Telephone Pictionary

"For last year's words belong to last year's language/ And next year's words await another voice." -T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

 As I am still working on putting the final touches to a very long blog post, I will again make this post a relatively short one.  What I am discussing this week is a difficulty I have had in discussing the Bible with certain atheists.  Being that this subject can often be troublesome enough, there have been times where I have been frustrated even further by one complication which seems to crop up again and again.

This particular issue I have is that some atheists, when they are debating the Bible, often read from the King James Version.  This particular translation of the Bible, which was originally completed in 1611 (Wikipedia), remains one of the most popular translations of the text even to this day.  And while there is nothing in particular wrong with the King James Translation in general, it is a horrible place for most modern people to begin when attempting to approach the Bible.  I will attempt to explain why.

But first, allow me to say that I have nothing against the good old KJV.  We modern English-speaking Christians owe a lot to people like William Tyndale and John Wycliffe who fought to bring the text of the Bible into a language that could be read and understood by people who were not clergy.  The democratization of scripture has been an important factor in shaping the church for the past few centuries (in a mostly positive way).  But that does not necessarily mean that there have never been any problems caused by using this translation.

You Don't Speak Early Modern English

Or maybe you do, but the vast majority of modern people who speak contemporary English do not speak Early Modern English.  This is the first difficulty I have seen with atheists approaching the KJV.  It is literally written in a different language!  Now, I'm not a fool.  I know that Early Modern English is very similar to Modern English in many respects, and much of the KJV can be properly understood, even if one only knows Modern English.  But there are certain significant differences which can confuse and even mislead modern readers if they do not have a sufficient enough background in this older form of communication.

It is due to this fact that I periodically see or hear an atheist talking about how ridiculous the Bible is and how stupid anyone would be to believe in such a book, and then go on to quote a passage from the KJV.  One I have seen recently references Isaiah 34:7- "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." (KJV)  Now, I understand that the wording here is awkward, especially when viewed through a 21st century lens.  But the remark that I have seen most commonly is usually some kind of mockery against Christians for believing in unicorns.

Who cares that this is a prophetic passage full of metaphor and doesn't imply that this is literally what is going to happen?  The very fact that a mythical creature is referenced seems to provide some kind of evidence against the Bible, right?  What these scoffers fail to understand is that the word unicorn here meant something totally different in King James' day than it does today.  In fact, as far as I can find, the English term did not have a well-defined meaning until at least the 18th century.  This chart (though not necessarily exhaustive) indicates that the term did not come into common usage until around 1750, more than a century after the KJV was completed.  Furthermore,the Hebrew word re'em (רֶאֵם), which is the word in question, is known to allude to a different creature entirely (this isn't my area of expertise; see Encyclopedia Mythica for more information).  This term may refer to a real animal, or it may not.  In any case, it is still a part of a metaphorical passage and does not in itself discredit the passage or the Bible as a whole.

Metamorphosis

So why was the scripture translated thus?  I do not know for certain, but I believe that the translators likely did not know the Jewish background of the word and so did a transliteration from the Latin Vulgate (see the verse here, with the Latin translation unicornes).  "Transliteration" is the process by which a new term is created in one language by stylizing a word from a different language which has no adequate counterpart in the destination language.  Many words have come into the English language in this manner.  It is perhaps unfortunate that the term unicorn has taken on a different denotation since the writing of the KJV.  Personally, I still think there is nothing wrong with its use, as long as one understands the background.

In this respect, reading the KJV can be a lot like playing Telephone Pictionary.  This is one of my all-time favorite games to play in a small group (see instructions here).  In short, one person will write a phrase on a piece of paper and then pass it to his neighbor who will draw a picture depicting that phrase.  The picture is then passed to the next player who writes his own phrase describing it.  This phrase is passed to another player who will draw another representation which will itself be interpreted, and so on.  With more and more iterations, the idea depicted on the paper usually gets farther and farther from the initial phrase, generally with hilarious results.

