Sorry... these twon instances are probably non-sequitur, but I don't think I've ever shared this part of my Bible study with the group.

I've shared it a while ago here and it is in my book. My religion prof at Bates called it a cord through the needle as he identified the mis-translation.

dhw's idea is something that I wish religious people in America would take to heart:

Paul destroyed Christianity by forging a single interpretation on all, and the church built Dogma to fill the gaps.

dhw's idea would call on modern translators to attempt to translate the Bible as the author would intend... this would be a fundamental rebirth for what I view as a husk of a religion.

From the researcher again:

"The Greek, reads "καμηλον" (kamélon) which is the accusative form of "καμηλος" (kamélos). This word, in Greek, only means "camel" and sometimes can mean "pack animal" however, if we take a look at it's Aramaic equivalent, we find the word 'gamlo'...

...However, 'gamlo', has a double meaning. As Aramaic evolved separately from Hebrew, it picked up new
idioms and meanings to it's vocabulary. gamlo' is a perfect example, for Aramaic speaking peoples
fashioned a rough, thick rope from camel's hair that had a very decent tensile strength, and after a while,
it became to be known as, you guessed it, gamlo'."

Sorry... these twon instances are probably non-sequitur, but I don't think I've ever shared this part of my Bible study with the group.

I've shared it a while ago here and it is in my book. My religion prof at Bates called it a cord through the needle as he identified the mis-translation.

Now, the shocking part for me... is in this particular phrase:

"Why hast thou forsaken me or why have you spared me? – Matthew 27:46 / Mark
15:34 referring to the phrase (preserved in aramaic) "Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani?"

I am copying an explanation here from a Syriac researcher's work, Raphael Lataster.

"The simple solution, from the Aramaic, is that Jesus did not imply that Alaha forsook Him at all! The
Aramaic “sabachthani” does not have to mean forsaken. It can mean many things, among them,
“spared”. Now “lemana” (written as “lama” in the Greek copies) denotes a question, so a fairly accurate
translation would be:
“My God, My God, Why have you spared me?” (i.e., let's finish this, let's get this over with!)"

How much erroneous dogma could have been avoided over the last few centuries, because of the defense of this translation?

Lets take another, pretty obvious mistranslation:

The KJV says (Mark 10:25): “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

From the researcher again:

"The Greek, reads "καμηλον" (kamélon) which is the accusative form of "καμηλος" (kamélos). This word, in Greek, only means "camel" and sometimes can mean "pack animal" however, if we take a look at it's Aramaic equivalent, we find the word 'gamlo'...

...However, 'gamlo', has a double meaning. As Aramaic evolved separately from Hebrew, it picked up new
idioms and meanings to it's vocabulary. gamlo' is a perfect example, for Aramaic speaking peoples
fashioned a rough, thick rope from camel's hair that had a very decent tensile strength, and after a while,
it became to be known as, you guessed it, gamlo'."

Sorry... these twon instances are probably non-sequitur, but I don't think I've ever shared this part of my Bible study with the group.

Before I begin, I should mention that like most people I’ve read translated books, but unlike most I have well over 40 years experience as a professional translator who has worked closely with innumerable authors and editors, and also as an author who has worked closely with translators of my own books. This doesn’t mean that my opinions are any less subjective than anyone else’s, but I have seen at first hand the disastrous consequences of a “bad” translation.

Some people think the basis of a “good” translation is that the new text should stick as closely as possible to what the author has written. On the surface, this may seem sound, but in practice it can lead to all sorts of trouble. For one thing, the target language may not have precise equivalents of the author’s original words; for another there may be a wide range of alternatives in the target language with nuances not available in the original; for another, every reader will form a different interpretation of the text – there is no objectively correct version – but a translator has to fix his/her version through the words he/she chooses; for another, as all of us know only too well, very few people are able at all times to convey the exact meaning they set out to convey. The latter problem is particularly acute with writers who may be experts in their subjects, but are not experts at expressing ideas through written or even oral language. And so as I see it, the translator has to stick as closely as possible to what he thinks the author intended to say. (Already you can see the large degree of subjectivity involved.) If he’s lucky enough to be able to contact the author, and especially if the author happens to speak the target language, it will be possible to avoid major misunderstandings. This, of course, is not possible when the authors are dead.

In determining the author’s intention, we need to consider not only the literal meaning of each word, but also – as in all uses of language – the context on which the meaning depends. Another factor, not so relevant here, is the impact on the reader, which incorporates such factors as tone and style (e.g. vulgar or refined vocabulary, the flow of the sentences). If at any time the reader pauses and starts thinking about the nature of the language or style, the chances are that this is NOT what the author intended. (An exception would be when the original deliberately disrupts conventional use of language, as is often the case with modern poetry.)

So much for the “philosophy”. If we now take Tony’s example, the Hebrew equivalent of good/bad apparently is functional/dysfunctional. There is no word for bad in the sense of “evil”. But did the original Hebrew word mean dysfunctional in the sense of not working properly, or did it mean causing harm? For Tony, the use of these terms means that the author is not concerned with conveying a moral message but only with drawing attention to the objective results of certain forms of behaviour – i.e. they don’t work as they were meant to work. This raises the subjective question of who decides how something is meant to work. On the other hand, my suggestion is that the author’s intention is to stop the reader from performing the action, not because it won’t work (a lustful man will get the pleasure which is his purpose) but because its consequences may be harmful to someone else. Not causing harm to others fits in with the Golden Rule of morality, which is loving one’s neighbour. And so for me, in the context of human behaviour, the “meaning” of the Hebrew word for dysfunctional is a moral one – what nowadays we would call behaving badly – as opposed to the functional one of not fulfilling the intended purpose. I would therefore not hesitate to translate the words as good or bad, which I would take to be the modern equivalents of what I believe the author meant to say.

ALL areas of this discussion – interpretation of “(dys)function”, of the doer’s intention, of the author’s intention, of “good/bad”, together with the translator’s final choice of words – entail subjective decisions. And since the authors of the bible are not around to correct any misunderstandings of their words, none of us can claim any degree of objective authority for our interpretation/translation, any more than the authors themselves could have claimed objective authority for their versions of events and teachings. One can only opt for versions that seem (subjectively) most likely in each context.

A dam is to be built with the purpose of storing water, providing electricity etc., in order to provide a better quality of living. If it is built, it will disrupt the lives of thousands, damage the environment etc. Here you have a clear conflict between function (storing water etc.) and morality (causing harm), i.e. what we call a moral dilemma! Do you give precedence to functionality over morality? If you build the damned dam, some would say your decision is immoral. You may rightly say that “immoral” is a subjective judgement. You might argue that the benefits of the decision will outweigh the harm – providing a better quality of living for millions as opposed to disrupting the lives of thousands. That requires weighing benefits against harm, which is the essence of morality, not of functionality. The dam itself will achieve its functional purpose of providing water and electricity and hence providing a better quality of living for some. There is no way you can call it dysfunctional; you can only dispute the moral rightness or wrongness of the decision to build.

Dhw: I don’t agree that functional means [as above]…Functional means “something works as it is supposed to work.”

TONY: I knew that you would try to change my definition and would focus on intent, yes. We have had similar discussions before I can normally spot the parts of my argument that you will try and pick apart :P hehe

I still disagree with your definition, so taking the example of the suicide bomber, let’s analyse it: 1) “something works as it is supposed to work”: you can’t know how something is supposed to work without knowing the intention (the suicide bomber intended to kill people and did, so his action was functional); 2) “without causing dysfunction in another unless that is its intended purpose” could hardly make it clearer that the suicide bomber’s action was functional, since its intended purpose was to cause dysfunction in others. But even if the dysfunction is not the intended purpose, e.g. I lie/steal/murder for the sole purpose of making myself rich, I will still claim functionality if I succeed. Your argument that my actions cause dysfunction in others is correct, but it does not change the fact that my action worked as it was supposed to – i.e. I became rich. The action itself, then, is not dysfunctional (it worked) but, as you point out yourself, it caused dysfunction in others, which I would call “harm” (you called it “hurt”), and that for me is the point at which functionality ends and morality begins.

You wrote: “This is precisely why I have a problem with morality. It is not the person’s intention that sets the criteria. It is the action itself. That is where morality has it all wrong. The man in your scenario is causing dysfunction in a hundred others. No matter his intent, the dysfunction is clear.” I see it exactly the other way round: It is the person’s intention that sets the criteria for functionality, and it is the consequences of his actions that set the criteria for morality. You accepted my definition of morality, but did not mention the important criterion that followed, so for the sake of brevity and clarity, I will telescope the two sections: “Relating to human behaviour, esp. the distinction between beneficial (good) and harmful (bad) behaviour.” In other words, we have two separate questions: has the (subjective) intention been fulfilled (functionality), and has the behaviour been harmful or beneficial (morality)? The criteria for functionality are as subjective as those for morality.

The rest of your post hinges on this crucial difference between us, and I think the distinction will become much clearer if we go back to our starting point, which if I remember rightly was your contention that the bible did not talk in terms of good/bad, but in terms of function/dysfunction. You therefore set out to remove subjective morality from certain passages, and I took up the example from Galatians. So let me change my earlier question. Do you think St Paul meant to eliminate subjective intentions from the definition of dysfunction, and only wanted to concentrate on the harm that his listed “sins” might cause? And do you think he wanted to stop people from performing the relevant actions because of the harm that they might cause? If your answer to both questions is yes, would you not agree that St Paul’s list of sins constitutes what nowadays we would call bad (= harmful) behaviour, and his message is therefore a moral one, as I have defined “moral”? If you don’t agree, please tell me what you think he was hoping to achieve. And please accept my apologies for pushing a point I know you don’t want me to push!

I don’t agree that functional means “something works as it is supposed to work without causing dysfunction in another, unless that is its intended purpose.” Functional means “something works as it is supposed to work”. “Without causing dysfunction in another” is the point at which your concept intersects with morality. Functionality depends entirely on the intention of the action. (You knew this was coming, didn’t you, as you wrote: “We can argue about how something is ‘supposed to work’!)

I never suggested that the two concepts, functionality vs. Morality, would not intersect, rather, that one was objective and the other subjective. I meant my definition precisely how it was written, but perhaps I was unclear as to why I added the 'without causing dysfunction in another, unless that is its intended purpose.' For the sake of clarity, lets move the analogy away from the moral arena for a moment.

If I build a damn to control the flow of the river and generate electricity for the town in the valley beyond, then we have a working set of criteria.

Control the flow of the river.
Provide electricity, and by extension, promote a better quality of living.

If that fails in any of those, it is dysfunctional. What if it disrupts the wildlife in the area, or causes negative impacts in the quality of the water, soil, or air? Because part of it's functionality was to promote a better quality of living, the damn is dysfunctional if it does these things. In other words, it meets some, but not all of the requirements to be considered functional. It may fulfill part of its task, but not all of it. It doesn't function as intended because of the side affects which 'cause dysfunction in another' system.

Now, you keep falling back on things like rape to support your stance. Let's analyze the situation. What is the functional purpose of sex:

Reproduction
Pleasure(as you have often pointed out)
Health Improvements (As medical science has proven)
Psychological Improvements
Emotional Improvements
Emotional Bonding between individuals.

We can haggle over which of those you accept or don't if you like, but for now, this is what I am going with. Rape, does not promote pleasure in the person being raped, it causes physical, psychological and emotional damage, and certainly does not promote healthy emotional bonding between individuals. Therefore, it is dysfunctional.

Your argument for homosexuality meets most of those criteria, but not all. So, yes, it is dysfunctional in that it will not produce offspring, but it does fulfill the other criteria. However, it is still not completely functional. It's not. Very simple.

A suicide bomber’s intention is to fulfil what he believes to be God’s intention, so if he kills a hundred Christians his action must be deemed functional. Hurting someone does not make his behaviour dysfunctional for HIM or for his fundamentalist mentors, because he has achieved his intention, his actions have worked, and there is no universal, objective authority that can relate his intentions to their effect on other people.

This is precisely why I have a problem with morality. It is not the persons intention that sets the criteria. It is the action itself. That is where morality has it all wrong. The man in your scenario is causing dysfunction in a hundred others. No matter his intent, the dysfunction is clear.

You were clearly aware of this dilemma when you wrote about causing dysfunction in another, and earlier when you said: “All of these things are things that will hurt you, hurt someone else, or degrade the functionality of the group.” These qualifications are the very basis of morality as I have defined it above (substitute harm for hurt).

I knew that you would try to change my definition and would focus on intent, yes. We have had similar discussions before I can normally spot the parts of my argument that you will try and pick apart :P hehe

In the OT, it talks about cities of refuge and how if a man killed someone, even accidentally, he would have to leave everything behind and flee to one of these cities where he would live for 7 years in what amounts to exile in atonement. If he was caught by the family of deceased, they had clear right of vengeance against him and could take his life without penalty. The reason I bring this up is that it illustrates quite clearly that the society that was responsible for the authorship of that book obviously did not give a lot of credence to 'intent'. Functional and dysfunctional are not a function of intent. They are empirical criteria. Yes, it means that the definition of a thing must be complete. It has to have a clearly defined scope and purpose, but how is that different than any other thing we design?

Hold on, you’ve left out the next stage, which was finding a criterion for good/bad. Mine was whether behaviour is beneficial or harmful to the individual and/or to those who are affected by it. This is crucial to our discussion.

TONY: Functional means something works as it is supposed to work without causing dysfunction in another, unless that is it's intended purpose. And later: Functional and dysfunctional are not only universal in application, but they are also suitable for all situations at all times and all states, because they are specific criteria that only take into account the intended function. Something either works, or it does not.

