Archive for the ‘the Bible’ Category

For All You Agnostics

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

All my readers know that I have more patience for Agnosticism than for Atheism, since it’s easier to prove that you don’t or can’t understand something than to call someone a fool for believing something that has neither been dis-proven nor can be.

But enough about that. Today I’m going to answer two questions: “Can God dig a pit so deep that he can’t climb out,” and “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it.”

Before we can answer the questions we have to lay some groundwork. The reason these questions appear so confusing at first is because of the duplicity of the word “can” in the English language. This duplicity is shown in the definition of the word in the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:

“1 a : know how to b : be physically or mentally able to c —used to indicate possibility ; sometimes used interchangeably with may d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to f : be inherently able or designed to g : be logically or axiologically able to <2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1> h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to”

The word “can” can be used in the sense of a, b, and f; or, alternately, in the sense of c, d, e, or g. In other words, when we hear the story of how George Washington supposedly said, “I cannot tell a lie,” we understand implicitly that he was not saying he lacked the mental, emotional, physical or other capacity to tell a lie. He was saying that he was so determined never to lie that such a thing would never – and indeed could never – happen.

Hence when the non-Agnostic Deist says “God can do anything”, he isn’t claiming that God is *capable* of anything. He’s claiming that there are no limits on God’s abilities or on God’s powers – in other words, he’s over-simplifying the definition of “omnipotence.”

In fact, the Bible itself uses the same grammatical structure as the George Washington story when it states that “God cannot lie.” Obviously we are not to meant to understand that if God wished to lie, He would be unable to do so. All this means is that God has never lied and will never lie. There are no limits on God’s power that would actually prevent Him from lying if He should choose to do so, but since He will never choose to do so, since He is not a liar, since lying is inconsistent with His nature, He cannot lie. In other words, it *can’t* be correct that God lied; the event known as “God lied” can never occur; and, by that definition, God cannot lie.

So we’ve debunked the idea that Christians believe “God can do anything.” Let’s continue our discussion by giving simple answers to these two questions before moving on to the address underlying misunderstanding of God’s nature.

Question 1: Can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it?

This one is easy. Most see a paradox here, but I don’t. This question is actually a composite of two questions:
A) Is there a size limit for rocks that God could make?
B) Could there exist a rock so large that God couldn’t throw it?

Since we’ve already discussed the misuse of the word “can” in “God can do anything,” let’s take it as an assumption. If God is “omnipotent,” then there are no limits placed on the size of rock He is permitted to create. So the answer to the first question is no.

Again, if God is omnipotent, then there could not possibly exist a rock so large that God be “unable” to throw it, if He chose to (this stipulation is consistent with our definition of “can” as something that describes likelihood of occurrence rather than as something that describes capacity). So the answer to the second question, if we assume that God is omnipotent (which we must, as I will explain momentarily), is also no.

Why must we assume that God is omnipotent? Because if we didn’t, the question would be meaningless. If I were to ask you if you could create a rock so big that you couldn’t throw it, what would you say? That’s easy. “Of course I could.”

The real question is, “If God can do anything, doesn’t that mean He can create a rock so big that He can’t throw it?” But it should be, “If God is omnipotent, does that mean He can create a rock too big to throw,” or, in other words, “Does God’s omnipotence entail the ability to create a rock so big that He can’t throw it?” But I’m getting ahead of myself.

But enough of that, and back to the question. The trouble with splitting the question into two questions and answering them separately is that seem to rely on each other. In particular, the first part relies on the second part. It means, “assuming there could exist a rock so big that God couldn’t throw it, could God have created the rock?” In other words, the first part of the question falsely assumes that the answer to the second part of the question is, “Yes.” Since there is no limit to the size of rock that God can throw, there could not possibly exist a rock so large that God can’t throw it. And since such a rock can’t exist, God “can’t” create one.

“But wait!,” you say. “There’s something God can’t do!” How right you are! We have proven that the statement, “God can do anything,” is false (and that no one really believes it anyway), but we have not disproved God’s omnipotence, or His infinite power. It is precisely because God’s power is infinite that He can’t create such a rock. In other words, no matter how much power is required to throw a rock, that amount of power can’t be greater than the power that God possesses, because God’s power is unlimited. Therefore, even though there is no limit to the size of rock that God can create, the rock (even if the rock had an infinite size), could never become so large as to require a greater amount of power to throw than was at God’s disposal.

To clarify this further, let’s reword the question without changing it’s meaning: “If there existed a rock so large that God couldn’t throw it, could God have created the rock?” Again, let’s assume that “God can do anything,” since, if I were to ask, “If there existed a rock too large for Abraham to throw, could Abraham have created it” is a pointless question and the answer is obviously “yes.”

Now since “God can do anything,” it is unreasonable to believe that such a rock could exist. In other words, the question becomes, “If there existed a rock which could never exist, could God have created it?” Well no. Since the rock doesn’t exist, neither God nor anyone else could have created it.

So much for question 1. The answer is “No. Since God can[possesses the capacity to] do anything, He can’t[definitely has never and will certainly not ever] make a rock so big that He can’t throw it.”

Question 2: Can God dig a pit so deep that He can’t climb out?

We’ve already pretty much debunked this question, so we don’t really need to say anything more. Again, the answer is “no, because there is not, nor could there ever be, a pit so deep that God couldn’t climb out if He chose to, although there is also no limit to the depth of a pit that God could dig.” However, I’d also like to point out that this question overlooks something else about the nature of God, namely, His omnipresence.

Again, let’s break the question down into

A) Is there a limit to how deep a pit God can dig?

If God can do anything, the answer is “no.” In fact, the Bible even states that God is digging or has dug a “bottomless pit” into which He will eventually throw Satan.

B) Could there exist a pit so deep that God could not climb out?

Setting aside omnipresence for a moment, omnipotence alone says “no.” Again, only if the answer to one of these questions were “yes” could the combination of the two become a paradox. And the assumption that God is omnipotent precludes a “yes” answer to either question.

But back to omnipresence. The problem is that God is everywhere. If you jumped into a bottomless pit, you could never fall so far that God would not be present at that depth. Similarly, if you returned to the surface, God would still be there, outside the pit. In other words, God is simultaneously present both inside the pit and outside it. He would have no reason to “climb” out of the pit, and therefore, the question is meaningless. Whenever Christians talk about God “being” or “going” somewhere, it’s a metaphor that refers to His eternal presence at that location.

“Aha!,” you say. “But some Christians teach that hell is the place of separation from God.” Yes, but that separation is alienation. It doesn’t mean that God isn’t there. Even David said in the Psalms, “If I make my bed in hell, behold, You [, God,] are there.”

The real question is, “could God create a hole so deep that He would be trapped inside in the sense that we humans would be? Could such a hole become so deep that He would be unable to travel to or be present at other locations?” For this reason also, the answer is “no.”

You say you’ve found a contradiction? Because the Bible talks about God having a “mouth”, “eyes,” “ears,” “hands,” about God “going” there or “coming” here? To that I say, what is a mouth but speaking? What are ears but hearing? What are eyes (and incidentally, the Bible says that God’s “eyes” are in “every place”) but seeing? When God says, “I will visit my people,” He often means it in very much the same sort of ironic way a gangster means it when he says he’s going to “pay someone a little visit.” These passages are meant to communicate that God sees, hears, knows about, and can manipulate materials and circumstances that are relevant to us in time and space. He does not exist as an unapproachable foreign entity in some other dimension; instead, His ongoing work is evident in our own material world. Likewise, when a human being goes to another place, he must go there from the place where he is. Since God can be in both places at once, He has no such limitation, and can “go” anywhere without departing from where He is.

The Real Issue: Can God Get Himself into a situation He can’t get out of?
A better way to put this is, if God is vested with all power and authority, if there are no limits to what He may (although there are limits to what He can) do, then, can God put an irrevocable limit on His own power?

Let me give an example. While I own my car, I have the authority to drive it. I can smash it with a baseball bat if I want to. I can do anything I want (within the confines of the law, the realm of physical possibility etc.), but as soon as I sell my car, I move into an irreversible position. I no longer have power over the car, and there’s no way for me to get that power back. Since I have the authority to sell or give away my car, I have the power to give up my power.

Back to God. The question I’m asking is, is it possible for God to somehow undo His omnipotence? To remove that attribute of Himself? This is what both questions are really getting at. Can God (by whatever definition of the word “can”), put a cap on His own power?

I think God can and does restrain Himself. However, omnipotence is a characteristic of God – it isn’t a behavior. And if the Bible is to be believed, God’s character never changes. Yesterday, today, and forever, He remains the same. Therefore, in the sense of something that ever will or could possibly occur, God cannot cease to be omnipotent, because He cannot change. Whether He possesses the capacity to make changes to His own character is another question.

You have to remember that God didn’t create Himself. In addition to being omnipresent and omnipotent, He is eternal. Therefore in the sense that George Washington couldn’t lie (according to the story), God cannot change. Because if God could cease to be omnipotent, then by definition He would also cease to be God. (If God is defined as, “that omnipotent being who is eternal, unchanging, and omnipresent).

So the real question, when you boil it down is, “Can God stop being God.” Can a caterpillar become a butterfly is one question, can God (who, by definition, never changes), become anything other than God, is another question altogether. And the answer is no.

The only remaining question is, does omnipotence mean that the omnipotent one would succeed if He attempted to give up his omnipotence? I think that’s an important stipulation because we’ve established that such an attempt will never be made. But if such an attempt were made, would it be successful? I think the definition of omnipotence means that it would. So an omnipotent person could theoretically stop being omnipotent, but God in particular – who, in addition to being omnipotent, never changes – never will; even though He must indeed possess whatever power would be required for Him to do so.

So can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it, can He dig a pit so deep that He can’t climb out? In short, can God be anything other than God? No. Does that mean God is anything less than omnipotent? No. None of these questions say anything about who God is or what He is like, and they certainly fail to demonstrate that we have no hope of ever understanding Him.

Posted in friends, math, musings, philosophy, religion, the Bible | 5 Comments »

OH… MY… GOODNESS

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

I was listening to Michael Youssef today and he started talking about this conspiracy theory of his… it surrounds the Earth Charter. Ever heard of it?

Well… it’s not a theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Charter

Check the History section. Mikhail Gorbachev? Plus it’s been endorsed by over 250 universities around the world. And by the US Conference of mayors which consists of… all the mayors of US cities with populations of 30,000 or more.

“The Charter has received opposition from several groups. For example, in the United States, members of religious groups, such as the Religious Right have objected to the document on the grounds that it is secular, and espouses socialism. In addition, some conservatives cite an informal comment by Mikhail Gorbachev that the document is “a kind of Ten Commandments” and point to the fact that at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, a copy of the document was placed symbolically in an “Ark of Hope” — an independent project by the American artist Sally Linder. A number of conspiracy theorists claim that the founders of the Earth Charter are attempting to establish a global super-state to enforce the Charter.”

Conspiracy theorists, my FOOT! Go and read the bloody thing, it’s written right in there! “In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. ” (emphasis mine) Also see this page: http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/articles/268/1/A-new-Guide-for-Using-the-Earth-Charter-in-Education-/Page1.html

In addition to educators, the charter openly states that it intends to involve governments and the media in it’s mission. It calls for tolerance of all religions, people of any sexual orientation, worship of nature, a “global civil community”, universal healthcare (including free access to birth control) and education, and special attention to the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. (Someone told me in an email they weren’t sure where the destabilizing influences in the US were coming from… now we know.)

And if you don’t believe this seemingly far-fetched article, then go to the homepage of the Ark of Hope, where they readily admit that the claims about this beastly, blasphemous box of balogna are true – and to samvandina.com (see the section appropriately titled “a third pillar” and the section that describes the “drafting process”.)

I’ve said this before but now I’m REALLY saying it… The End is Near. lol

Posted in The Lord Jesus, musings, mysticism, news, philosophy, politics, religion, society, spirituality, the Bible, update | 5 Comments »

I gave up…

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

… on waiting until I had an extremely thought-provoking response to the heresy that all non-Jewish governments are also bound by the laws that were handed down to Israel by Moses in the dessert. And if there weren’t enough prepositions in there for ya’, I don’t know what to tell ya’…

Anyways, the contents of my file:

Deut. 12:32 – “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” is often quoted as an argument that we don’t have to follow any of the laws the government makes, as long as they don’t appear in the Bible. I have to say, this is a damnable perversion of scripture. It is, I suspect, intentionally taken out of context. A quick glance through Deut. 12 will reveal that these are laws that were specifically intended ONLY for the children of Israel while they were living in the promised land. The laws didn’t even go into effect for them, until AFTER they possessed their inheritance. (See v. 1, “which ye shall observe to do IN THE LAND…”, v. 10, v. 29. )

Also go back and read the whole of chapter 11, especially v. 8 and vs. 31-32. See also chapter 8, v. 1 and v. 11 – read the whole chapter and then answer this question: to whom did Moses give the commandments. And on what day? (Hint, part of the answer is in chapter 1:1). Also look at chapter 5:1.

Note that this is a continuous dialog. Moses starts his address to the children of Israel in Deut. 1:1 and ends it in Deut. 34:12. You can’t just pull 12:32 right out of the Bible and try to hit us over the head with it.  You can’t separate that verse from all the verses that come before it, about how this was a legal code handed down specifically to the nation of Israel, one they were expected to follow once they entered the promised land.

Then there’s Deut. 4:2… which comes right after verse 1. Forget about verse 1. Don’t look at it, don’t think about it. Verse 2 isn’t for the children of Israel, it isn’t a laying down of the law for that particular nation at that particular time. No, that isn’t stated specifically in verse 1 or anything, really. But don’t look at verse 1 to find out whether I’m lying.

Also, the context isn’t further clarified in verse 5; verse 6 doesn’t make any distinction between the way the Israelites live and the way other nations live; and verses 7-8 don’t a rhetorical question which points out that NO OTHER NATION HAS STATUES AND JUDGMENTS LIKE THESE. No, the covenant that the Lord made with the children of Israel on that day (verse 13) was binding on all governments of all nations until the end of time.  Also don’t bother to check verse 14 and find out, once again, why I can’t believe the covenant doctrine, or whatever it’s called,  is anything but intentional deception.

Even those famous 10 commandments are for the children of Israel. Look at Deut. 6:1-3. I guess those who tell us we are expected to live and die by these 10 commandments, and that we are free to break the law with impunity if it doesn’t limit itself to them, are counting on the fact that most people just look at the commandments all by themselves, and don’t view them as a part of the whole chapter or the whole book, or the whole Bible.

So which parts do apply to me? Well, for starters, probably not the verses that come with an explicit explanation of exactly how and why they don’t apply to me. And for seconds, probably not the infamous verse about how Abraham took up the knife to slay Isaac his son. Boy wouldn’t I be confused, if I had to choose to believe that Isaac was my son, and that I was supposed to take up a knife and slay him? Or that I had already done so? I can’t even begin to fathom what sorts of things would follow from that; In fact, my perception of reality would end up so skewed that it would prevent me from functioning in society. I might even be called insane, because I chose to believe something the Bible clearly was not trying to teach.

This is where that saying, God gave you a brain, use it, comes into play. God doesn’t want us ripping random verses out of the scripture and perverting them to support our anti-social lifestyles. He wants us to compare the way we live to what we find in scripture, honestly. If it doesn’t mesh, then we ourselves, and not our subjective interpretations of scripture, should be adjustmented.

The reason we don’t do this is that we want to give up too early, blaming a faulty understanding of scripture for our own shortcomings, rather than going through the fire and allowing patience to have its perfect work.

But back to the question, which parts of scripture apply to me? Quick answer, Acts 15:1-29. Here the Holy Spirit explicitly states that non-Jews are not to be burdened with Levitican law.

“What then, shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” – Rom 6:1&2 I mean, I can hear you saying, “Abraham, all those laws have to be there for a reason. Surely you don’t mean to tell me there are huge sections of the Bible that aren’t applicable to modern-day Christians!?”

Of course not. The Bible is there, as it always has been, to convict us of sin. To reveal the nature of God in contrast with our own sinfulness. To help us grow in faith. I’ll direct you to I Pet. 2:1-3 and Galatians 5-6:1. Also to John 16:7-8.  And Romans 7, particularly verse 7.

And finally, to Hebrews 8:10-13. If you need to be taught laws and codes of conduct in order to live right; if your conscience doesn’t tell you what is right and wrong; if it isn’t pricked when you are tempted to live in violation of the teachings of I Peter 2:12-20, (but esp. v. 16),  and by the example of the Lord Himself in Matt. 17:24-27; if you can’t hear the voice of the Holy Spirit leading you in the right way and convicting you of sin; if the law of love isn’t already written on your heart, then maybe it’s time to find out where you are before the Lord, and whether or not you may be in need of salvation from the death sentence that is found in the law.

Posted in The Lord Jesus, criticism, friends, frustration, philosophy, politics, religion, spirituality, the Bible | 5 Comments »

The Theory of Relativity started at Babel

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Wikipedia defines linguistic relativity as “the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.” (Click the word “Wikipedia” for a more in-depth explanation – not for the faint of mind.)

In layman’s terms – the language we speak affects the way we think, and the way we perceive things.

Of course this is a heavily debated claim… but have you ever asked yourself how far the linguistic divide reaches? I mean, when you and I look up at the sky we both say, “It is blue….”, but are we both really seeing the same color? How would anyone ever know if we weren’t? How do I know that when you say ‘up’, you’re thinking of the same thing I think of when I say ‘down’? After all… even if you were, you’d still call my ‘down’ ‘up’, and I’d never be the wiser. Neither would you.

A perfect example that illustrates this vividly is the Japanese word for “blue.” Well, they call it green. Of course they have a word that means “green” as well, but they only use it for plants. So a train car or a traffic light (which is just as green in Japan as it is here in the US) is “blue,” and a plant that is exactly the same color is green.

But you know what? The Japanese are 100% certain that the two colors are completely different. When they look at a stop light, they really “think” they’re seeing the color blue – and maybe they are!

So I’m starting to develop this theory… in the story of the tower of Babel it says that He confused their languages, and we tend to think, well that’s where all the different languages in the world came from. But what if the Lord made a change that was even more fundamental, a change that was even more subtle?

What if, in confusing our languages, He confused the very way we think about things? Not in a way that made us actually confused as individuals, but in a way that made it impossible for us to efficiently collaborate? After all, isn’t that why he did it – to make it impossible for the Babel builders to work together?

Earlier I observed that having views which deviate sufficiently from those of others can tend to separate us from each other. What if it’s literally impossible for two people to “put aside all of their differences”, “see eye-to-eye”, “be on the same wavelength”, or be “with each other all the way” on absolutely everything?

In fact, that sounds like common sense, and it’s why we have settled for “agreeing to disagree” with so many different people, about so many different things. Is it unreasonable to guess that this could be a result of what happened at Babel? That our widely varying perspectives actually serve as a handicap?

Before the tower of Babel, were there any wars? Think about it… maybe the key to Undiluted Perception has been hidden beyond our reach, only to be revealed when the Lord returns. Maybe the reason humans fail to agree about basic facts, including the best way to do things is because we lack the fundamental ability to do so – maybe we can’t arrive at the same version of “the truth”.

Just one more thing to look forward to, I guess.

Posted in literature, musings, philosophy, politics, the Bible | 3 Comments »

SPECULATION ALERT

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Now first of all, please don’t read this unless:

1) You are really smart;
2) You don’t believe in any conspiracy theories (at least not very fervidly); and,
3) Are not easily influenced by what you read (be honest!)

Now there’s this age-old debate about who the sons of God and the daughters of men are in Genesis chapter 6. But check out verse 38 in Luke chapter 3: “[...] which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God” (KJV).

Not that this is some kind of magical map key or something– I certainly don’t agree with Dave Root’s idea that the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle– but could it be that there was more than one “first man?”

Now before you tar, feather, and burn me with the steak, go back up there and re-read the title. This idea sounds as preposterous to me as it does to you, but, did you know that the name Adam, in the original Hebrew, doesn’t necessarily mean “first man” in all cases? It could just mean, man-kind. So that would answer the question, “did Seth marry his sister?”– because maybe he didn’t have to. Maybe First Man was really just The First Men. Then it would also make sense that there were also First Women, and then we would have separate bloodlines, and people wouldn’t have to marry their sisters.

Anyway, the name Adam doesn’t show up until the middle of Genesis chapter two, so even if Adam means and was the first man, that doesn’t necessarily mean there weren’t others! And if Adam was “the son of God” – please notice carefully my emphasis on the lowercase ’s’ – suppose that maybe God put all of His apples on one tree, so to speak, and Adam was sort of His “special project man”– the one He was closest to. Then we could reasonably suppose that his sons were the sons of God and the daughters of the other men were the daughters of men.

Like I said, that’s just a theory, please please please don’t go off and use it as an excuse to start a new religion, and also don’t flame me for having false doctrine. This is just a crazy thought that I had.

Posted in discordianism, musings, the Bible | 2 Comments »

Japanese Bible

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

Well when I was in Japan I went to Toda and found a Japanese Bible. This Bible is great for my needs as a learner of Japanese (and it seems to be a pretty universally accepted version, since I’ve heard it quoted on numerous occasions), but it doesn’t really please me as far as translation goes.

Normally, I am a literal, word-for-word type of guy, but when it comes to a language like Japanese, this approach simply does not work. As much as we would not like to think so, the Bible does assume quite a bit of Western thinking. Certain portions of it can be read in context without explanation, and we just “get it,” since we Americans already know about things like “The Trinity,” “creation vs. evolution,” “Jesus Christ,” and the like.

Let us take, for example, the simple word, “God.” Here in the United States, the word usually causes to spring to mind, in the case of the more visually-oriented, images of a big (BERY big!), bearded, kind-looking old man, maybe sitting on a cloud. And with this image come all the associations from childhood stories and other religious ideographs we may have been exposed to. The point here is that even those westerners who don’t believe in the True God, have a pretty good idea from the outset what is meant by, “In the beginning, God created…” And so we can sort of follow.

Japanese culture makes even this most basic of Bible verses very convoluted and confusing (note that it is the cultural background which superimposes confusion on the text, and not a confusion which is inherent in the text itself.) To start with, the Japanese language doesn’t distinguish between plural and singular verbs. Therefore, this verse, if translated literally, leaves completely unsettled in the minds of readers the question of whether we are referring to a specific god or to many gods.

The version I picked up in Toda Books is just such a difficult-to-understand translation. Yes, it’s very “literal,” as far as I in my limited knowledge of Japanese can tell you; but that doesn’t do much good for the average reader if we need to get a scholar to give several pages of explanation for each verse. Perhaps such automated, Western-thought-laden, word-for-word (as opposed to thought-for-thought) translations of scripture is a large part of what has made Christianity so inaccessible to the Japanese mind.

Now I am not advocating a revamp of the Bible to make it “easier to understand”, as certain modern English translations claim to do. The fact is that these translations take liberties with the underlying teachings and truths of the Word of God under the guise of “readability.” What I’m advocating is a careful choice of Japanese words and phrases which may not exactly coincide with the original text, but will leave, in the minds of Japanese readers, exactly the same teachings and truths that the English versions of the Bible leave in our own minds. Ideally, this version of the Bible wouldn’t differ too much from what we would expect it to say; however, it might not be quite as easy to translate this version back and forth between Japanese and King James English.

Please bear with me because I’m excited to have found what I tentatively feel may meet the need, on the homepage of the International Bible society. Returning to the example of Genesis 1:1, the Bible I bought in Japan reads, “At the beginning/In the first place/to start with/for the first time,” in a way that, if I were Japanese, would leave me scratching my head. We can only hope and pray that the most (or least) they will take away from the completely ambiguous choice of words would be, “First,” as in a simple “first, next, then, after that” sequence, which doesn’t convey the idea we Americans get when we hear the words, The Beginning (as in, of All Time).

This other version (at http://www.ibs.org/bibles/japanese/pdf/ot/genesis.pdf) starts with what would translate literally into English as “In the time when there was still nothing.” True, these are not the exact words of the original translation. However, it places in the minds of Japanese readers PRECISELY the same idea as is placed in our minds by the words, “in the beginning,” including the sense that something momentous is about to occur.

