A Reason to Love

In her book The Harvester, Gene Stratton-Porter describes two characters who love each other, but refuse to marry until they are convinced that their love is not based merely on something the other has done, but only on who the other person is. This is presented as a noble ideal, but one that is surprisingly difficult to attain, for they have many reasons to love each other. She is beautiful and gracious, he is ruddy and handsome. He hurts her devastatingly yet accidentally, and she forgives him once he realizes it and makes reparations. She falls into a desperate state, and he rescues her and exalts above her highest dreams. They share many trials and triumphs. They love each other. But they ask themselves whether their love is pure, untarnished by material circumstances, or whether, things be different, they would have cared for each other. The book finally ends with an unconvincing 'we do'.

This ideal appears in many forms in popular culture. True love, love at first sight, affinities, the one;-all are names for a love which supposedly has no material reason except for fate. To value someone, even initially, for their material advantages, is looked down upon (Pride and Prejudice). And this applies to more situations than just love: geniuses and infant prodigies are esteemed for their natural gifts, not for their efforts. Those with the inner potential , but not the circumstances, to perform heroic acts or create great works are lamented more than the great and successful are lauded. There is something in our culture (at least) which values charity or chivalry–the idea that weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, or that force is always wrong. Let things run their course, get back to the state of nature. God forbid anyone admit an initial bias or (gasp) prejudice.

This makes its strongest appearance in our worship of freedom, independence, sovereignty, free will. What everyone wants most is to be their own master, to be able to make decisions independent of any outside influence:—that is, personal sovereignty. All significant decisions must be credited to one's free will, meaning we would have made that decision even had we no inducement in that direction. To suggest that anything can influence, direct, harden, or cleanse our wills is counted blasphemy against the god of self. Even for those few who exalt God's sovereignty over their own do so in order to protect God's freedom of will–the idea that he cannot be made to do something by his creatures. They say God must act out of his inner nature or he is not God. But to act without cause is to act without reason. How can this be an attribute of God, let alone man? Some ask, what if God had been bad instead of good? How would that make a difference? How could we even tell? Do we value what is instinctive because it is right, or do we value what is good because it is natural? Seemingly, we believe that they are necessarily the same.

I begin to ask, where does this fetish come from? Is it normal? Is it right? And already I am sucked into the same value system I am trying to question. What does it matter whether I was born with this prejudice or whether I was indoctrinated by my culture? And how can I answer that when my answer depends on the influence of personal prejudice or culture? Does this question even make sense? (Not a rhetorical question!) Does my inability to communicate it mean that it is not a material question, or is this again a misguided cultural bias? (Rhetorical again.)

Idiosyncrasies of Bible Translation

LXX

Greek does not distinguish between the verb forms 'he runs' and he is 'running' but the translator must.
Greek has a 'continuous' verb tense which is translated as '_always_ give us this bread' or 'he loved them _to the end_' or '_keep on_ loving'.

Greek pronouns are always included as a verb suffix, but they are sometimes also added separately. Too-literal translation leads to constructions such as 'the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will' = 'he he will'.

Greek words with two or more opposing meanings must be translated according to one or the other, but it is the translators' interpretation as to which. The following English words translate the same Greek word (in NASB):

sir / lord = kurios (this word is also translated Master, but there are other Greek words also translated that)
slave / servant = dulos (also the case with Hebrew eved)

Rabbi is Aramaic for teacher

 Hebrew words are more flexible than English. For example, וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ (wə·’ā·mar·tā) is translated 'say' or 'tell' depending on whether it is followed by the preposition 'to'.

To be continued....