This is what we do many times when we approach the King James Version of the Bible.  This version of the Bible was translated from the original (Hebrew or Greek), and the translator had to be careful to understand the context of the scripture as well as the literal meaning of the words.  Due to the language barrier I described above, we then have to "translate" the Early Modern English text into terms we can understand.  But while doing this, we must be mindful of the context, not only of when the Bible was written but also of when it was translated.  And this can cause substantial difficulties.

"Authorized"

It is for this reason that I advocate using a more modern translation of the Bible.  Unfortunately, some in the English church itself have held onto the King James Version, dubbing it the "Authorized Version" some time around 1814. (again, Wikipedia)  This, among other factors, has led to it being seen as somehow greater than subsequent English-language translations.

Again, I have no major problems with the KJV, but I certainly do not think it is a good place for people who are new to Christianity to start.  So, which translation would I suggest?  Well, I don't think any one translation is far and away better than the rest, but there are some criteria which I would suggest sticking to when choosing a translation to read:

1. Pick a version which was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek.  This will help to avoid the "Telephone Pictionary" effect I described above.  Most modern translations fit this criteria.
2. Pick a version which was translated by a group of people.  In my opinion, groups are far less likely to make mistakes than individuals, and a variety of viewpoints can be invaluable to discerning the most accurate translation of a passage.  Again, most modern translations fit the bill, with the obvious exception of The Message.  There are many differing opinions on this particular translation.  I appreciate the work that Peterson did, and I have no particular objections to this translation, but I tend to stay away from using it for classes and other settings where word-by-word accuracy is important.
3. Pick a version that has been around for a while.  New translations are exciting and can offer new perspectives, but unless you have been a Biblical scholar for a long time, wait until these translations have been vetted by such scholars before using one for your personal study.

I believe quite deeply that the Bible is God's Word.  But I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that a translation error could have been made in a particular version of the text.  And certainly some such errors have been made.  But I have found that the modern translations which I have used are consistent and reliable.  My personal translation of choice (in case you haven't noticed) is the New International Version (NIV), primarily because I am most familiar with this translation (as of the writing of this post, I have read it all the way through more than three times).  However, I also like versions such as the New American Standard (NASB), the New Revised Standard (NRSV), the English Standard (ESV), the New King James (NJKV), the Amplified Bible (AMP), the New Living Translation (NLT), and others.  Each has great value, and I have utilized each for various instances.

The point is, if you are new to the Bible, pick a modern translation that you like and stick with it for a while.  The King James Version is still very useful.  It has a poetry to it that is unlike most modern translations, and the fact that it is less accessible is not always a bad thing for Christians who have been digesting the Word for a long time.  But if you are new to this book, unless you only speak the Middle Early form of English, I would suggest letting the Authorized Version sit for a while.  And we Christians, when talking to someone who is relatively new to the text, would also do well to stay away from the KJV.

I thank God for the people who have worked to create a Bible that I can understand, and I pray blessings on those who continue to update it in our language and those who work hard to bring it to new languages.  This is a book truly unlike any other.

"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?  As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" -Romans 10:14-15

Lost in Translation

I'm in the process of editing what will be one of the longest and (I hope) most important blog posts I have done on this site.  Unfortunately, this blog has languished while I have been giving my attention to that particular post.  I apologize to everyone who has been a supporter of this endeavor; I know it's difficult to follow a thread like this when the posting is inconsistent.  Hopefully I will be able to publish that post before too long and get back to a more regular schedule.  In the mean time, I will be posting lighter topics which will have substantially less discussion.  Thank you for your patience.

Recently I have abandoned most of my typical social networking activity in favor of reading and discussing on Google+.  In particular, I have found a group on that site which is focused on discussing apologetics topics.  The majority of the participants in this community are Christians, but there have been some active atheist participants there as well.

Now, I understand that there is necessarily some tension between people of differing worldviews when it comes to topics of philosophy, and a certain amount of conflict is not a bad thing.  In fact, I am a huge proponent of public debate (the real thing, not what you see on TV) and I love discussing divisive topics with people I don't necessarily agree with.  But there are certain ways to express what I think and how I feel that are immeasurably more effective than others.

