Theology Fails to Explain Religious Exegesis

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Aug 12, 2020 at 16:32

Theology Fails to Explain Religious Exegesis
For the readers of this exchange who are trying to understand what in the blazes is being said here, and to you DNM, it was not my intent to do anything more than share the lifetime of seeking why my faith in the Savior of the Hebrew Holy Writ had been so frustrating when trying to follow the reams upon reams of exegesis over the centuries and finding myself running around in circles. As I tried to explain to you, DNM, you provided the unlocking clue to a lifetime of mystery searching, for which I am grateful. Strange as it may seem, the issues you note with the mufasereen attempting to make sense of that which does not makes sense are inherent when the original intent of the ancient writings are many times 'lost in translation.'
Therein lays the breakthrough of studying things such as we are discussing here, that things theological had been made confusing for the sake of erudite intellectualism, that many of the so-called teachers of Christianity took the simple writings of the witnesses of the time and added so much to make it more difficult to share, that the true message was shaded in ritual religious terms such that adherence to the 'rules' became more important than sharing the love. Having been raised in 'Westernized' denominational dominance, the heart that screamed for understanding was shushed into silence for the lack of the truth not being told to searchers.
For this reader, exegesis is a tool, one that for years was examined for the clues this observer sought to begin to understand why religion failed in perpetuating the Gospel. But years diagramming English in middle and high schools did not translate into exegetical examinations of critical phrases expounded upon in Biblical study after Biblical study, sometimes interfered with by 'hermeneutical' forays of opinionated interpretations of modern translations, the real meanings again, 'lost in translation.' Had the Scriptures been kept in simple original languages, even this exchange would have different meanings.
To your contention, properly translated Arabic having an ability to more closely match the intention of the ancient Aramaic, which was the true colloquial spoken word of those times in that region by this determination, this observer is inclined to agree, but with limitations. Arabic, by all accounts, is one of the more difficult languages to handle if not born into it as a natural tongue. There are many Arabic scholars that make the contention that one cannot read the Quran except in Arabic, a curious thought since as you have mentioned as a contentious idea, much of the Islamic readings have Persian influences which appear to match the Shi'a (?) renditions leading to the replacement theology of who really will be returning at the end (of world history), something still pretty much a caustic contention.
So, with thanks to you, the search is taking a slightly deeper look as to why religious exegesis still cannot explain the original texts coming out of the land of the Chaldees, Egyptians, the Hebrew Children; and to this contention, why did the ancients think it was necessary to translate the Aramaic/paleo-Hebrew texts of Hebrew theology into the Septuagint LXX? Like you intimated, translating into a different tongue, like Greek for colloquial understanding, does not make sense if something is 'lost in translation.'

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".