Bible Translations Save Cultures, Spark Koran Translations in Post-Soviet (fwd link)

[Richard Smith]

Bulbul and Bill
apologies certainly accepted and i'm sorry if i offended anyone.
actually  i was hoping my silly piece had a little "double edged" play.

Because I think those who see through the lenses of Naturalism can often be
just as vulnerable to indoctrination and become defensive of their paradigms
as passionately as religious fundamentalists can be.

Bart D. Ehrman Chair. of the Dept. of Religious Studies at the University of
Carolina,once an evangelical  Christian, studying source documents for the
N.Testament  (Greek and Latin) shares his own personal dilemma.
(in  "Misquoting Jesus")

He had a choice 
Would he become a staunch defender of the FAITH?
or a defender of the truth he was discovering in these very human documents.
Seeing the bumpersticker "God said it, I believe it, That settles it for me"
he thought -  "What if God DIDN"T say it?"

I guess all of us in various linguistic fields probably ask ourselves,
How many of our "conclusions" are bent by our beliefs or desires?
vs. decisions made by an insatiable appetite to uncover reality.

Can one be too close emotionally in revitalization efforts
of ones OWN language to the point that decisions are rushed or
unconsciously bent towards goals that a skilled outsider linguist
 won't be temped by?  I find that would be hard to admit!

Bill, i definitely enjoyed that DARWIN WALL-STAIN!
reminded me of a "sacred smiley-face frybread" for a shrine
 using a butane torch...
inspired by a story about The Virgin Mary on a Tortilla
I once heard or read about...

personally 
i enjoy these interactions on ILAT !

Richard Zane Smith
Wyandotte Oklahoma


On 9/26/08 8:10 PM, "Slavomír Čéplö" <bulbulthegreat at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> you're right, I have overreacted, my apologies to both you and
> Richard. The article describes a workshop held by the Institute of
> Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences which, as far as I
> know, has nothing to do with SIL and is quite likely to be staffed by
> atheists or Orthodox Christians. Hence my insistence on explaining the
> obvious to make sure no one is painting all Christians with the same
> brush. I did get that the Darwin joke was aimed at the KJV-first
> crowd, but I still think that the proper way to piss off a fundie is
> actually read the Bible to them. Especially those bits they seem to
> miss.
> 
> Getting back to the article and speaking of bible-thumpers, I found
> the following passage quite ironic:
> 
> As any student of Western civilization knows, the translation of the
> Bible from the Latin into German and English helped spark the
> Reformation because once people could read the sacred text directly
> rather than having it mediated through priests, they were in a
> position to make choices that changed the faith fundamentally. It is
> thus entirely possible that translations of the Koran will have the
> same effect, and it will be one of the true ironies of history if
> translations of the Bible ... prompt translations of the Koran that in
> turn could open the way for the reformation of Islam.
> 
> But the fact that people can read the sacred text directly has
> ultimately led to heresies like dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby's
> translation and the Scofield Reference Bible) which is the source of
> most present-day crazy-ass evangelical doctrines. I am not filled with
> optimism in the case of the Quran, especially considering how most
> translations of the Quran (at least in Europe) are financed by Saudi
> waqfs.
> 
> bulbul
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:39 AM, William J Poser <wjposer at ldc.upenn.edu>
> wrote:
>> Bulbul,
>> 
>> I am well aware that Christianity is compatible with evolution.
>> The Catholic Church, after all, has no problem with evolution,
>> nor do most "mainline" Protestants. I'm not sure why my comment
>> would be interpreted as suggesting this. My humorous goal was
>> simply to suggest a counterpoint to the translation of religious
>> texts. "The Origin of Species" seems apropos because, although Christians
>> in general have no problem with evolution, the evangelicals who comprise
>> the great majority of SIL people, do not accept evolution.
>> 
>> Bill
>>