Re: [TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation

[Debbie Sawczak]

I'm posting to this one of Bill's, below, because it contains a great example, but my reply is motivated by all the recent fury about translations and agendas and interpretation. It will likely elicit the usual reactions.   All translators must make choices all the time. That's not an opinion but a fact. There are significant ambiguities and polysemies (look it up) inherent in the vocab and syntax of the original that CANNOT BE reproduced in the target language without big footnotes everywhere. That means the translator HAS to make a choice. If you do not know at least two languages well, you cannot even imagine some of these without being told. (Fortunately up here in Canada we get bilingual packaging on everything; it gives people an inkling.) Most translators' "agenda" is to capture what seems to be the most salient sense in view of [BEEP! C-WORD ALERT!] both the larger and the more immediate, um, context. Of course it is possible to make outright errors. But let no one imagine that there is only one translation for most things.   "Immerse" and "baptize" is another example. In this case the choice of the translation "baptize" (with its current meaning) wouldn't even have existed before we went and borrowed it from Greek (via other sources). We have this choice now.   The reverse is also true, of course: that there are precisions in the vocab and syntax of the original language that cannot be rendered in the target language. This is a little less problematic since you can sometimes get around it by adding more words in the target language. But then you sometimes have an unnatural or clunky translation.   Lest some of you think that I'm saying the text can be made to mean anything: I'm saying nothing of the sort, that conclusion is just the product of intellectual alarm. (To a paranoiac, everybody's a terrorist.) The options open to the translator in each case are limited. But they are not insignificant, and not infrequent.   Upshot? Like Lance said, use an interlinear as well.   Debbie            ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation Yes, yes. Now think about this. If we were to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, as we are instructed to do, we would actually "experience" healing holistically -- i.e., not just psychological healing, but physiological as well. That, it seems to me, is "being saved." By the way, the word theraputin, from which we get our word "therapy," is sometimes translated "heal," and sometimes translated "save"; hence the basis for my agreement with you that we were saved in the Christ event -- our ontological salvation -- while now we are being saved existentially in our daily encounter -- and that is the sanctification of our whole being.   "And do you not know that you are the temple of God?"    Good stuff!   Bill  ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation In a message dated 4/19/2005 6:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Portraits of Human Nature: Scientific &Theological" by Malcolm Jeeves. Anyway, I think that is what you are talking about. I was thinking I had sent one of his books home with you. Is that right?   Bill Yes indeed.   Thanks for the reminder.    Do you understand what I think is so important about this "immersion" thing.    Jeeves was saying that the brain actually experiences physiological changes over time in view of a particular behavior.    This "immersion" process provides the opportunity for a "righteous"  (if you will)  change if not a reversal.   What brief comments I heard from Jeeves seems to tie in with what I am experiencing right now.   Thoughts/ JD