Kjvo And Original Languages

[HappyChristian]

Would you say then that God did not correctly preserve his word to this generation the way he wanted it too, so we have to go to the Greek and Hebrew to get those languages nuances and uses to correct the English? No, I wouldn't say God didn't preserve His Word. And, no, going to the Greek/Hebrew does not correct the English - it expands on it.  Anyone who understands how languages are translated would understand that looking at the original language for a word's meaning can make it so much more clear - without correcting the word that it has become.  Expanding is not correcting.

 

I would think that if we have to correct the English AV Bible then it is not preserved as promised and therefore we should not be following a God who can't keep his words and promises. Again, looking at meanings of words is not correcting anything.  Getting up and teaching that something would be "better translated as" is correcting and is wrong.  But explaining to people what a word means isn't correcting.  Example: the Bible's usage of the word "conversation" in Phil. 1:27 and Heb. 13:5.  It is not referring to the way one speaks, but to one's lifestyle.  But, since the word conversation has changed meaning since the KJB translators worked, many people believe it is referencing speech.  And, while we must let our speech be right, that isn't what those verses are teaching.  So, to explain what the word conversation meant to the translators, because of what the Textus Receptus used, is not correction but expansion.

 

And beside the Greek meanings are CLASSICAL Greek imposed on Koine Greek words because there never was and cannot be found today a Koine Greek Dictionary.   there is a big difference between Classical Greek and Koine Greek and as such we have confusing interpretations from the Greek today. 

 

So either God preserved his words or he didn't  Well, I'm not confused about whether He did or not...I know He did.  And I'm thankful we can look back and expand on our learning.

[TheSword]

And beside the Greek meanings are CLASSICAL Greek imposed on Koine Greek words because there never was and cannot be found today a Koine Greek Dictionary.   there is a big difference between Classical Greek and Koine Greek and as such we have confusing interpretations from the Greek today. 

 

That's actually not entirely true. There are extant manuscripts of the Homeric Lexicon of Apollonius which explained Classical Greek in terms of the common Greek of his day (1st century; i.e. Koine Greek). It's incomplete, but it's inaccurate to say none exist. Also, the majority of changes between Classic and Koine Greek were grammatical in nature and not in vocabulary. Generally speaking, there was a contraction of the different tenses, moods, etc. and of the words commonly used. It really isn't much different than KJV English and modern English. This is kind of a straw man argument.

[AVBibleBeliever]

So you're basically saying to use whichever meaning fits what you want to teach...? Unless I misunderstood you, I firmly disagree. Such a position basically makes the Biblical truth flexible with the times and culture.

Let me put it this way, you have different topics (not changing doctrines or anything like that) that you can use as applications. One time you can teach a meaning with an application around that pinpointed meaning and the next around another meaning, or you can show the different meanings and their individual applications in a single message. It just depends on you style of teaching.  At any rate it gives you plenty of teaching topics.

 

At the risk of repetition I was witnessing online years ago on the earthquake site.  I quoted the verse that included " . . earthquakes in divers places."  One guy quick to argue it should be diverse while another guy admitted he thought it meant in places where divers dive, because he had been diving once near Greece when an underwater (a divers place) earthquake took place.  It was wonderful to see that with that understanding had an advance revelation over 300 years before science officially recorded that earth quakes take place underwater.  Could you teach both understandings?  of course would it be wrong No.

 

Only God could do such a thing as that.

 

So let's not limit our understanding to modern or older meanings, let us incorporate them into our teaching. I don't think it would make it flexible concerning doctrine but it would as to how it applies to lifestyles and cultures and there is nothing wrong with that because you are trying to get their life styles and cultures to conform to the Bible not the world.

[TheSword]

Let me put it this way, you have different topics (not changing doctrines or anything like that) that you can use as applications. One time you can teach a meaning with an application around that pinpointed meaning and the next around another meaning, or you can show the different meanings and their individual applications in a single message. It just depends on you style of teaching.  At any rate it gives you plenty of teaching topics.

 

At the risk of repetition I was witnessing online years ago on the earthquake site.  I quoted the verse that included " . . earthquakes in divers places."  One guy quick to argue it should be diverse while another guy admitted he thought it meant in places where divers dive, because he had been diving once near Greece when an underwater (a divers place) earthquake took place.  It was wonderful to see that with that understanding had an advance revelation over 300 years before science officially recorded that earth quakes take place underwater.  Could you teach both understandings?  of course would it be wrong No.

