mfbukowski Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Okay Mark. I am not arguing that we are correct, only that we are at least honestly wrong. As I admitted, I don't have the tools to be critical about translations. I bristle more at Catholics being accused of dishonesty than I do of merely being told Catholics are wrong. Wrong is okay. Wrong is expected. As for perfection...I didn't mention it. My only contention at this point is that non-Trinitarians seems to translate the same way as us folks who are "predisposed" the wrong way.I was referring to "I AM" vs "I am becoming". I am implies completion to me, maybe I am wrong about that. Now that I think about it, maybe I will go with "I am" as a translation since it probably does not imply completion anyway. After all, I exist, and I AM hardly perfect, and I also believe I am eternal. Now that I think about it, according to LDS beliefs "I AM" could be spoken by any pre-existent spirit who is uncreated and eternal- and that would include all of us. So with the idea that Christ is my "spirit brother" then I suppose we all could say that. So nevermind the translation point- it is irrelevant. The LDS position is just as strong with a translation of "I AM" as "I AM BECOMING". In fact I kind of like the idea that existence itself is becoming. Very Heraclitus. To be is to be becoming. How's that for a 180??
mfbukowski Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Hi again Vance. On further reflection, I retract my "complaint". I don't think you intended to be saying things the way I read (pronounced red, past tense) them. Of course, if you wish to clarify that you were saying all translators were indeed intellectually dishonest, I could be willing to reintroduce my complaint. Otherwise, I am content to let that matter drop. I would still contend that it seems odd, if mistranslation has been due to a predisposition to the Trinity, that Jewish translations fail to correct the error. RoryJust to clarify after my 180, I don't think that the translation matters. What matters is the way the words are interpreted. If existence IS "becoming" instead of a Platonic idea of perfection- then the LDS interpretation works perfectly. Nevermind.
Vance Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Hi again Vance. On further reflection, I retract my "complaint". I don't think you intended to be saying things the way I read (pronounced red, past tense) them. Of course, if you wish to clarify that you were saying all translators were indeed intellectually dishonest, I could be willing to reintroduce my complaint. Otherwise, I am content to let that matter drop. I would still contend that it seems odd, if mistranslation has been due to a predisposition to the Trinity, that Jewish translations fail to correct the error. RoryI am not claiming that the translators were "dishonest". They simply see things based upon their predispositions. I don't know what the Jewish predispositions might be. So to me the fact that they admit that the translation could be rendered 'God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [i will be what I will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [i Will Be] has sent me to you.'"' is very interesting.
Vance Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The LDS position is just as strong with a translation of "I AM" as "I AM BECOMING".I agree. I just find it very interesting that the mechanical translations render it the way they do.
Ahab Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Hi again Vance.On further reflection, I retract my "complaint". I don't think you intended to be saying things the way I read (pronounced red, past tense) them. Of course, if you wish to clarify that you were saying all translators were indeed intellectually dishonest, I could be willing to reintroduce my complaint. Otherwise, I am content to let that matter drop.I would still contend that it seems odd, if mistranslation has been due to a predisposition to the Trinity, that Jewish translations fail to correct the error. RoryJews are in the same boat with Catholics when it comes to understanding the nature of God, which is why the Jews thought it was blasphemy for Jesus to suggest he had the same nature as God (our Father).
mfbukowski Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I agree.I just find it very interesting that the mechanical translations render it the way they do.Well it just shows how ambiguous it all is- of course we knew that but when actual scholars who supposedly know what they are doing find it ambiguous, it leaves a theological loophole the size of a semi in the whole argument of the hardline Platonic Unchanging Floating Ethereal Spirit God folks.
Recommended Posts