If you could read Hebrew and Greek

[Willo]

I can read a bit of greek, and I have found it fairly cool to be able to read straight from the greek manuscripts, and then translate into English.

[rancher824]

I have looked for a topic to post this under, and the way this one started seems like a good place. I want to preface what I have to say with a bit of my family history. I was born mid 70's into the family of a America Baptist Association pastor. He had been to seminary (my grandad on mom's side called the cemetery,  the place they send young preachers to die) a few years before he met my mother, and had taken the pastorate a few months before I was born. By the early 80's he had become what I  would consider a leader among the local level, serving as the secretary and printing the minutes of the meetings. He was well known on a state level, though not as well respected. Nationally he was not really known at all. But by the late 80's things quickly changed. You see, though the association has no authority over the local church, they do have a doctrinal statement that all the churches in the association are supposed to agree they believe. If they don't, they are supposed to either leave or be asked to leave. One of these doctrinal statements was about believing the Bible to be God's perfect inspired word. But there were several of the leading pastors that decided that there needed to be a phrase added, "as originally written." Now on the surface this phrase might not sound so bad, as it is true the way the scripture was when it was written down by holy men of old was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So why would this be a problem? Because it lends to the question, is the KJV the perfect complete infallible word of God for the English speaking people? It was taught to my dad in seminary that there are certain things in the word of God that cannot be understood without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. And he saw this as their reason to put that clause in. Because they felt the KJV had deficiencies that needed the original language at best, the original text in the original handwriting at worst to correct it. That the KJV was not a perfect inspired Bible. He decided to run a test. I mentioned what my grandad called seminary, well he was a man with a 2nd grade education. He did not know how to read when he and my granny married. But shortly thereafter he was saved and granny taught him to read so he could study his bible. And study he did! So dad took these things that "you had to have Greek and Hebrew" to him without telling him he was an experiment. And every one of them he either answered with scripture then and there, or said he needed time and later came back with scripture to match. Every one of them. So dad went to the association every year for a few years trying his best to get them to remove the phrase, but alas, they would not. So in the early 90's dad lead the church he was pasturing to leave the association. From that point on we were, though we did not fellowship with any that said they were nor did we call ourselves, essentially IFB. We always held to the baptist distinctives. Then 17 years ago I met my wife. She was in a church that called itself IFB. We married a year later and served in my dad's church until about 10 yrs ago, when we joined our first church that called itself IFB. Now with all that stated, in these 17 years since I have been around IFB churches and pastors, I am seeing the same trend, though using a different way of spreading. I don't know how many pastors I have seen and heard that are constantly in their sermons stating that "in the Greek this word means!" I do not know if it is mainly from how they are taught in Bible collage and never really think it through, if it is arrogance that "my education makes it where I can understand things you cannot", or what the deep rooted reason for this is. But here is what I see as the fallacy of it. If my KJV is the perfect (without error) complete (lacking nothing) inspired (God breathed) word of God for the English speaking people, it needs not to be corrected by the Greek and Hebrew. If it cannot be understood without the Greek and Hebrew, it is not complete. It is not Perfect.  And it is but a crutch for the English speaking people to try to stand until someone who knows the truth can correct them. For you cannot have complete and perfect that needs correcting. "But we are not correcting." Yes, yes you are. Anytime you say that the KJV says, but the meaning in the Greek is, you are correcting. Now I want to make it perfectly clear, I am not a "Ruckmanite"! I do not hold to his re inspiration bologna. If you know the Greek and read from the proper TR texts, you will get the same word of God as I do through my KJV. And if you enjoy studying in Greek, more power to you, you are still studying the word of God. But I wish everyone would quite saying I believe the KJV, but casting doubt upon it. If I had began my christian walk, building it from these pastors I have heard the last few years, I would NOT be KJVO. I have heard to many say, without saying it out right, "the KJV is not as good as the Greek, therefore it is not complete and perfect."

[Salyan]

That is a very good statement. I agree.

I will say that I don't mind going to the original languages to clarify a word that has shifted meaning in English over the centuries.  But that's not about not relying on the English translation so much as clarifying my own misunderstanding of seventeenth century definitions. 

[rancher824]

37 minutes ago, Salyan said:

That is a very good statement. I agree.

