| Author | Message | ||
| Julia |
Hello djconklin, I would kindly like to invite you to read the whole book of Galations,with no commentaries, and try to forget preconceived notions. All you need is the Holy Spirit and an open heart. Thanks, Julia | ||
| djconklin |
>>I would kindly like to invite you to read the whole book of Galations,with no commentaries, and try to forget preconceived notions. All you need is the Holy Spirit and an open heart. Julia, God created us in His image and gave us a brain to use to the fullest of its capability and I intend to do so. In the case of Galatians, which I have already studied in some depth it becomes very obvious that simply reading English translations is what gets many people in trouble in understanding the book. One of the best commentarires on the book (tho' by no means perfect) is that by James D. G. Dunn for the Word Biblical Commentary series. One of the reasons I recommend his commentary is because this series provides a bibliography from which one can do further in-depth reserach--this is partly why I have a page about Paul and the law on my web site (Paul uses the word "law" in many ways to describe a wide variety of functions and to refer to wide number of different things which aren't brought out all that clearly in any mere tranaslation. BTW, in translating Galatians while in grad school I ran across a verse (unfortunately I can't tell you which one it was) which I checked a dozen different translations and they were al quite different from each other! | ||
| Steve |
Am I understanding you correctly? English isn't sufficient? God forbid I was born into an English speaking country! I must be lost. | ||
| djconklin |
Since in reading the Bible we are reading a English translation of a foreign document then there are cases where we need to understand what was said in the original Hebrew or Greek--as an example see Colossians 2:16-17 and compare what the translations and commentaries say with the findings of Troy Martin "But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17)," JBL 114/2 (1995): 249-255. I hope to have some choice quotes from that article up at my web site soon. In other caes we need to understand the culture (John 2:4 for example) and history of that period. I find the study of the Bible to be fascinating because it forces me to think out side of our culture, language, history, geographical constraints etc. for awhile and I find that this causes me to be a better and more insightful thinker. | ||
| Steve |
Hi DJConklin, Not everyone can understand the JBL. The vast majority of humans don't even deal outside of their culture or language. (Isn't the JBL a scholarly journal?) If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems that the Bible is better understood as we think outside our culture, etc. I do agree that it is fascinating. But we must take scripture as it is given and translated into a language we understand. If a religion were significantly based on Colossians 2:16, 17 I think we would have to look at issues with that scripture. But the rejection of the weekly Sabbath by most Christians is not based just on Col. As I've recently read Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Hebrews it appears to me that the rejection of the Sabbath is based on the total destruction of the Law that was given to Moses. It's not just a verse or two of scripture. And if it's so prevalent in the NT, then there are either mistakes all over the NT, or I have to reevaluate my earlier thinking about the weekly Sabbath and the purpose of it and the rest of the Law. As for me, I can't believe there are that many mistakes in translation. Translators have made some wonderful discoveries over the last 25 years. These even include the omission of certain verses from the NT. But nowhere has there been a change that would result in a change in doctrine or practice (well, except for the snake handlers and poison drinkers in the Appalachians, here in the U. S.). You still state that merely reading the English gets many people into trouble. I'm very interested to know what that "trouble" is that you're referring to. I, for one, am in lots of hot water for my current beliefs. And those beliefs are based on reading English translations. But I'd rather be in hot water for understanding English, than comfy with insights on Greek that are not shared by the multitude of Biblical exegetes. God Bless, Steve | ||
| Colleen Tinker (Colleentinker) |
Thank-you, Steve. That was wonderfully said! Colleen | ||
| Bruce H |
Steve I agree with you. The Adventist Church has been telling us that we cannot understand the meanning of the bible unless we use Ellen White. Know it look like we need other commentaries or other scholars. Matt 11:25 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Maybe these scholars are babies. 1 Cor 2:14 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Buy the way everybody you do not have to go to sombody to know the greek or the Hebrew, You can go down to your local Bible book store and get an interlinear Bible It has the greek and hebrew as well as the English translation and a number called a strongs lexicon and you can look up what the greek or Hebrew word means and you can also look to see every where else the word is used to see how it is used. Remember 1 John 2:27 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Do not trust in commentaries or in us or great schollars trust in the Holy Spirit that dwells in you to guide you into all truth. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Delleen Starner (Del_star) |
Thank You so much for the warm welcomes from all. Patti...I had to get out of the AI quickly...I didn't 'feel right' there. Thanks for remembering. Whatever the Bible translation I believe that it will, if we read it in its entirety rather than 'snipping verses' point us to the absolutely true statement that...... Jesus Is Enough | ||
