reason to look further into it. At a guess, I would say that probably we will find a root word (perhaps pride) with variants (like haughtiness or arrogancy) but because the Hebrew language at times can take multiple english words to carry the meaning of one Hebrew word, which could be said of most languages when translated I would think, it makes it a very rewarding pursuit, at least for me it does anyway (did I say a quick note?).

Paragragh 2- It does make sense. Look at the word bad, for instance. In our culture it can mean both good (awesome, cool) or bad. If anyone has a talent for giving new meaning to english, that would be us. Although I still think the English at times are worse than we are (just a li'el humor there...very li'el).

Imagine someone trying to interpret some of the things of our current generation in a couple hundred years.

Sometimes, there are words in the original language that have never been translated (Gen. 1:1, first occurence of 853). But interpretation is really a science, though I always believe that the "common man" such as myself can gain an understanding, though my scholarly credentials be non-existant.

Lastly, one of the primary teachings of scripture would be for the reader to recognize that such behavior is not a good thing. But, as in the case of "meekness," we balance the teachings found throughout scripture to come to a conclusion as well as to discern between pride (bad) and pride (good), and meekness (nearing cowardice) and meekness (strength under control). We know that it is not a bad thing to have pride in a job well done, and that is the word we would use in that context, but an examination of the verses where arrogancy is used, for instance, would show that the context is that of condemnation for the "pride" in view.

Quote:On the other point, When ancient scripts can be so ambiguous that even the scholars can't put it into "perfect" context, I can't possibly figure out how people can make them infallible... unless you add the convinient feature of "being chosen by god to understand" which implies they are on some higher plain than the rest of us or "really, really, truly, truly seek to understand, exorcising all other sources of information that are not their sacred text" which implies that others aren't able to work hard enough for god to notice or care.


This one I copied because things move very slow for me on this site: sometimes it takes several minutes for a function to complete.

It is not "the words" so much that we feel is inerrant, at myself, anyway. While I do feel that absolutely the particular words used are there for a specific reason, it is the teaching itself within scripture that is without error. For instance, certain epistles are directed to the leadership of the Church, such as 1 and 2 Timothy. Within that teaching is direct instruction to Timothy, but we also see instruction to Church leadership in general, and beyond that general principles that apply to our individual lives.

But if I were to say that every word was inerrant and should be applied, I would "take a little wine" if I were sick, rather than address that particular sickness with the medicines that are available to us today. Hope that makes sense.

As a believer, I will say that I do not set myself on "a higher plain" than anyone else as a general rule. While it is true that scripture teaches that understanding spiritual things of God (such as scripture) can be accomplished only by those that are born again, I also believe that we can see a general principle in salvation itself, when God is convicting someone, that they will be given understanding, and this may or may not result in repentance.

But as far as generality goes, I have witnessed both grace as well as less than graceful behavior on the part of both sides. I know those who are atheists that I consider to be friends, and I know those who are supposed to be saved...which I do not. I look at this as par for the course when looking at the interaction between people in general.

Have to go, but I would be curious as to what the scholars cannot put into "perfect context." This is the kind of thing that, for me, makes life interesting.

All right, have to go, and it may be a few days before I can get back. I have let my work go a little too much already this week, and just found out my Mom has to have surgery on friday, so things could be busy.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate that.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 02:19 PM
RE: I seem to be off topic too much... so.... definitions
(21-09-2011 11:38 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Thanks for the response, I appreciate that.
S.T.

Your welcome. My thoughts are with you and your mother.

take care

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: