This post is addressed to OLIVER, but also everybody who read my earlier posts and his response at "Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 2:06:40 PM"

To my own mind my own post is addressing the issue of the meaning in Jesus genealogy, by posing the possibility of another form of interpretation which might be more accessible to a modern audience. It does not mean that I myself beleive one thing or another, about whether God is able to cause a conception without a sperm involved. I think he is able, but because I know that many people in the modern world doubt that, I find myself asking people to consider another possibility that is not exactly denied in the language of the Bible, if we apply the same modern interpretations to that language.

When I read the poem you posted, only a few posts before this one, it struck a chord, of course as poetry can with everybody. But then after reading your comments about how we are enabled to interpret poetry more accurately than other religious texts at times, I went back and read you response to my own post.

It is meaningless to anybody who has not the same extent of scholarship in the specific mode of intepretation of religious text as happens within your own family and/or social network.

I happen to prefer Josephus as the most overtly Christian supporting historical record of Jesus life. And I know for an absolute fact, that within this understanding of the crucifixtion and resurrection, I am able to consolidate a far more sound and independantly established understanding of esoteric religious matters as well as of my own salvation and personal sanctity. Yet this is merely my own experience, and I can accept that your experience is what informs your own opinions. It is worthy to try yourself to apply that same logic in a way that enables us all to avoid blaming when perhaps we only have a various set of culturally determined modes of interpreting texts, and contemplating God.

I am interested also in the post I read, about the various translations of Qur'an, and am wondering how well read it is among Christians here in Australia.

As I have read a few post in this thread about translations, will state a little also about my own position about translations.

Most often, the meanings being embodied by patterns in language, lose their full currency, by losing their fluidity of comprehension, as soon as there are any changes to the language being spoken. Perhaps in fact, the first noting down of many major religious texts, has usually being through poetry, but has lost the rhyming in translation.

The religious texts which are best preserved in original, are Muslim, because the content of the text is demanding of that, as well as because it is the most recent major religion. Yet the texts also state that it would only be for three generations that Muslims would be able to adequately intepret those exact texts. After that time period, it was prophesied that it would be basically each man to his own in various modes of interpretation of any and all available religious texts, and within an understanding that every religion is one in Islam.

Each distinct Religion is sustained by its own dogma, and when that dogma, or pattern of language usage, becomes outmoded, then it is difficult always to get to the bottom of the originally intended meanings. These issues are critical if we are to be able to find a real lasting solution for world peace, within the context of what sorts of "quasi-religious excuses" the likes of George Bush have been using for war.

If there is any real genuine interest in my own interpretative analysis of the reconciliation of Abrahamic based religious texts, (given all I have already written in this thread), you can refer to an essay I posted last year, in the forums at http://www.altafsir.com which is the website run by the Royal family of Jordan, and also the main internation website for interpretative analysis of Qur'an. My post supports a Christian belief within Islam.

(continuing on from previous three posts)

However, as a person whom has often worked in making intepretations of religious concepts more accessible for a modern audience, I have to comment that the words alone will never teach, unless we are able to let the words guide the heart, and thereby let our emotions connect us into the world in which esoteric belief reigns. Hence the worth of religous poetry. I write much relgious poetry myself, but often need to provide a scientific and secular frame of reference also, only to communicate adequately with peers, as to why the methodology of religious belief still holds vast social relevance.

When society loses sight of the methodology of religion, it begins to lose also the means of religion, and then loses the means and method of sanctioning our behaviour into law abidance. Rising rates of crime, must be combatted with socially appropriate use of religious method. Therefore, even though discourse about translations of old religious texts is always going to be flawed, it is still relevant and necessary. But the efforts of interpretation, that do not get bogged down in condemnations of translators, or condemnations and any specific set of words in use, therefore, are not bogged down in sectarian debate, those efforts of interpretation are always vastly more valuable to enabling a law abiding society.

thanks for reading my three posts here: the post in the Al-Tafsir site I refer to, is under my name “Rebecca Copas” (often now I spell Rebecca as Rivaq)

Boazy,

According to one of my favourite Philosophers, Michael Polanyi, all personal meaning involves tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge as being co-efficient. The real stuff is far more sophicisticated, but simply put, we bring tacit ourselves to interpretting the explicit, which, of course would mean words.