The version I bought at the bookstore follows, “[some] god [or other, or maybe multiple gods],” whereas the IBS version continues, “Lord God,” (here “Lord” is a title, not a name referring to the Lord in question necessarily. However, attaching this title helps us to understand that “God,” in this sense, isn’t just a word, or a regular (not proper) noun used to describe a thing, but the Name of Someone. (This even comes close to saying, “Mr. God.”) This is exactly the same as giving the name of God a capital letter in English… and could very well be a Japanese’ first exposure to the idea of a Someone named God. This alone is enough food for a whole day’s-worth of thought.

The bookstore version continues, “caused to exist Earth [as in, the planet] and heaven.” Hm… not exactly the idea we get when we read Genesis. Although the Japanese does make it sound a little more personal than that (you see, something is lost here, even in the translation from Japanese to English) it doesn’t quite catch the essence of God as an active, hands-on builder-maker, a sculptor who commanded the universe into existence. It emphasizes the fact of the creation, rather than referring reverentially to the Creator. This translation even- subtly- leaves open the possibility that God simply had the world created. It could also mean, to a Japanese, that He simply determined that such a thing as the earth would exist. It fails to properly emphasize the important fact that it was God, Himself, who did the actual creating.

This description also sounds very text-book-like and difficult to understand. We have to read it two or three times even to misunderstand. It is grammatically correct, even without poetic license, but it’s difficult to follow.

Instead, the IBS says, simply, “made earth [as in, not sky or sea] and heaven.” To boot, the IBS version adds honorary inflections to the verb of making, to denote the admirable character and position of the Maker.

Now let’s see the word-for-word version:

“At first[/for the first time/to start with], god[s] caused to exist Planet Earth and the sky.”

and the thought-for-thought version:

“When there was still nothing, Lord God[, to His credit], made the earth and sky.”

(The “to His credit” part is very literally included, in an inflection of the Japanese verb, “to make,” but can’t be translated as an inflection, since we don’t have any such inflection in English. That’s why I added the words.)

The differences between the versions are, in the mind of an American reader, minimal (except that some of you are probably shouting, “Corruption of the text!”). To a Japanese, it is a difference between complete confusion and totally meaningless gibberish, and an earth-shattering truth (or outlandish fairy-tale), depending on how s/he chooses to receive it. And I’d much rather leave the reader choosing whether to believe than wondering what to believe.

To continue the argument, consider subtitles for a Japanese movie. If you saw one Japanese man hand a sack of money to the second Japanese man, (bear with me; this is relevant) and saw, in the subtitles, that the second man (the receiver) said, “I’m sorry,” you would wonder: “Why is he sorry? What did he do? Did I miss part of the story? Does the man pity his friend for having to part with his money? Is this some sort of Japense politeness? ” [Yes, by the way.]

This would immediately be followed, of course, with a “Nonono!” from the giver. Aha! So, something’s wrong, after all! Let’s rewind the tape and figure out why the receiver thinks he should apologize for receiving the money, and why the giver doesn’t think it’s such a big deal…. and so on.

But what if you knew that, in Japan, Japanese often say “I’m sorry/no” in exactly the same situation where Americans would say, “Thank you/you’re welcome”? Wouldn’t you think, “Well why didn’t the translator just translate that as, ‘Thank you/you’re welcome?’” You would be perfectly justified, too; after all, you want to watch a movie, and you shouldn’t have to take lessons in Japanese culture to understand what’s going on or what the characters are saying to each other.

In a similar way, I don’t think the Japanese should have to understand ancient Jewish and Greek culture (or, probably more accurately, American and Portuguese culture! Although I’m not entirely certain who did the initial work of translation), in order to read their Bibles. The Bible should be translated, as it always has been, into the common language of the people, not curtained behind in esoteric cultural references.

Yes, Westerners were involved in the earlier translations of the Bible into Japanese, and their limited knowledge of the language and culture may have severely damaged the ability of the Japanese to understand the teachings of Our Lord. But now there is an option, I’m excited to say! I think I’ve finally found a Japanese Bible that is a little better fit for popular consumption!

Posted in Japanese, literature, philosophy, the Bible | No Comments »