I will say that I don't mind going to the original languages to clarify a word that has shifted meaning in English over the centuries.  But that's not about not relying on the English translation so much as clarifying my own misunderstanding of seventeenth century definitions. 

I understand what you are saying. On that thought though, the KJV was “brought up to date” (mainly spellings) in 1769. I would think if words had changed a lot at that point, they would have brought them up as well. So seeing that we actually use a 1769 version and we only have to look 60 years (yes I know a lot can change in 60 years) to find a English dictionary that not only explains the meaning of the words in English, but also gives scripture references to go with them. To me, I’m satisfied that I can get the full meaning that way. But, as I said, I do not mean to say anything against you for how you study. It is more of a thing of telling people it is the only way to find the “true meaning” that I take issue with. 

[Jerry]

2 hours ago, rancher824 said:

If it cannot be understood without the Greek and Hebrew, it is not complete. It is not Perfect.

Hm... The English of the KJV IS perfect, complete - However, we still need to study it out to understand it - whether we use solid tools like Strong's Concordance or Webster's 1828 Dictionary, we still need to study it out - as we cannot understand it fully without doing so. That is how God designed the Word of God - we seek Him for wisdom (as James 1:5 and Proverbs 2 teach), read and study His Word to rightly divide it and understand it, comparing Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept.

 

2 hours ago, rancher824 said:

Anytime you say that the KJV says, but the meaning in the Greek is, you are correcting.

Being aware of the range of meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is not correcting the KJV - however, if I run to some lexicon or text to get a different meaning than the text of the KJV has, then that would be correcting. If I use the study tools at my disposal to shed further light on the English of my KJV, that is not correcting. Personally, if a lexicon or dictionary gives a different meaning, inasmuch as it does so, I disregard it. (A word has a range of meaning, and at least one or more of those meanings should reflect what the KJV says in English in the passage that is being studied out. If the lexicon/commentator, etc. does not give the meaning that the KJV has, then I disregard it. Also, I do not run to a lexicon to find alternate definitions or meanings - but to find the equivalent, such as a synonym - like using a thesaurus - if I do not fully understand the English word or phrase that is in my KJV.)

[Salyan]

1 hour ago, rancher824 said:

I understand what you are saying. On that thought though, the KJV was “brought up to date” (mainly spellings) in 1769. I would think if words had changed a lot at that point, they would have brought them up as well. So seeing that we actually use a 1769 version and we only have to look 60 years (yes I know a lot can change in 60 years) to find a English dictionary that not only explains the meaning of the words in English, but also gives scripture references to go with them. To me, I’m satisfied that I can get the full meaning that way. But, as I said, I do not mean to say anything against you for how you study. It is more of a thing of telling people it is the only way to find the “true meaning” that I take issue with. 

One example would be the word 'let.' 2 Thess. 2:7 uses this word with the idea of hindering, while our common  modern usage has more the idea of permitting.

[rancher824]

I agree we need to study. And that the scriptures are set up to be compared to themselves (context). But I do not know how many pastors I have seen that when asked a question, never say “well the word x means” but rather “well the Greek word translated x actually means”. That is not comparing. That is saying you have to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning, and yes I have heard some go so far to actually say just that. You cannot get the actual meaning without the Greek. If that is not correcting, I do not know what is. And using the Greek one or twice a year, maybe. But I have seen some that use it a large percentage of their sermons. 

1 hour ago, Salyan said:

One example would be the word 'let.' 2 Thess. 2:7 uses this word with the idea of hindering, while our common  modern usage has more the idea of permitting.

1828 Webster defines let “

5. To retard; to hinder; to impede; to interpose obstructions. 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

[This sense is now obsolete, or nearly so.]”

[Jerry]

Rancher, I get what you are saying - but the average believer does not even know about Webster's 1828 Dictionary (and most other dictionaries are not good enough for learning the meaning of Bible words as used in the KJV - they would give definitions based on word usage today, not word usage 400 years ago), so for them it makes more sense to refer to the underlying Hebrew and Greek, as through solid resources we can find the exact Hebrew and Greek words used in every verse, and find the range of meaning by consulting the Strong's Concordance. Again, not everyone using Hebrew and Greek tools use them to usurp the English of the KJV - just use it to understand the words used, and see how the range of meaning fits each given context.