 

Only God could do such a thing as that.

 

So let's not limit our understanding to modern or older meanings, let us incorporate them into our teaching. I don't think it would make it flexible concerning doctrine but it would as to how it applies to lifestyles and cultures and there is nothing wrong with that because you are trying to get their life styles and cultures to conform to the Bible not the world.

 

Umm...yeah...still firmly disagree. There is only one original meaning that can have multiple applications to Christian life. That is entirely different than multiple meanings because a word can mean multiple things. Your reasoning above is not as benign as you make it seem on the surface because it gives equal credibility to all of the wierd interpretations of doctrines (such as election) based on what a word has meant, what it currently means, and what it will mean as the language develops. It does affect doctrine. Example....current English definitions of "elect" are as follows:

 

verb

1. to choose or select by vote, as for an office: to elect a mayor. Antonyms: reject.

2. to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.). Antonyms: reject.

3. to pick out; choose: First-year students may elect French, Spanish, or German.

4. Theology . (of God) to select for divine mercy or favor, especially for salvation.

5.  to choose or select someone or something, as by voting.

 

adjective

6. selected, as for an office, but not yet inducted (usually used in combination following a noun): the governor-elect.

7. select or choice: an elect circle of artists.

8. Theology . chosen by God, especially for eternal life.

 

noun

9. a person or the persons chosen or worthy to be chosen.

10. Theology . a person or persons chosen by God, especially for favor or salvation.

 

By your methodology, Mark 13:20 (And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.) can mean someone chosen to salvation or the president of the United States depending on what you want to teach about.

 

1 Thess 1:4 (Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.) could be taken to mean either the ones God chose or that the brethren voted God in as their leader.

 

That's nonsensical. Any consistent method of interpretation must recognize that there is only one valid meaning. If you embrace any meaning of a word then you've just flung open the door for any interpretation someone might come up with. Based on your argumentation, you would have no grounds to disagree with anyone here on any doctrine because could just appeal to a different meaning of a key word.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Umm...yeah...still firmly disagree. There is only one original meaning that can have multiple applications to Christian life. That is entirely different than multiple meanings because a word can mean multiple things. Your reasoning above is not as benign as you make it seem on the surface because it gives equal credibility to all of the wierd interpretations of doctrines (such as election) based on what a word has meant, what it currently means, and what it will mean as the language develops. It does affect doctrine. Example....current English definitions of "elect" are as follows:

 

verb

1. to choose or select by vote, as for an office: to elect a mayor. Antonyms: reject.

2. to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.). Antonyms: reject.

3. to pick out; choose: First-year students may elect French, Spanish, or German.

4. Theology . (of God) to select for divine mercy or favor, especially for salvation.

5.  to choose or select someone or something, as by voting.

 

adjective

6. selected, as for an office, but not yet inducted (usually used in combination following a noun): the governor-elect.

7. select or choice: an elect circle of artists.

8. Theology . chosen by God, especially for eternal life.

 

noun

9. a person or the persons chosen or worthy to be chosen.

10. Theology . a person or persons chosen by God, especially for favor or salvation.

 

By your methodology, Mark 13:20 (And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.) can mean someone chosen to salvation or the president of the United States depending on what you want to teach about.

 

1 Thess 1:4 (Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.) could be taken to mean either the ones God chose or that the brethren voted God in as their leader.

 

That's nonsensical. Any consistent method of interpretation must recognize that there is only one valid meaning. If you embrace any meaning of a word then you've just flung open the door for any interpretation someone might come up with. Based on your argumentation, you would have no grounds to disagree with anyone here on any doctrine because could just appeal to a different meaning of a key word.

Brother you have the right to disagree.

 

No I have done nothing it is God who chose these words and they are his words by preservation.

 

There are actually three different valid meanings to all scriptures  1) Doctrinal, 2) Historical and 3) Spiritual

 

Election funny you should say that. that word applies differently to different groups depending on the context.  the Elect of Mark is Israel.  the elect of God in Thess is the church of God the body of Christ.  But let me ask you, have you not through faith in Christ work chose God to be your leader instead of the Devil?  so is that so nonsensical once you take a look at it that way?  I have chosen God as my leader and his word as my authority for life and practice as I am sure so have you and others like us.