I don’t agree that functional means “something works as it is supposed to work without causing dysfunction in another, unless that is its intended purpose.” Functional means “something works as it is supposed to work”. “Without causing dysfunction in another” is the point at which your concept intersects with morality. Functionality depends entirely on the intention of the action. (You knew this was coming, didn’t you, as you wrote: “We can argue about how something is ‘supposed to work’!) Who defines the intention? You also say that morality “holds no meaning at all beyond that which a given person assigns to it.” Exactly the same comment applies to intention and hence to functionality. You can say that “homosexuality is dysfunctional in that using the reproductive organs in that manner will never produce the outcome of reproduction. There is no judgement there, only truth.” And I can say that homosexuality fulfils the purpose of producing pleasure, and is therefore functional. No judgement, only truth. So homosexuality is both dysfunctional and functional. Using your line of argument, one could say rape is dysfunctional unless it produces a child, in which case it’s functional. A suicide bomber’s intention is to fulfil what he believes to be God’s intention, so if he kills a hundred Christians his action must be deemed functional. Hurting someone does not make his behaviour dysfunctional for HIM or for his fundamentalist mentors, because he has achieved his intention, his actions have worked, and there is no universal, objective authority that can relate his intentions to their effect on other people.

You were clearly aware of this dilemma when you wrote about causing dysfunction in another, and earlier when you said: “All of these things are things that will hurt you, hurt someone else, or degrade the functionality of the group.” These qualifications are the very basis of morality as I have defined it above (substitute harm for hurt). You want to strip various biblical passages of any moral content and endow them with universal objectivity, but instead your functional/dysfunctional dichotomy is just as open to subjectivity as moral codes (I don’t disagree about that). Do by all means assign functionality to the successful lies/rape/theft/murder that have fulfilled my (subjective) intentions, but I think most of us would argue (subjectively) that since my lies/rape/theft/ murder do harm to other people, my actions are morally wrong and I should not perform them. Which interpretation do you think comes closer to St Paul’s intentions?

I too would give absolute priority to a dancing daughter and a tuneful Tchaikovsky! Toe-to-toe discussions with folk like Tony, David and Matt are not that dissimilar to being nutcracked, but I’m sure you give as good as you get. Anyway, thank you very much for setting my mind at rest. I can now return with fairy-light steps to my chocolate-coated sugar plums.

I’m struggling to understand the purpose of replacing the traditional biblical concepts of good/evil with functional/dysfunctional.... We need to agree on what we mean by morality.

Hell, I struggle to understand morality. What I am trying to do here is move beyond morality, beyond the subjective interpretations.

“Relating to human behaviour, esp. the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behaviour.” (Collins)

For morality as it stands today, this is a perfect definition and a perfect example of WHY I think the distinction needs to be made. Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, what are these things? Show me a good thing. Prove to me that it is good. Show me a bad thing and prove to me that it is bad.

What, then, is the difference between our definitions?

The difference between the definitions is that the one that I am using is mechanical. It is definitive and it is unambiguous. It is not subject to interpretation by an individual. It can be subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Functional means something works as it is supposed to work without causing dysfunction in another, unless that is it's intended purpose. That is something that can be tested. It can be proven. It can be stated unequivocally. Eating pork-rinds every day will kill you, therefore it is dysfunctional. Smoking cigarettes leads to emphysema and will most likely kill you, therefore it is dysfunctional.

My definition also allows for flexibility that moral imperatives do not. You can not say homosexuality is both bad and good, and your definition offers no middle ground for explanation. I can say that homosexuality is dysfunctional in that using the reproductive organs in that manner will never produce the outcome of reproduction. There is no judgement there, only truth. You want to eat pork-rinds every day(Gluttony), go right ahead. You'll die from it. No judgement, only truth. You won't to base your self image on your favorite Hollywood movie star(idolatry), go right ahead, you will be miserable and suffer from low self esteem. No judgement, only truth.

That is why it is so important for me. Your version of morality, subjective good and bad that can be flipped and changed and twisted by the whim of the mob we call society is valueless. It holds no meaning at all beyond that which a given person assigns it. Functional and dysfunctional are not only universal in application, but they are also suitable for all situations at all times and all states, because they are specific criteria that only take into account the intended function. Something either works, or it does not.

Now, we can argue about how something is 'supposed to work', if you like, but I think I have been sufficiently clear on this now. Let me know if it still doesn't make sense. LOL Lord knows I confuse myself sometime.

dhw,

I was definitely not offended. I actually enjoyed the mock trial of God and Cain. I have been very busy this week, as my oldest daughter was in the local dance company production of "The Nutcracker"(she was a very cute Candy Cane) and I have been the assistant to the costumer. I have had very little time to be on here. Tony and I have gone toe-to-toe in discussions similar to the mock trial, and I've found myself humbled on many occasions when he has been right, or have found out that a lot of what I grew up "knowing," I really didn't know at all. =)

We need to agree on what we mean by morality. Whole books have been devoted to the subject, but I’ll opt for a dictionary definition, and we’ll see if you accept it: “Relating to human behaviour, esp. the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behaviour.” (Collins) If you accept that, the next hurdle is our criteria for good/bad, right/wrong. I have already suggested that the basic criterion is whether behaviour is beneficial or harmful to the individual and/or to those who are affected by it. If it’s beneficial, it’s good, if it’s harmful, it’s bad. You say of the above “sins”: “All of these things are things that will hurt you, hurt someone else, or degrade the functionality of the group.” What, then, is the difference between our definitions? It stands to reason that if something is hurtful/harmful, it affects the functioning of individuals and/or the group (who else can be hurt/harmed?).

You say: “The vast majority of these things have scientifically proven negative consequences that have nothing to do with morality whatsoever. Some are less obvious, such as idolatry, but even here it is fairly safe to say that fixation on a person or thing can be unhealthy (dysfunctional) either individually or to society.” Harmful/ hurtful/ unhealthy all bring us back to your own definition of dysfunctional and my definition of immoral. The negative consequences of the majority of these activities (harm to individuals and to the group) have everything to do with morality, i.e. good/bad behaviour. And so I’m still struggling to understand why it’s so important to you to draw this distinction. I’m really sorry – more frustration for you! – but the bible does lay down moral codes, so what’s wrong with it doing so here? We may not agree with the codes, and we may keep changing them, but are you really suggesting that the above is a neutral list of items that have nothing to do with good/bad/right/wrong behaviour?

******

Tony, I’m a little concerned in case the now silent Dragonsheart (Casey) was offended by the mock trial of God and Cain. You and I are battle-hardened, but she has entered the arena only recently, and I’d hate to think that my posts might have upset her.

I agree about the translation never being perfect, but does that matter, unless you consider the contents inerrant? Your other point about Genesis asd a science treatise is true. Nahmanides account of the first few seconds of creation from Genesis 1:1 reads just like the Big Bang.
(See Schroeder, "Gensis and the Big Bang", 1990)

That's the problem isn't it. In order to make any kind of reasonable debate about the content's fallibility you have to have a translation that, while perhaps not free of inaccuracy, is at the very least free of bias. I am not arguing here for the infallibility of the Bible. Stripping away the various trappings of of dogma and bias gives me a better basis for understanding, though. And thanks for the reference, I will check it out. :)

So there are two main passages that are used to define the '7 deadly sins', one in Proverbs where king Solomon makes a list that's something like

6:16 There are six things that the Lord hates,

even 31 seven 32 things that are an abomination to him: 33
6:17 haughty eyes, 34 a lying tongue, 35
and hands that shed innocent blood, 36
6:18 a heart that devises wicked plans, 37
feet that are swift to run 38 to evil,
6:19 a false witness who pours out lies, 39
and a person who spreads discord 40 among family members. 41

And Galations 5

5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; 21 only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, 22 but through love serve one another. 23 5:14 For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, 24 namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 25 5:15 However, if you continually bite and devour one another, 26 beware that you are not consumed 27 by one another. 5:16 But I say, live 28 by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh. 29 5:17 For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires 30 that are opposed to the flesh, for these are in opposition to 31 each other, so that you cannot do what you want. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh 32 are obvious: 33 sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, 34 hostilities, 35 strife, 36 jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, 37 factions, 5:21 envying, 38 murder, 39 drunkenness, carousing, 40 and similar things.

Now, taking these things without any context of morality, but instead looking at them through the lens of mechanistic 'functional vs. dysfunctional', it is pretty obvious that this is a list of things that will cause dysfunction, either in the individual or in the group.

All of these things are things that will hurt you, hurt someone else, or degrade the functionality of the group. The vast majority of these things have scientifically proven negative consequences that have nothing to do with morality whatsoever. Some are less obvious, such as idolatry, but even here it is fairly safe to say that fixation on a person or thing can be unhealthy(dysfunctional) either individually or to society.

I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a perfect translation, but if you get rid of all the hyped up burn in hell sin and guilt that the church has used as a means of control for the last two thousand years or so, there is room to start bridging the gap in a way that encourages mutual acceptance and understanding. For example, taking away the moral implications from the book of Genesis, it reads much more like a science treatise than a religious text.

I agree about the translation never being perfect, but does that matter, unless you consider the contents inerrant? Your other point about Genesis asd a science treatise is true. Nahmanides account of the first few seconds of creation from Genesis 1:1 reads just like the Big Bang.
(See Schroeder, "Gensis and the Big Bang", 1990)

TONY: You ever consider that breaking the translation barrier of the bible, which many people consider the gospel truth of "god", might go a long way to generating some tolerance and understanding in the world? People would be much more likely to believe that the translator messed up than they would believing that their religions intentionally misled them.

dhw: We’re having a bad time with our communications! I’m really sorry, but I don’t understand any of this. What do you mean by “breaking the translation barrier”? A perfect translation?

The only portion of the OT Bible that is a problem in translation is the Torah. Tradition has Moses taking dictation on Mt. Sinai but the scholars don't accept that and Genesis has four or more authors. Further old Herbrew has many nuances and is a very limited language. The Masoretic text, which I have in translation was put together about 200 AD from existing Torahs. The scribes for those were very exact. The scroll of Isaiah from Qumran is 99.8% like the existing Masoretic scrolls, so we can assure that the Torah itself is extremely accurate as it currently exists. What is up for grabs is translation. The Greeks did not do a great job at the time and the English were no better with the KJV, so the best approach is the Masoretic. The Torah was undoubtedly in oral tradtion for many hundreds of years, so the original may have been different. The NT has four acepted gospels, with the first, Matthew written, after oral tradition, about 60-80 years after Jesus. There is no physical proof that Jesus even existed, and the section in Josephus about him is thought by some scholars to be a forgery. Josephus was born shortly after Jesus died, and so he was depending upon what he was told as a child, if that is not a forgery in his existing history.

My conclusion, as always, is taking the word of God from both Bibles is an act of faith.

From what I am reading, which is a mechanical translation of Genesis(http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html Free Download), the original text talks about functional and dysfunctional instead of good and bad. For example:

".. “YHWH [He exists]” of “Elohiym [Powers]” made all of the trees spring up from the ground being a craving to appearance and functional for nourishment and a tree of the life in the midst of the garden and a tree of the discernment of function and dysfunction,.."

This is normally translated into English as the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil(Bad). So, in the English translations, you have moral implications, while in the original Hebrew you have mechanistic implications.

DHW

You said earlier that Hebrew has no word for good or bad, so do you mean that the original biblical texts do NOT prescribe a moral code, but only talk in neutral terms of function/dysfunction?

As I said in my last post, there is one direct moral imperative in the bible, the Golden Rule, and there are certainly expansions on that rule. So no, I am not saying that there is no moral code in the Bible whatsoever. Instead, I am saying that much of what has been translated with moral implications did not carry those same implications in the original text. I.E. Stating that homosexuality is not functional in reproductive terms by no means says that it is morally wrong, only that you won't have kids that way. Now, given that it was expected that couples have children and increase the strength of the tribe, there may have been social reasons for which homosexuality was frowned on, but that is something else entirely.

My use of the so-called seven deadly sins was perhaps not the best example I could give, though in a way they do illustrate my point. If you consider a human in mechanistic terms, you know that there is a dichotomy between mind and body, even though they are synergistic. Gluttony, lust, wrath, envy, pride, greed, and sloth, are all dysfunctional in their own way. Again, I am not making that statement from a moral standpoint, but rather from a mechanistic perspective. I will follow this post up with a more detailed description and justification of that statement.

I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a perfect translation, but if you get rid of all the hyped up burn in hell sin and guilt that the church has used as a means of control for the last two thousand years or so, there is room to start bridging the gap in a way that encourages mutual acceptance and understanding. For example, taking away the moral implications from the book of Genesis, it reads much more like a science treatise than a religious text.

TONY: [...] biologically even you can not argue that, physically, mechanically, sex was not intended for reproduction.

Of course not, and this is the first source of misunderstanding, which is my fault. I should have emphasized “THE” purpose (though I did offer you an avuncular warning that if you believed there was no OTHER purpose, your marriage might run into trouble!). More in a moment. The second source is my questioning what was the point of your functional vs. dysfunctional contrast in the context of morality. I concluded that section by asking “And if your purpose is not to establish moral criteria, what is it?” You have answered: “My only purpose is clarity of understanding. There is a vast gulf between functional/ dysfunctional and a moral code.” For me terms like “dysfunctional” and “not normal” carry a negative connotation, which I wrongly took to be a judgement. “THE” purpose of sex suggests there is only one and so sex just for pleasure is dysfunctional, which again I took to be a judgement. My apologies.

The rest of your post follows on from this misunderstanding, but still creates problems for me. I am not, of course, disagreeing when you say “Two men having sex will not produce a baby.” (I learned from an early age that you need a male and a female to go looking under the gooseberry bush.) My point is that having children is not the only purpose of sex – and I think you’ve agreed that pleasure can be another purpose. This means that in the context of reproduction homosexual sex is dysfunctional, but in the context of pleasure it’s functional. You must forgive my obtuseness, which I realize is very frustrating for you, but I still don’t know what this clarifies, or indeed what I’m meant to understand generally through the functional/dysfunctional dichotomy.