I have personally found Strong's Concordance a more useful, practical way to get the definitions than even Webster's 1828 Dictionary. It is helpful at times, but I don't have it one the go, looking it up in his dictionary does not necessarily give you the definition as used in each passage (yes, there are many definitions that list some passages - but not necessarily the verse you are wanting to study out - Strong's Concordance (and lexicons at the back of the book) give you the exact Hebrew and Greek word underlying every word or phrase in our KJV (assuming someone is using the Greek TR and the Hebrew Massoretic Text).

[rancher824]

12 hours ago, Jerry said:

Rancher, I get what you are saying - but the average believer does not even know about Webster's 1828 Dictionary (and most other dictionaries are not good enough for learning the meaning of Bible words as used in the KJV - they would give definitions based on word usage today, not word usage 400 years ago), so for them it makes more sense to refer to the underlying Hebrew and Greek, as through solid resources we can find the exact Hebrew and Greek words used in every verse, and find the range of meaning by consulting the Strong's Concordance. Again, not everyone using Hebrew and Greek tools use them to usurp the English of the KJV - just use it to understand the words used, and see how the range of meaning fits each given context.
I have personally found Strong's Concordance a more useful, practical way to get the definitions than even Webster's 1828 Dictionary. It is helpful at times, but I don't have it one the go, looking it in his dictionary does not necessarily give you the definition as used in each passage (yes, there are many definitions that list some passages - but not necessarily the verse you are wanting to study out - Strong's Concordance (and lexicons at the back of the book) give you the exact Hebrew and Greek word underlying every word or phrase in our KJV

I also understand what you are saying, and in no way want to come across to be saying you are wrong in the way you study. I for instance use 2 particular commentaries for getting ideas from when I have a passage confusing me. Now, I know they are not inspired, but the thoughts of learned men. They do give me ideas to think on, and passages to go to to compare. I also, obviously use the 1828 Websters, and rarely the Strong's. I don't personally care a lot for it, but to each his own I will use the word let mentioned earlier. I already gave the Websters definition, here is the Strong's

"G2722
κατέχω
katechō
kat-ekh'-o
From G2596 and G2192; to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): - have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold.
Total KJV occurrences: 19

G737
ἄρτι
arti
ar'-tee
Adverb from a derivative of G142 (compare G740) through the idea of suspension; just now: Sometimes you- this day (hour), hence [-forth], here [-after], hither [-to], (even) now, (this) present.
Total KJV occurrences: 36" copied using Esword

Now to me, the Webster's makes more sense, but that might just be me. And I see nothing wrong with either definition. They both fit the word. So whichever makes the easiest understanding for the one studying is the one they should use. Again, I totally understand that, and do not want to be coming across as condemning anyone for their personal way of studying. But, now as to your statement that few even know about the 1828 Webster's, what makes it where so many more know Greek, Hebrew, or even Strong's? I realize we all know the "originals" were not written in english, but Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. But how many of us understand those languages? That being a very small number brings us to Strong's. What makes it where so many know about Strong's, but not 1828 Webster's?  Is it not that if more preachers were saying "if you look at this word in the 1828 Webster's it's meaning is" we would have a majority knowing that my KJV was properly translated even though my English has changed?  But, I still contend, that the preaching, and discussing that "in the Greek this means" sheds a shadow over the perfection of the KJV. As to the not knowing about the 1828, I asked my dad if Grandad had a Strong's, as I was only 20 when Grandad passed away I could have forgotten many things because of youth. He replied "no, He didn't even have a 1828 Websters." He went on to tell me that Grandad's dictionary was a (then) modern high school type dictionary.   Yet he got the truthes of God's word from a combination of study, context, and it.

[Joe Chandler]

On 5/13/2007 at 1:14 PM, KJV1611AV said:

Would you ever choose to read your Bible this way? Surely your understanding would be better if you could read straight from where the KJV was translated from right? I am asking b/c i may have a chance here shortly to study one or both of the languages and am thinking it would be a blessing to be able to read straight from the originals. What do you guys think?

If Greek and Hebrew were your native tongues. You would have to be comfortable and familiar with idiom and syntax. I tried to engage a German waitress once. So I typed into a translator app, "I have learned a few German phrases to make you feel at home". The phrase "feel at home" translated to "feel like a house". Literal, yes. Correct, no.