A common issue I have had when discussing various topics about my faith is simply a cultural one.  In order to have a proper debate, there must be at least a small amount of agreement between the two parties so that the merits of each side can be properly assessed.  This sliver of understanding is typically philosophical in nature, and it is usually relatively foundational to either side's stance on the topic.

Intruding on the Premises

To illustrate this point, let's examine the case of two people debating whether or not music education should be taught in public schools.  There might be several different positions people can take on this issue, but in order to debate the topic in any meaningful way, a seed of consensus must be established.  This point of agreement is often called a premise.  It might not be explicitly stated, but it is there.

In this case, it is likely that all parties involved in the debate agree that the students' best interests should be one of the most important factors in deciding whether or not to teach music.  Another point of contention could be that since the school system's money is limited, monetary concerns are valid.  All parties might also agree that the program should only be implemented if an adequate instructor can be found.  These considerations, among others, are either explicitly or implicitly agreed upon before meaningful conversation can be had.

The debate itself will likely center around these philosophical foundations.  How do we define students' "best interests?"  And what criteria should we use to determine whether or not music education will further that goal?  How should we divide up the school system's limited resources?  What exactly constitutes an "adequate" instructor?  All of these are questions which might get thrown out once the debate has begun.

For a second, imagine what the process would be like if there were a participant in this discussion who did not agree to one of the premises stated above.  Suppose we were forced to spend the entire debate trying to convince this person that we should have the students' best interests in mind.  There would be no time for a productive debate which might yield a mutually agreeable solution to the issue at hand.  Instead, we would be locked in a fruitless argument with very little ground on which to establish premises with the agitator.  I'm not saying that this discussion would be impossible or that no positive outcomes could be had, but the original question would not have been touched.

I Feel Your Pain

Disclaimer: I am not writing this blog post in an attempt to set forth my beliefs about creationism.  Please keep all comments on topic.  Comments attempting to support or refute creationism or evolutionary theory will be deleted.  There is a time and place for those discussions, but this is not it.

I think many times discussions between atheists and theists suffer from complications like that in the example above.  Even when both sides are respectful and have a sincere passion for the truth, their philosophical foundations can make it impossible for them to communicate on the same wavelength.

The most common example which I have seen in my own life is in discussions about evolutionary theory and creationism.  I am a creationist, and this has driven many of the atheists I talk to crazy, because they are convinced that in order to hold this worldview I have to ignore the entirety of modern science.  The evidence, they say, points conclusively to life which is a happy accident of chemical reactions.

It might surprise them, then, to discover that I agree, in a sense.  The evidence certainly seems to support this hypothesis (to say conclusively is an extreme overstatement), if we first assume that there is no God.  I will grant that if God does not exist, then global speciation by natural selection is the most likely explanation for how all of life got here.

However, I do not grant this philosophical assumption.  In my particular paradigm, it is indeed possible that God created everything on earth in a relatively short amount of time, and that life has been vast and varied virtually from its inception.  And I maintain that at least the majority of the evidence which, to the atheist, must support evolutionary theory can just as adequately be used to support a creationist view of the world.

Therefore, there is always a frustration which results on the part of the atheist when we discuss evolutionary theory.  Why?  Because there is a philosophical disparity which hinders our proper communication.  I feel the same frustration when I am discussing morality with atheists.  It can become a real problem, especially when the void left by normal debate tactics is filled by ad hominem attacks and the like.

So what should the fallout of this discussion be?  Should we abandon discourse altogether between atheists and theists?  Certainly not.  But we should always be mindful of these difficulties when debating with people who hold to other worldviews.  My two basic rules of debate are: (1) Be respectful and (2) Be reasonable.  If we can maintain these two attitudes and attempt to understand the source of the other person's views, we might just be able to have some productive conversation.  That is my hope and my prayer, at any rate.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." -1 Corinthians 1:18

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  ...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." -1 Corinthians 15:13-14,17-19