 

I agree though one needs to be careful not to allow the bizarre to be the norm, I am not suggesting such,  I am just saying the originals had broad meanings that are all understood in the English by their context. 

 

The original Greek may not have the newer meanings of the English and yet the OP suggest we should go with more modern newer meanings over the older more reliable. 

[TheSword]

Brother you have the right to disagree.

 

No I have done nothing it is God who chose these words and they are his words by preservation.

 

There are actually three different valid meanings to all scriptures  1) Doctrinal, 2) Historical and 3) Spiritual

 

Election funny you should say that. that word applies differently to different groups depending on the context.  the Elect of Mark is Israel.  the elect of God in Thess is the church of God the body of Christ.  But let me ask you, have you not through faith in Christ work chose God to be your leader instead of the Devil?  so is that so nonsensical once you take a look at it that way?  I have chosen God as my leader and his word as my authority for life and practice as I am sure so have you and others like us.

 

I agree though one needs to be careful not to allow the bizarre to be the norm, I am not suggesting such,  I am just saying the originals had broad meanings that are all understood in the English by their context. 

 

The original Greek may not have the newer meanings of the English and yet the OP suggest we should go with more modern newer meanings over the older more reliable. 

 

Yes, I have chosen to follow God, but that's got nothing to do with the context of 1 Thess 1:4 and is an invalid meaning. Your three-fold meaning sounds more like the though of Origen who was influential in the Alexandrian school that produced the manuscripts and modern translations you don't like very much.

 

What I'm saying is then when a word is used, it is used to convey a particular intended meaning. If I were to say "I have a bad hand", in order to understand what I'm communicating to you, you must know whether I mean one of my physical hands doesn't function they way it should or whether I have five cards that are going to cause me to lose a game. If you hand me a card when I need a cast, then you've missed the meaning of my statement. If in 40 years you read that statement again and ask if my horse grew, you've gone even farther away from what I was telling you. If the Bible is God's message and instruction to us, then the meaning of that message is important and we are not at liberty to choose a meaning based on circumstance; rather we are responsbile for discerned the intended meaning.

 

Anyway, we'll just have agree to disagree here. I'm fairly certain nothing will change so I don't want to expend the energy on it because I'll just get frustrated with what I perceive to be a gross misuse of Scripture. I answered the OP as to why I study and use Greek and Hebrew so I'll just leave it at that.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Yes, I have chosen to follow God, but that's got nothing to do with the context of 1 Thess 1:4 and is an invalid meaning. Your three-fold meaning sounds more like the though of Origen who was influential in the Alexandrian school that produced the manuscripts and modern translations you don't like very much. that sound like Ruckmanites  No it is not an alexandrian teaching.

 

What I'm saying is then when a word is used, it is used to convey a particular intended meaning. If I were to say "I have a bad hand", in order to understand what I'm communicating to you, you must know whether I mean one of my physical hands doesn't function they way it should or whether I have five cards that are going to cause me to lose a game. If you hand me a card when I need a cast, then you've missed the meaning of my statement. If in 40 years you read that statement again and ask if my horse grew, you've gone even farther away from what I was telling you. If the Bible is God's message and instruction to us, then the meaning of that message is important and we are not at liberty to choose a meaning based on circumstance; rather we are responsbile for discerned the intended meaning. Hand, you could mean you wee speaking about someone you hired to work your ranch I was not intending to say we were a liberty but rather we have to consider the meanings of the word in the context.

 

Anyway, we'll just have agree to disagree here. I'm fairly certain nothing will change so I don't want to expend the energy on it because I'll just get frustrated with what I perceive to be a gross misuse of Scripture. I answered the OP as to why I study and use Greek and Hebrew so I'll just leave it at that.  I get frustrated too I do understand and agree with what you are saying though, it is correct

[prophet1]

I have yet to find a need to study in any language that I never plan on speaking. I have yet to find a passage in the AV that needs any more light shed on it than that light of the Eternal Guide.

Anishinaabe

[AVBibleBeliever]

I have yet to find a need to study in any language that I never plan on speaking. I have yet to find a passage in the AV that needs any more light shed on it than that light of the Eternal Guide.

