Original languages necessary for study?

[JohnnyGotham]

Whenever I get into a discussion about the Old Testament, I often hear people say that such-and-such is translated better in the "original Hebrew", or that I need to look at the Hebrew for the "deeper meaning".

Why would God go through the trouble of preserving his word in English if all it's going to be is a perversion of the "original Hebrew"?

God has given us his perfect word in the KJV, and you don't need to be an expert in Greek or Hebrew to understand it.

[dwayner79]

Its like deja vu all over again.

[kevinmiller]

Its like deja vu all over again.

:lol:

[JohnnyGotham]

Sorry, I haven't been her in a while.

[kevinmiller]

I suggest jumping into the KJV thread if you want to discuss it. :wink

[Kubel]

Quick answer:

Because God inspired man to write, and when they wrote, they did not write in English. :Bible:

[Alen]

Whenever I get into a discussion about the Old Testament, I often hear people say that such-and-such is translated better in the "original Hebrew", or that I need to look at the Hebrew for the "deeper meaning".

I guess the question is if there is any meaning that is not in the KJV, but is in the original languages.

Why would God go through the trouble of preserving his word in English if all it's going to be is a perversion of the "original Hebrew"?

That is of course assuming it is preserved in English.

God has given us his perfect word in the KJV, and you don't need to be an expert in Greek or Hebrew to understand it.

Once again, another assumption

I guess it all comes down to if the KJV is a perfect translation, then that would mean there is no information loss whatsoever from the Greek and Hebrew, to the English. Which is of course hard to swallow when peoples names are not translated, as well as places (many people and many places are not translated, and we rely on the original languages to shed light onto their meaning, which wouldn't be needed if it was preserved perfectly, there should be no meaning left to be found), as well as the fact many words do not exist in English that convey the exact meaning of the original languages (think of the word another, in Greek there is one word for another like the item, and a word for another not like the item) as well as tences that exist in the original language which we do not have in English (in Greek there is a tense that means this event is a one time only thing). So with all this in mind, by the usual definition of "preserved" the King James don't fit.

In saying that though, we do not need to be Hebrew or Greek scholars to understand or study God's word. We have what we need in the English, just like others have what they need in many other languages.

-Alen

[IM4given]

I have tried to study Hebrew, but it was all Greek to me! :tum

I find that most people start "going to the original language" when they disagree about what the scriptures have to say, so they can try to make them say something else. Then if someone disagrees with their scholarly interpretation of the other language, they can claim they know the Bible better than the ones who disagree with their man made conclusions, rather than taking God's Word at face value.

Check out the "Fallen Angels" thread if you want to. :peek:

[Will]

I don't think that one necessarily needs to study the original languages in order to understand the Bible. However, it can be helpful when witnessing to groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. I do think that it is important to understand the culture and times in which the Bible was written, otherwise there will be certain things we will miss and not fully understand.

[Madeline]

I don't think that one necessarily needs to study the original languages in order to understand the Bible. However, it can be helpful when witnessing to groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. I do think that it is important to understand the culture and times in which the Bible was written, otherwise there will be certain things we will miss and not fully understand.

I agree Willy! :thumb

[dwayner79]

I find that most people start "going to the original language" when they disagree about what the scriptures have to say, so they can try to make them say something else. Then if someone disagrees with their scholarly interpretation of the other language, they can claim they know the Bible better than the ones who disagree with their man made conclusions, rather than taking God's Word at face value.

This is a rather unfair representation of those of us who attempt to understand the original languages. While I do not doubt that there are people who fit your description, to place all of us in that group is unfair.

Alen, :goodpost:

[kevinmiller]

:goodpost: Alen, Will and Dwayne. :lol

[Samer]

I agree Willy! :thumb

Willy? :lol:

[Randy]

I don't think that one necessarily needs to study the original languages in order to understand the Bible. However, it can be helpful when witnessing to groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. I do think that it is important to understand the culture and times in which the Bible was written, otherwise there will be certain things we will miss and not fully understand.

I have encountered exactly ONE person who knows the original languages (Hebrew), and he was a Messianic Jew. Everyone else that claims to 'know' something from the original languages knows exactly the same as I do - namely look the strongs number up in a concordance, and see how definition 2 or 3 fit instead of the one that the KJB translators chose.

And half the time, looking up the english word in Websters 1828 gives nearly the same results.

[dwayner79]

Randy,

Admittedly, my semesters of greek left me less than fluent, I would say I know a tad more than that. I also know a few people who are fluent. It is a goal of mine to get there.