| djconklin |
>>Not everyone can understand the JBL. The vast majority of humans don't even deal outside of their culture or language. (Isn't the JBL a scholarly journal?) Granted there are some people who can't understand what is written in the articles written in JBL. But, I suspect that if one knows how to use a computer then one knows how to use a dictionary to find out what the "big words" mean(--or, one could ask a pastor!). JBL is the abbreviation for Journal of Biblical Literature. >>If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems that the Bible is better understood as we think outside our culture, etc. I do agree that it is fascinating. But we must take scripture as it is given and translated into a language we understand. We do not <b>have</b> to "take" Scripture in our language. Simply because what we have <b>is</b> a translation automatically means that doing so means we have short-changed ourselves and limited the meaning that we can get out of it. That's why there are commentaries. >>If a religion were significantly based on Colossians 2:16, 17 I think we would have to look at issues with that scripture. What I am finding out is that this particular text is being <b>mis-used</b> by most people (amatuers and some professionals alike). >>But the rejection of the weekly Sabbath by most Christians is not based just on Col. As I've recently read Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Hebrews it appears to me that the rejection of the Sabbath is based on the total destruction of the Law that was given to Moses. It's not just a verse or two of scripture. And if it's so prevalent in the NT, then there are either mistakes all over the NT, or I have to reevaluate my earlier thinking about the weekly Sabbath and the purpose of it and the rest of the Law. I have to disagree with you here; what Paul is dealing with is the mis-use of the Sabbath. Texts such as those found in Colossians and Hebrews indicate that the Sabbath was still being kept (correctly) long after Christ died. If it was of no meaning or value then Paul would have been more direct about it. When you read about the Law in the works of Paul you need to remember that he didn't have a word for "legalism" or "legalist". Note my short study on the various uses of the word "law" and its various functions in Paul at my web site (biblestudy.iwarp.com). >>As for me, I can't believe there are that many mistakes in translation. Translators have made some wonderful discoveries over the last 25 years. These even include the omission of certain verses from the NT. But nowhere has there been a change that would result in a change in doctrine or practice (well, except for the snake handlers and poison drinkers in the Appalachians, here in the U. S.). I didn't say that there were "many" mistakes. What I have found in Col. 2:17 is that exegetes and translators have ignored the grammar of what Paul is saying. >>You still state that merely reading the English gets many people into trouble. I'm very interested to know what that "trouble" is that you're referring to. Mis-understanding what Paul is saying in Col. 2:16-17 is a good example. There are web sites that claim these verses mean that the keeping of the Sabbath is void or empty, etc.. >>I, for one, am in lots of hot water for my current beliefs. And those beliefs are based on reading English translations. Well, did you check commentaries to see if what you read/believe is correct? >>But I'd rather be in hot water for understanding English, than comfy with insights on Greek that are not shared by the multitude of Biblical exegetes. How would you know what the "multitude of Biblical exegetes" believe if you don't read what they say? Besides if you took the time to check out what they say you'd find that many of them are wrong in places. That's why you engage in compare and contrast--this is a very powerful analytical tool. This isn't exactly "rocket science" you know. You just have to read more than one book and be very careful not to quickly accept whatever is written (no matter how much we may respect the author)> | ||
| Lydell |
Hm, does anyone else here notice that what is being insinuated is that the great God who was capable of speaking the universe into existence was somehow incapable of seeing to it that His word was translated clearly to present the ideas He wanted His children to understand? | ||
| sherry |
Yep, yep. Agreed, Lydell. It is an insult to the Holy Spirit who fills us and helps us understand all things....apparently He isn't sufficient enough? Hmmm.... | ||
| BMorgan |
Yes Lydell, that is what got me believing lies for so many years. In my experience as an adventist, I always felt that I could never understand the Bible for myself. Either some authorized leader/pastor or more importantly it was what EGW said. Did you notice that most adventist felt more comfortable reading SOP than the Bible? JDConkin is bringing us the same thing with new clothes-the All Wise Sovereign, Omnipotent God is not capable enough to see to it that we the English/Spanish/German/Chinese etc. speaking people get His Word clear enough that the common man can understand it. By the way, during the dark ages, didn't the church hierarchy keep the Word from the common man by leading them to believe they could not understand God's Word? Didn't the early translators-Tyndale, Wycliffe gave their lives so the common people could have the Bible in the language of the people? Just wondering! BMorgan | ||
| Patti |