There is one possible clue, which I’ll discuss somewhat hesitantly. You write that I “have often argued that the bible or other religions are not needed for the development of a moral code. So why should every statement in the bible be about this moral code that it doesn’t need to define?” (For the record, I do think moral codes have to be defined, but you don’t need religion to do the job.) You said earlier that Hebrew has no word for good or bad, so do you mean that the original biblical texts do NOT prescribe a moral code, but only talk in neutral terms of function/dysfunction? What would be the purpose of that? Surely not to inform us, for instance, that two men having sex won’t produce a baby. If the purpose is a neutral description of actions that won’t “work”, who decides what are the “intended purposes”? In terms of your ‘seven deadly sins’, the glutton can argue that he thoroughly enjoys the pleasures of eating; the greedy man can point to his millions and say he’s fulfilled his personal ambition to be rich, and what’s more he’s proud of it; the lustful Don Juan can revel in his pleasurable sexual conquests; the slothful scrounger can take it easy, living on his state benefits etc., and they can all say they've fulfilled their own purposes. No dysfunction there. But I say all of this “hesitantly”, because I might again be misinterpreting you. So perhaps you will spell out for me exactly what it is you’re clarifying.

Dhw: [...] given the choice, I would say it’s infinitely more important that we should try to gain an accurate understanding of people who now live in the same world as us but have “a different understanding of reality”. The result of not doing so may be catastrophic.

TONY: You ever consider that breaking the translation barrier of the bible, which many people consider the gospel truth of "god", might go a long way to generating some tolerance and understanding in the world? People would be much more likely to believe that the translator messed up than they would believing that their religions intentionally misled them.

We’re having a bad time with our communications! I’m really sorry, but I don’t understand any of this. What do you mean by “breaking the translation barrier”? A perfect translation? You would only get that if you and the author (“god”?) were bilingual, and sat down together to agree on the exact meaning of each word, assuming that both languages had exact equivalents. How can people conclude that the translator has messed up if they don’t understand the original text? Do religions mislead, or is it the people who interpret the religions that mislead? But I’m just guessing wildly here. More clarification, please! And many apologies again if I’m missing the obvious.

the idea of “intended purpose” doesn’t apply. Evolution has resulted in sex for its own sake, and that’s it. But even from your theist standpoint, we run into difficulties. If the purpose of sex is reproduction, why didn’t your god limit the “on heat” period as he did with many of our fellow animals?

Whoa!.. slow down. I don't think I am the one making assumptions here. I didn't even begin to discuss sex for pleasure or anything of the sort. As for what I stated being contradictory, I disagree. If the first commandment was to "be fruitful and multiply, filling the Earth" then ENJOYING sex would be great motivation for it! However, biologically even you can not argue that, physically, mechanically, sex was not intended for reproduction.

DHW

However, if your God disapproved, why did he make homosexuality so common among our fellow creatures? There are hundreds of species that indulge, including sheep, giraffes, bonobos, bison, elephants, and even birds like penguins and pigeons.

Again, THIS was exactly my point. Far from being a matter of approval, understanding of the word as 'functional' vs. 'non-functional' bears no connotation of approval or disapproval, or morality at all. It simply says you won't get knocked up if you aren't having sex with a member of the opposite sex of the same species. Biologically that is a very accurate statement.

One of my best friends is a half-black - half-korean homosexual raissed by a white father in the deep south east of the U.S. I assure you no prejudice was meant by the statement, but whether anyone likes it or not, the simple fact is, if everyone was gay the species would be dead in a generation. That's not prejudice, its simple biological imperative. M + F = baby... No other combination is 'functional'.

You are bringing morality into it, which is precisely what I was saying proper understanding of the words avoids.

DHW

‘functional/dysfunctional’ may help us to understand some cases, but what is our aim here? In what way is raping a child “dysfunctional”, other than through your dubious restriction of sex to reproductive purposes? And if your purpose is not to establish moral criteria, what is it?

Since you insist on trying to twist this back to morality vs. 'functional & dysfunctional', rape of any sort is not functional because a) it is normally a by product of a brain dysfunction,(some form of sociopathy or other mental disorder) and b) it precludes the proper care of the offspring and C) if the rape is also violent it can/will damage the mother potentially endangering the life of the mother and the child. Rape of a child is not functional because by definition a child is prepubescent and incapable of reproduction. Now, personally, I am like you in that my morality says that harming others is wrong. There is a difference between morality and functionality though.