Anishinaabe

quite true the light of the scripture and the Holy Ghost can do wonders in teaching truths

[swathdiver]

God preserved His Word in the King James Bible.  One doesn't have to know the original Greek and Hebrew to understand what's written, just learn how to study the Bible in their hands.  Of course, dictionaries and using a Strong's Concordance as a dictionary can be helpful.  I just received in the mail a King James Bible dictionary from Way of Life and Things Hard to be Understood among a few other titles.

[John81]

One of the prOBlems many have with trying to understand Scripture is they try to do so on their own. Without the Holy Ghost, Scripture can't rightly be understood. The reading and study of Scripture must be accompanied by much prayer and reliance upon the help of the Lord.

[Genevanpreacher]

My question may sound antagonistic, but it is not. 

 

If the King James version of Scriptures is the "perfect version for the English-speaking peoples" as some claim, why does it seem that those same people often refer to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages when explaining a belief? 

 

The best example of this that I can think of is the debate about wine and grape juice. 

 

I find this question very informative.

 

I use as my authority, for what the scriptures say and mean, by using a Bible that 'says' what it means, (as I am sure most of you do). Let us be wise, and agree, that God did not write a 'code book' for a set of 'life' instructions, that we should try and grasp just 'what' it means. We are simple creatures, and we need the scriptures to be matches for our 'little' minds.

 

Therefore, as a merciful Creator, the Lord used 'simple minded' fishermen, and men 'about' their degree, (sheep herders, tent makers, etc.), to give us the proper scriptures we would need now. The language they are in matters not. The language they are in needs to be accurate though.

 

We know which bible to use, not because we have the 'originals', but because 'it' follows the true faith down through the centuries. We know the 'perversions' (NIV, GNB,LB,RV,RSV,TEV,etc.) are lacking truth in the fact that we compare them to the Bible that 'has' what they are 'lacking'. The same with the 'real' faith; we know which is real by comparing it to the true testimony of those who were in the faith before us.

 

Scriptures are more easily compared than the 'testimony' of others because we can read the scriptures, but cannot read the minds of brethren/sisters, on what they 'truly' believe.

 

But I find definitions interesting and broadening to the mind, as well as eye opening to teach to others that just 'don't know' yet.

 

The definition of Cabbala, in the first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica,1771 is a good example of 'why' some men use the 'greek' and the 'hebrew' in their pulpits. Tradition.

 

"Cabbala, according to the Hebrew style, has a very distinct signification from that wherein we understand it in our language. The Hebrew Cabbala signifies tradition; and the rabbins, who are called cabbalists, study principally the combination of particular words, letters, and numbers, and by this means pretend to discover what is to come, and to see clearly into the sense of many difficult passages in scripture: There are no sure principles of this knowledge, but it depends upon some particular traditions of the ancients; for which reason it is termed cabbala."

 

Not that all men, who use the original languages in English speaking churches, are in 'error' or such, but we DO speak English. Let us stop using a language that most people do not know, and get to the meat of the scriptures. The English one's!

[AVBibleBeliever]

[EKSmith]

It's not wrong for preachers to explain the Greek meaning of words in the English language, preachers should study as commanded and explain the definition of particular words and the meaning of phrases , which is not correcting the bible but rather "Expounding on scripture"

 

 

 

I'll try to get back soon concerning " language" right now I'm out of time and got to go.

[AVBibleBeliever]

here is an interesting article from Dr Dave Reese and IFB Pastor, I believe he is in Washington State.

 

 

THE MIGHTY COMMA AND PERIOD

27 March 2014

Enter “punctuation in the Bible” on your search engine and sit back to read the educated ignorance that twitters throughout the world wide web. The general consensus is that punctuation is whatever whenever you want it to be (partly true) and that the King James Bible is the most infamous punctuation felon in all literature of all ages. There’s nothing new or surprising in that opinion; it has circulated since the Garden. After all, the Book claims to be the word of God, and that idea went out the window shortly before the first murder occurred. Men have been killing, rOBbing, raping, pillaging, starving, and plundering one another by the most OBvious and devious means ever since natural selection has led us on the rose strewn path of evolution. What deluded nut could ever think punctuation was correct, when the very words are outdated, confusing, and the whole book is a sham!

Read More Here