Hi, BMorgan! Good to see you! I find it very interesting that those who tell us that we must be able to read Hebrew and Greek before we can understand the Scripture are usually promoting an interpretation of text that goes quite contrary to the plain statements of the Bible. In other words, if I don't like what a certain text or passage says, I can merely claim that it really doesn't mean what it says and if you only could read and understand Greek, you would see why one cannot take the words at face value. In SDA circles, the passages that are most often said to be non-understandable without the original texts are Colossians 2:16, 17, and Romans 14. Because these texts clearly state that the sabbath is a disputable matter, and that we should not judge anyone on the basis of sabbath-keeping or non-sabbath-keeping. | ||
| Colleen Tinker (Colleentinker) |
I agree, Lydelle, Sherry, BMorgan, and Patti! Our God, who created us in his image and puts his Spirit in our hearts, WANTS us to know truth and to to know him! Just as being born again is a miracle of grace and life, so is God's word revealed in scripture. Another one-liner from Elizbeth Inrig, our pastor's wife about to complete a doctorate from Trinity Seminary: "The Holy Spirit in us recognizes the presence of the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures." She freely admits that she doesn't know Greek or Hebrew wellóshe says you don't need Greek and Hebrew to understand the truths of salvation from the Bible when you study it with integrity and with the direction of the Holy Spirit! She's (and I'm) not diminishing the value of studying the orignial Greek and Hebrew; her husband studies for his sermons from the original languages in which he's proficient. Nor is she advocating never using commentaries, which she uses. But our Creator gave us a canon of writing that tells His story, and we can understand His truth in the Bible without an intermediary. God reveals himself to us when we want to know truth! Colleen | ||
| Lydell |
I saw a statement recently that I thought really put this into perspective. It really isn't the "Bible and the Bible only" that we follow. Rather it is the author of the Bible only. | ||
| djconklin |
>>Hm, does anyone else here notice that what is being insinuated is that the great God who was capable of speaking the universe into existence was somehow incapable of seeing to it that His word was translated clearly to present the ideas He wanted His children to understand? No, that is not the poiunt at all. We are erring men and women. So we make mistakes from time to time. Witness for example the translation of the word 'almah in Isiah 7:14. If your translation says "young woman" then it is in error--see my in-depth study on this at biblestudy.iwarp.com Most of Scripture is fairly easy to understand; it is when people ignore evidence that they don't like or when others don't use the proper tools to understand that we end up having problems. | ||
| djconklin |
>>Hm, does anyone else here notice that what is being insinuated is that the great God who was capable of speaking the universe into existence was somehow incapable of seeing to it that His word was translated clearly to present the ideas He wanted His children to understand? No, that is not the poiunt at all. We are erring men and women. So we make mistakes from time to time. Witness for example the translation of the word 'almah in Isiah 7:14. If your translation says "young woman" then it is in error--see my in-depth study on this at biblestudy.iwarp.com Most of Scripture is fairly easy to understand; it is when people ignore evidence that they don't like or when others don't use the proper tools to understand that we end up having problems. | ||
| djconklin |
>>JDConkin is bringing us the same thing with new clothes-the All Wise Sovereign, Omnipotent God is not capable enough to see to it that we the English/Spanish/German/Chinese etc. speaking people get His Word clear enough that the common man can understand it. So, tell me when the KJV says that there are unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, that turtles have a voice (SOS 2:12), that PI=3 do you believe it? After all those are fairly simply texts; why a child could understand them. Wanna quess where you can find the answer to the last two? | ||
| djconklin |
>>JDConkin is bringing us the same thing with new clothes-the All Wise Sovereign, Omnipotent God is not capable enough to see to it that we the English/Spanish/German/Chinese etc. speaking people get His Word clear enough that the common man can understand it. So, tell me when the KJV says that there are unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, that turtles have a voice (SOS 2:12), that PI=3 do you believe it? After all those are fairly simply texts; why a child could understand them. Wanna quess where you can find the answer to the last two? | ||
| djconklin |
>>I find it very interesting that those who tell us that we must be able to read Hebrew and Greek before we can understand the Scripture are usually promoting an interpretation of text that goes quite contrary to the plain statements of the Bible. In other words, if I don't like what a certain text or passage says, I can merely claim that it really doesn't mean what it says and if you only could read and understand Greek, you would see why one cannot take the words at face value. In SDA circles, the passages that are most often said to be non-understandable without the original texts are Colossians 2:16, 17, and Romans 14. Because these texts clearly state that the sabbath is a disputable matter, and that we should not judge anyone on the basis of sabbath-keeping or non-sabbath-keeping. 1) I never ever said that you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek--this is a straw man argument. 2) I have not promoted any interpretation that is contrary to the Word. Nor have you proven that I have done so. 3) Colossian 2:16-17 says no such thing--see my study and deal with it. |
