One of the pastors at my childhood Presbyterian church

[MineralMan]

was very fond of explaining biblical passages by telling the congregation, in detail, about the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words that had been translated to create the King James version of the Bible that was used in that church. When I was 10 years old, I was enormously impressed by his knowledge of those languages. His explanations lent credibility to what he was explaining.

When I was 16 years old, I often talked to him in his office. I was at the church a lot, that summer. I was an unpaid intern for the organ builder who was installing a pipe organ in the church, and was very involved in the musical side of its services. I remembered those detailed explanations of translations and asked him about them. He showed me the book he used to come up with those explanations. He didn't actually know those languages at all, I discovered, but relied on third party sources. I didn't inquire about whether the person who wrote the exegesis book he used actually was a scholar of those languages or if that author, too, used third party sources. I suspect the latter.

I was surprised. I was disappointed. The pastor glibly passed himself off as knowledgeable and a scholar. He wasn't. He was just passing along third party information without disclosing that. He didn't see any problem with that, but also didn't really know whether what he was saying was actually true or not. Probably, in most cases, the information was accurate, but he pretended to know. By extension, I began to wonder about the translations, themselves. I still do.

No doubt, most pastors do similar things. I find it interesting. How many errors have crept into their interpretations, I wonder, from unreliable third party references? There's no way to know, really, is there?

Looking back, I'm reminded of the bride's father in the movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" He took great pride in explaining how all words in English had their origins in his native Greek. Often his rambling explanations were hilarious, and comically incorrect. It was sort of like that, as I peer back a half a century and more at my old pastor. Maybe we should all "put some Windex" so we can see more clearly.

[3Hotdogs]

1. How many of OUR explanations and understandings are maybe - or maybe not based in fact?

We read something years ago or maybe our parents told us something... and on and on.

[MineralMan]

3. Of course. There's plenty of inaccurate information out

there being spread. As adults with access to almost unlimited resources via the internet, we can do our own fact checking, if we wish. Mostly, we don't. We rely on sources we trust. So, sure, we all have ideas that are incorrect. Knowing that is key.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I took German in high school and college.

I still have a textbook called "Deutsch: Erstes Buch." I learned that meant "German: First Book." But how do I know that's a correct translation, or that anything in that book was correctly translated? The author might have made it all up! Maybe all the German I learned was wrong! I suppose I could verify the translations by seeking out a native German speaker. But your pastor couldn't do anything like that, since the Greek of the New Testament is very different from modern Greek. Nobody speaks that language any more. Nobody speaks Latin or Biblical Aramaic, either. Your pastor had to rely on third-party sources because that's all there are. The sources he used were probably those he acquired in his seminary training, which would have been researched by linguists and scholars, and were probably reasonably accurate to the extent that any translation of an ancient language is accurate. Very few clergy are, or can be, fluent in these languages - that's a whole separate course of study. I doubt very much that he was intentionally deceiving his congregation. He was reasonably relying on the scholarship of others, which just about everybody does, and has to do. Why else would there be scholars at all, except to provide the product of their studies to others?

[MineralMan]

4. You may have missed my point.

Of course people rely on third-party sources. Original scholarship is a rare thing, indeed. As long as we all recognize that what we're hearing or reading could be inaccurate, due to cascading errors, we can evaluate our sources.

When I was 10 years old, I believed many things readily. When I was 15, I memorized the entire book of Matthew. When I was 16, I began learning that not every source was necessarily a valid source. I was learning. That was about the time that I began to engage in my own explorations in many areas. By the time I was almost 18, I knew enough to turn down the full-ride scholarship my childhood church offered me to attend Wheaton College in Illinois. My pastor thought I might make a good pastor. By the time I was 20, I was an atheist. The trusting 10-year-old no longer existed.

Learning to question sources is an important step in becoming a reasoning human being. That was the point of my post.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Yes, but you seem to have concluded, or at least suspected, that your pastor's sources

were not valid sources, where in fact they were probably as valid as any that relate to translations of ancient languages. The lesson, I think, was really that nobody can know everything and that people have to rely on the scholarship of others, and that in some cases there is no completely foolproof way to confirm a particular item of information. Sometimes you really do have to trust a source. Obviously there are many things that can be verified, and in an age of "fake news" it certainly behooves us to check sources of information to the extent possible. For example, I believe the Washington Post far more than I believe Fox News, but even WaPo makes mistakes, and I have no ability to fact-check their stories myself. "Trust but verify" is wise advice but it's not always possible. "Trust but at least make a reasonable effort to determine to the extent possible whether the information is accurate" is probably more realistic.

[MineralMan]

6. I concluded many things as I grew into adulthood.

Many things I thought I knew, I discovered I didn't actually know. That process has continued for more than 50 years now. I'm still discovering things that change my thinking.

I hope to continue that process until I am no longer alive. I recommend it.

Having worked as a translator, thanks to the USAF, I do understand the problems of translation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I conclude less and less, the older I get.

I just keep finding out how much I don't know.

[MineralMan]

12. Concluding that you don't know is concluding, too.

So is concluding that it doesn't matter. There are all sorts of conclusions one can make.

[MyOwnPeace]

7. To continue the train of thought.............

just what did the "original writers" mean by "well-regulated" militia?
And one can wonder about SO MANY simple words being translated from one language to another - and the impact that single WORD can have on the entire sentence/paragraph in its translation.

[MineralMan]

8. Language is like that. Words mean what people think they mean,

and those meanings vary from person to person. Language is always a bit unclear.

"well-regulated" gets misdefined a lot by the gun toters. That poor definition has become dogma to them.

[Major Nikon]

10. I'm not sure it really matters

Once you start applying "faith" to historical documents you've already introduced an element of fiction that taints anything useful that might be provided. This is especially true when one has to adhere to a specific denominational doctrine.

[MineralMan]

11. True, but I didn't realize that as a youngster.

And there's part of the problem, I think. We feed children and youths information as if it were factual. All too often, people do not every question such things, and go right on believing them to be facts. Not everyone engages in questioning of things learned early.

I suppose that's the nature of organized religion, though. Indoctrinate people while they are young and believe what they are told.

[Major Nikon]

13. Thats why religion in schools is so important to them

If children don’t get indoctrinated before their critical thinking skills develop, the chances of them believing mythology greatly deminishes.

[MineralMan]

14. Exactly. Reason does not develop until later.

In some cases, religious teachings to children are accompanied by punishment for questioning those teachings. That works for some people, who are conditioned by the punishments not to question what they are told. Others, however, rebel against such conditioning and are stimulated to think by such punishments. I guess I'm one of those.

Often, arguments for religious belief from some reflect a childish acceptance of things, along with an instantaneous rejection of any ideas that are not in line with their beliefs. When I see that, I always wonder if those people grew up being punished for asking questions.

I think an unwillingness to examine beliefs is part of the problem we are facing as a society. Our current President simply says, "Fake news!" and many accept that as a true statement, with no questioning at all. I see that in the same way I see rigid religious beliefs.

Without questioning and examination, it is too easy for people to simply accept nonsense as truth. Down that path is servitude.