Herein, A Frenchman and an Englishman are going to veiw a re-enactment of The Battle of Wateroo, differently. The Jews, the Christian Jews [in transition, 1st & 2nd centuries], and, Christian denominations have their own scriptural translations.

According to Sabib, "in the midrashic tradition, opening with the word Beginning, especially without either 'a' or 'the' before it, would have signaled the opening of Genesis". There seems to have been a style of expression used by the Jews that Gentiles would not readily understand.

Mark seems to evolved from the the Jewish tradition. Mark, if I recall was said to have been known Peter, but, there is little known about Mark himself ethnically.

In spoken lore, a problem for Mark [or whom he represents] could have been to make Hebrew or classical Greek comprehendable in Arimaic or Koine Greek.

Do I understand you correctly; you have worked directly with the Tsimshiasn. Thanks for the link. My reference also mentioned the importance of ancestors and houses, but, I didn't gain a strong sense of of spirituality about the Tsimshian. The traditional Han Chinese seem to acknowledge some forms of spirituality, but are day-to-day essentially secular.

What is my secular Roman poem saying? It isn't a case, I hope, of probing each word. Just read. The poem's claim is profound, especially given when it was written. The churches of old certainly would have burnt Lucretious at the Stake. Sells wouldn't even like its implications, today.

OLY.. we seem to have a_misunderstanding. Nope..I didn't work among the Tsimshian,but among the_Kelabit of Sarawak.

Your Poem.. yes, I kinda get that pretty easily I think. Rather self explanitory.

Mark was Peters nephew.. so he was quite close. You can see this from Acts where it's mentioned.

I don't think Mark was trying to be too esoteric in his use of 'the Beginning'.. keep in mind, we are dealing with translation, it just so happens that in Koine greek you don't have to have 'the' (Ho) for it to be implied by use, as I showed in a previous post.

CJ.. I love the way things unfold at times :)

1/ CJ gives a myth.
2/ BD gives an interpretation.
3/ CJ then slings off at BD
4/ BD confirms his interpretation from Tsimshian web sites
5/ CJ declares 'Boazy impervious to reason' :)

gotta luv that. Its like the dude in Kung Pow who the monks trained to think he was winning when he was beaten 0_^

Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument. (u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid)

ARGUMENT
-"Text has known meaning".
-"Most text has a meaning known to most people"
-"The rules of grammar assist in determining that meaning"
-'Subject/Predicate' plus some verbs, nouns, pronouns, tenses participles and the odd conjuction or 3.. yep.. it has.. 'meeaaanning'.

"The black cat bit the white dog"

CURAE.. can you tell us a bit more about yourself please? What's ur background culturally and reliigously? I might be misunderstanding but it sounds like you came from some kind of middle east background with a Christian flavor? Anyhow.. you set me straight on this k.

I had a good read of your 3 posts Curae..and you observation that meaning is lost within 3 generations of a text being written.
Consider this, Jesus spoke mostly in..'timeless parables' :)

The stories Jesus told, were backed up by the many wonders and signs he did, all of which testify to his Deity, finality and authority.

Boazy: << CJ.. I love the way things unfold at times :)

1/ CJ gives a myth.
2/ BD gives an interpretation.
3/ CJ then slings off at BD
4/ BD confirms his interpretation from Tsimshian web sites
5/ CJ declares 'Boazy impervious to reason' :) >>

Did you actually look at that website, Boazy? It's many things, but hardly authoritative [ http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/ ] 'Shannon Thunderbird' indeed.

Obviously, you not only have no idea how utterly ridiculous you look on this thread, but you just keep making it worse.

<< Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument. (u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid) >>

Getting a bit shrill now, old chap.

Actually, in the spirit of Pericles' suggested 'Golden Boazy' award for shameless hypocrisy, I'd like to propose a 'Black Knight' award to be awarded to those who doggedly maintain a completely discredited position in the face of any and all rational argument and evidence.

<<

BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]

[cont]