If you would be so kind for a moment as to stop, and actually look at what I am saying, you will find that none of these arguments are of any moment. You have often argued that the bible or other religions are not needed for development of a moral code. So why should every statement in the bible be about this moral code that it doesn't need to define? Everything you have talked about could be summed up under the 'golden rule', really. That is a moral imperative, and might be considered THE moral imperative. But you have no problem with science saying "If we breed a duck and a badger, we don't get a platypus, in fact, we don't get anything at all", yet you argue when I say "Two men having sex will not produce a baby." Neither of those statement discuss the morality of it all. Saying that it isn't normal for a badger to have sex with a duck doesn't imply anything is wrong with it, simply that, statistically, it is less likely than a male and female badger mating. Someone being gay is statistically less likely than someone being Hetero. I don't care or pass judgement one way or the other, but until the numbers say that there are fewer hetero's than homosexuals, heterosexuality can be considered the norm.

My only purpose is clarity of understanding. There is a vast gulf between functional/dysfunctional and a moral code.

Your original motive of “curiosity” is fine with me. However, given the choice, I would say it’s infinitely more important that we should try to gain an accurate understanding of people who now live in the same world as us but have “a different understanding of reality”. The result of not doing so may be catastrophic.

You ever consider that breaking the translation barrier of the bible, which many people consider the gospel truth of "god", might go a long way to generating some tolerance and understanding in the world? People would be much more likely to believe that the translator messed up than they would believing that their religions intentionally misled them.

Ouf! There are assumptions here which I really have to challenge, because they underlie certain prejudices. From an agnostic/atheist viewpoint – irrelevant for you – the idea of “intended purpose” doesn’t apply. Evolution has resulted in sex for its own sake, and that’s it. But even from your theist standpoint, we run into difficulties. If the purpose of sex is reproduction, why didn’t your god limit the “on heat” period as he did with many of our fellow animals? If you really believe there’s no other purpose, your marriage could be in trouble before your wife reaches 50! Sex as your God devised it is a pleasure, and I see pleasure as a purpose in itself. As regards homosexuals, I must admit I get a feeling of yuck at the very thought of having sex with another man, though I get the same feeling about most of the women I see in town – a feeling no doubt reciprocated! However, if your God disapproved, why did he make homosexuality so common among our fellow creatures? There are hundreds of species that indulge, including sheep, giraffes, bonobos, bison, elephants, and even birds like penguins and pigeons. If it’s OK for me and my wife to have sex for the sake of it, why shouldn’t homosexual giraffes, bonobos and my fellow humans have the same privilege without being told they’re dysfunctional? “Perhaps not normal” is gently cautious, but still prejudicial. I’ve met many admirable homosexual people in the world of the arts and would never dream of telling them they’re “perhaps not normal”. Of course I’m not talking here about paedophiles. Whether homo or hetero, these cause untold harm to others, and I sometimes wonder whether the Catholic insistence on celibacy in the priesthood isn’t a major contributory factor in its appalling record of abuse, since denial of sex for its own sake is clearly against the nature that your God himself created. I wouldn’t defend bestiality and incest, as these may do immense harm to the victims.

TONY: The same could be said for the so called 'seven deadly sins'. It is not a moral imperative, but simply, things that are dysfunctional. For example, gluttony will kill you because it is outside the intended scope of eating. Yes, hurting others is bad. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. However, I disagree with you that it is 'all we need to know'.

You’re right about gluttony, though I’d say the other ‘deadly sins’ ARE moral imperatives when they cause harm to others. But perhaps my moral code should include causing harm to oneself – which ultimately will also cause harm to others, unless the person is a recluse. I can see that ‘functional/dysfunctional’ may help us to understand some cases, but what is our aim here? Ultimately, we’re passing some kind of judgement, and for that we must have criteria. Is the action good or bad? The criterion I’ve offered is whether it’s harmful or beneficial, and I will happily extend this to the self as well as to others, always with the proviso that beneficial to the self must not entail harm to others. I can’t see how ‘functional/dysfunctional’ will help us to make the moral judgements on which our behaviour is based. In what way is raping a child “dysfunctional”, other than through your dubious restriction of sex to reproductive purposes? And if your purpose is not to establish moral criteria, what is it?

TONY: Another reason is because we have a tendency to project our current knowledge and beliefs and understanding on people that lived in a different world with a different understanding of reality. From a historical and anthropological perspective I think it is good for us to have a accurate understanding of what they thought and believed.

Your original motive of “curiosity” is fine with me. However, given the choice, I would say it’s infinitely more important that we should try to gain an accurate understanding of people who now live in the same world as us but have “a different understanding of reality”. The result of not doing so may be catastrophic.