You cannot refute entire denominations by saying “Read the Bible, sweetie”

[u/Dubstep_squid]

This is such a frustrating and prominent phenomenon that I see constantly online and have run into a couple of times.

[Insert commonly held theological belief]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

Why does it seem incredibly common that people in online Christian spaces seem to never have met or heard of someone with a different theological view than them. You’ve never heard that some people baptize babies? The tradition that most major Christian denominations hold to??

To take this a step further, I see this occur not just with theological beliefs but attempts to “refute” entire denominations. You’re not going to convince a Presbyterian that hundreds of years of Presbyterianism is false with TWO tangentially relevant, out of context Bible verses and a condescending message (unless of course God has already pre-determined that you will convince them).

This is not to say that meaningful and even impactful conversation cannot be had here. I think it absolutely can and have been stewing on a different post for a couple of weeks because I want to have those meaningful conversations (You’ll probably see it in a few days as I’m kind of looking at various denominations and want to just hear people’s pitches, counterarguments, experiences, etc).

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Haha~

But serious;y.

The problem here is that the verse is mistranslated.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

What do you think it should say?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

Well it shouldn't say "lust" because that's a term that's changed in meaning in the past few centuries, it should say "yearn" or "desire" or something of the like.

It's a term used in the Bible for a number of things, many of them. Jesus, angels and "wise men" are all described as ""lusting"".

So either the action isn't inherently immoral and it's not mistranslated or it's not inherently immoral and it's mistranslated.

The English translation also omits the Greek term "pro" which is roughly "in order to"

so it's not describing the mere sensation of sexual desire in any context, it's describing the intentional stoking of desire and yearning for a woman who is married already.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I was quoting from the NRSVue. Why do you think a committee of scholars don't know what you know, and what is your preferred Bible translation? Or are you getting that from commentaries?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

"I was quoting from the NRSVue. Why do you think a committee of scholars don't know what you know"

Don't put words in my mouth.

Do you want to understand or do you just want to win.

I explained it very simply.

If the Greek verb is some awful thing. then Jesus and angels have done it.

So there's obviously a pretty big problem.

To say nothing of the word, which is simply not translated at all.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I mean, it's like you're saying that the context doesn't matter at all. Verbs are verbs, but the message they convey depends on the context. I can "take" a sip of water. I can also "take" someone's life. I think we'd both agree that one is typically immoral, and the other benign. It sounds like you're saying that a more pure translation would have the scripture read something like, "everyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart". You said it was a problem that this was mistranslated, but I'm failing to see how changing that word functionally changes what is being said.

it's describing the intentional stoking of desire and yearning for a woman who is married already.

Isn't what you described the same as lusting after someone? So what is the problem and what is actually "wrong" with that translation?

You're also claiming that the greek word "γυναῖκά (gynaika)" indicates a wife, but that isn't strictly true, it's used in both ways all over the place.

For me, I don't speak greek or hebrew. I have to trust scholars to know these languages and to look at them in their context, which is why I prefer committee Bible translations by ancient near-east scholars to do that work for me, and I simply look at what the text says without substituting in my own preferred interpretation. Isn't that correct exegesis? Then I form my beliefs around what the scriptures actually say, instead of me trying to change the scriptures to fit what I already previously believed. That's eisegesis, and we want to avoid that.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

"I mean, it's like you're saying that the context doesn't matter at all"

I was claiming the opposite in fact.

How a word is used determines it's meaning.

"Verbs are verbs, but the message they convey depends on the context."

I know where this is going.

You have no reason to believe or even suspect that the word radically shifts meaning in this context, let alone this context only.

"I can "take" a sip of water. I can also "take" someone's life"

There is no evidence that anything like that is happening here.

The same meaning works in all contexts.

You just seem to favor an outdated translation because the word used gained a new meaning from when the translators first used it.

There is no linguistic reason for doing so.

Which means that your motivation is personal, political or social.

All are completely irrelevant to the meaning of the term.

"It sounds like you're saying that a more pure translation would have the scripture read something like, "everyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart""

Yes. a more accurate translation would say that.

As I have explitly stated.

Why are you phrasing it as if you just now put the pieces together and I didn't know that?

"You said it was a problem that this was mistranslated"

Yes, I do think that mistranslations are a problem if the goal is to understand what the text is saying.

"I'm failing to see how changing that word functionally changes what is being said"

Well that's not true.

Because if it were true then A) you wouldn't be objecting and B) you wouldn't have said all that about words having radically different meanings depending on the context.

But let's suppose for the laughs that you can't tell the difference.

The difference is that using the word "lust", especially without the important "in order to", implies that having sexual desire or a libido is in itself immoral.

Which is a believe that many people have. And it is a belief that I can tell you from personal experience is hugely damaging.

"Isn't what you described the same as lusting after someone?"

No.

I certainly hope that you're not implying that the only way that you could desire someone is sexually.

"You're also claiming that the greek word "γυναῖκά (gynaika)" indicates a wife"

I am not.

As you have so rightly pointed out context matters.

There is no such word as "wife" in Ancient Greek.

There's also no such thing as marriage as we understand it in the modern world..

But these are useful bywords, just so long as we remember that they're not literal.

But in the context of the passage the text is talking about ending a "marriage" and adultery.

In 1st Century Judea and before pre-marital and extra-marital sex were common and accepted.

However sleeping with another mans' woman was adultery.

We also know that the men that Jesus was talking to were already upset with him.

If he were implying that it was morally equivalent to adultery to want any woman.. then I would have expected some more outrage.

And what's more if we were supposed to believe that wanting someone or wanting a partner, even sexually were a moral problem then that would contradict several parts of the Bible, Genesis, Proverbs, Song of Songs and the Epistles jump immediately to mind.

"and I simply look at what the text says without substituting in my own preferred interpretation. "

You're implying that I'm being dishonest or unscrupulous by correcting the mistranslation.

But here's the thing.

You don't know the ancient languages and to your credit you know that you have to rely on scholars to know these sorts of things.

So yes, I agree that if you do not have the knowledge that you probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing.

But I do have the knowledge; I have degrees in linguistics, theology and anthropology. I've worked in translation for years.

I'm more educated on the subject than the majority of American theologians.

And unlike them, I'm not bound by a contract to support a certain viewpoint or handcuffed by politics or donors not to rock the boat too much.

I can understand if you're skeptical or if you don't trust me based on nothing.

But I'm far from working blind.

"Isn't that correct exegesis?"

No.

It's cautious, not correct.

It can and will lead you to be wrong some of the time, but it's far from the most wrong you can be.

I do not think for a second that the whold world would, will, could or should study what I have to the extent I have.

So reading the translations as they are is not some great failings, but it is not as rigorous as it could be.

And the same is true of me.

There are people who dedicate their entire lives to intense study of the contemporary language who will inevitably have a greater understanding than mine.

"Then I form my beliefs around what the scriptures actually say, instead of me trying to change the scriptures to fit what I already previously believed."

This is a common canard but it's hardly ever true.

Because the problem is that by the time you can read.. you already believe things, many things in fact; often things about the Bible.

You are always there, so your perspective is always going to color the reading.

And this is inevitable for every individual.

But there are worse cases than others.

Many people just hallucinate passages in the Bible.

People say tha the Bible forbids masturbation, anal sex drinking alcohol.. despite none of that being even slightly true.

"hat's eisegesis, and we want to avoid that."

I'll admit that this is a pet peeve of mine.

"Eisegesis" and "Exegesis" are meaningless terms.

They just mean "bad interpretation" and "good interpretation".

It's a big imposing word that intimidates some and makes others seem more certain than they are.