Biases

tampasteve · Jan 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
A question for you to think on; does the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible have a declaration in its front matter telling what theological biases will be used in its notes?

It doesn't need to, all "Study Bibles" are produced for the audience they are made for. It should be obvious to anyone that a "Catholic Study Bible" will have Catholic biases, just as the "Spurgeon Study Bible" will obviously have Baptist or Evangelical biases.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

tampasteve said:
It doesn't need to, all "Study Bibles" are produced for the audience they are made for. It should be obvious to anyone that a "Catholic Study Bible" will have Catholic biases, just as the "Spurgeon Study Bible" will obviously have Baptist or Evangelical biases.

I feel safer with Catholic biases, they are more "universal"

Always in His Presence · Jan 9, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Thus i think most Protestant theologians from mainstream traditional liturgical churches would, at present, prefer objective translations of Scripture, insofar as this is possible.

Can you give an example of objective translation v literal.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Hebrews 2:17 RSV-CE Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.

The Greek for 'expiation' is

Strongs #G2433

ἱλάσκομαι; (see below); in classical Greek the middle of an act. ἱλάσκω (to render propitious, appease) never met with;
1. to render propitious to oneself, to appease, conciliate to oneself

to render one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self
1. to become propitious, be placated or appeased
2. to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful
to expiate, make propitiation for

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Can you give an example of objective translation v literal.

I don’t believe objective translation is either easily attained or desirable - rather, we should want Scripture to be an honest translation but one that makes clear Christological references in the Old Testament.

That said one of the more objective translations I am aware of was that of the Septuagint assuming the history of how it was first translated in the third century BC is correct. But that being said, while the Septuagint has more Christological references than the Masoretic, the Masoretic has some that the Septuagint lacks, for example, Psalm 1 v. 12.

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2025

tampasteve said:
It doesn't need to, all "Study Bibles" are produced for the audience they are made for. It should be obvious to anyone that a "Catholic Study Bible" will have Catholic biases, just as the "Spurgeon Study Bible" will obviously have Baptist or Evangelical biases.

And likewise the Orthodox Study Bible has Orthodox biases (although not enough, in my opinion). And I am entirely comfortable with this.

Always in His Presence · Jan 9, 2025

The Liturgist said:
I don’t believe objective translation is either easily attained or desirable - rather, we should want Scripture to be an honest translation but one that makes clear Christological references in the Old Testament.

That is referred to as a Christophany - an Old Testament appearance of a noon physical Christ. I think Zech 3 is a great example of such

I'm still not understanding what is mean by an "objective translation" can you give an example of an objective translation, vs a literal translation for an example. Please and thank you.

The Liturgist said:
That said one of the more objective translations I am aware of was that of the Septuagint assuming the history of how it was first translated in the third century BC is correct. But that being said, while the Septuagint has more Christological references than the Masoretic, the Masoretic has some that the Septuagint lacks, for example, Psalm 1 v. 12.

Psalm 1:12 ?? Psalm 1 only has 6 verses

Eternally Grateful · Jan 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
I recently acquired an ESV Study Bible (hardback) for use in studying what Evangelicals teach. I expected the study notes to be slanted towards standard evangelical perspectives, and such is the case. Here's a statement from the ESV Study Bible about its theological perspectives:
View attachment 359495
I think it is rather cringeworthy considering that it comes from a school of religious thinking that advocates in favour of Sola Scriptura.

So you would rather it come from a school of men? Which men would you rather it come from?

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

Eternally Grateful said:
So you would rather it come from a school of men? Which men would you rather it come from?

whoever it comes from it is from men (or women).

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
That is referred to as a Christophany - an Old Testament appearance of a noon physical Christ. I think Zech 3 is a great example of such

Not all Christological references in the Old Testament are Theophanies of the subtype Christophany. Rather, there are prophecies of Christ that permeate the text so completely that it would not be inaccurate to regard the entire Old Testament as one giant Christological prophecy, even setting aside His own personal appearances. We know this because of Luke 24 - any reading of the Old Testament becomes shaped by the knowledge that all the books of the Law and Prophets and the Psalms speak about Him.

Eternally Grateful · Jan 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
whoever it comes from it is from men (or women).

scripture came from god. it is inspired.. so why would you not trust it more?

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
I'm still not understanding what is mean by an "objective translation" can you give an example of an objective translation, vs a literal translation for an example. Please and thank you.

A literal translation is not necessarily objective, although one could argue dynamic equivalence is more likely to be biased so all objective translations would be literal.

The only translation I am aware of, aside from interlinear translations which are scarcely readable, that might be objective, that is, utterly without even subconscious or accidental bias but based on extant Hebrew texts the existence of which has been confirmed through the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Septuagint, assuming the story of how it was translated in the Third Century BC imto Greek by 72 Jewish scholars working in parallel who translated the text in the same way is accurate and not merely a legend.

But there is no cause for alarm, because bias is not inherently bad provided we are upfront about it. We ideally want our translations to be biased in favor of showing Christological prophecy in the Old Testament as clearly as possible, I would argue.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

Eternally Grateful said:
scripture came from god. it is inspired.. so why would you not trust it more?

Inspiration does not make it non-human.

Always in His Presence · Jan 9, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Not all Christological references in the Old Testament are Theophanies of the subtype Christophany. Rather, there are prophecies of Christ that permeate the text so completely that it would not be inaccurate to regard the entire Old Testament as one giant Christological prophecy, even setting aside His own personal appearances. We know this because of Luke 24 - any reading of the Old Testament becomes shaped by the knowledge that all the books of the Law and Prophets and the Psalms speak about Him.

Then from my POV we are blending terms.

A theophany is Manifestation of God that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period often, but not always, in human form.

While a Christophany is Christ in the preincarnate appearance of Christ

While Christology is the study of Christ.

That is where I am getting into the weeds as we speak - we have differring definitions

Xeno.of.athens said:
Inspiration does not make it non-human.

Divinely inspired makes it non-human.

2 Tim 3:16 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Divinely inspired makes it non-human.

No.

No, it doesn't.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 LSB I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. (16) Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.

Always in His Presence · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
2 Tim 3:16 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Yes it does. Unless you are saying Saint Timothy is wrong

Xeno.of.athens said:
No.

No, it doesn't.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 LSB I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. (16) Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.

We are not talking about baptism

Aaron112 · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Divinely inspired makes it non-human.

Amen. Tradition opposed to and put over God's Word is human.
God's Inspiration, and all of God's Words and thoughts, are as high as heaven is above the earth different, and divine, from above, as written.

Aaron112 · Jan 9, 2025

Eternally Grateful said:
scripture came from god. it is inspired.. so why would you not trust it more?

Ye, Thy Word oh God is like GOLD, much fine GOLD, and sweeter than the honeycomb!

Man's word is here today, gone in a few minutes or a day... not permanent.

God's Word is FOREVER TRUTH!

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Yes it does. Unless you are saying Saint Timothy is wrong

We are not talking about baptism

It was saint Paul who wrote both passages. Have you never read any of this before?

Always in His Presence · Jan 9, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
It was saint Paul who wrote both passages. Have you never read any of this before?

You are correct - Paul's letter to Timothy -

What does 2 Tim 3:16 mean?

2 Tim 3:16 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

What does it mean that ALL Scripture is breathed by God?

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 9, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
What does 2 Tim 3:16 mean?

it means people wrote the scriptures and that the writers were inspired by God to write.

Biases

Free state of Florida

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similar threads