A Thought on Understanding Holy Scripture

[jaybo]

Couldn't agree more with this. Seems to me we need to be gentle with those we disagree with, for they often have the most important things to say to us. If life is a puzzle, God gives each of us a piece of that puzzle, and to assemble the complete picture involves collecting from each his or her piece of wisdom.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree with this on general principle, but there are numerous exceptions. One of the most often mentioned is the Jehovah Witnesses. They have their own doctrine which conflicts with what the Bible clearly says -- unless of course it's their translation.

I do not belong to any denomination, as they all have their own interpretation of Scripture and doctrine. IMHO the worst Christian violators are the Catholics. They have gone so far from Scripture that their doctrine and practices have lost sight of Biblical truths. The existence of the Pope, cardinals, bishops; the ritual of the wine and crackers, that is not only not scriptural in that form but also is denied to non-Catholics; the depiction of Christ still on the cross; the confession of sins to a "father" who has the right to assign a suitable penalty, such as x number of Hail Marys.

The second worse violators are those that claim that their preferred translation is the true Word of God. In addition to the Catholics (who deny sola scriptura), those who insist that the King James Version is the only true translation are also at fault. Just because King James authorized the translation to be the Bible doesn't make it so. All translations are based on available manuscripts and translation art/science, not what one group produced over four centuries ago.

It would be great if everyone got along but it's not realistic. All one has to do is read Paul's epistles to understand that there have always been disagreements in the church and probably always will be. If he wrote Galatians 5:12 -- "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" -- on this forum he would undoubtedly receive a warning.

 

[Eddie42]

Do you really use thee, thou, and other archaic pronouns, as well as the obsolete words, grammar and sentence structure of 17th Century England.

For all the years I lived in Florida I never heard anyone use archaic language.

While I do not speak in 17th century English, I find some of it helpful. In occasional contexts where the modern translations read "you", I wonder does it speak to one or a group? I've had to research at times, but when I read "ye" in the KJV, I know it is plural. Another example is in John 3:15 & 18 where the KJV has "believeth", I know that is the present tense, an existing state, such as the literal rendering "believing". It is a statement of existing fact. But, it is the other words I find interesting in the main. It is interesting that the person I spend the most time with reading the Bible is from Asia, and even when we read the KJV, he seems to automatically understand how to read certain words and has no trouble with it. Of course with a word like "prevent" I have to explain.

 

[jaybo]

While I do not speak in 17th century English, I find some of it helpful. In occasional contexts where the modern translations read "you", I wonder does it speak to one or a group? I've had to research at times, but when I read "ye" in the KJV, I know it is plural. Another example is in John 3:15 & 18 where the KJV has "believeth", I know that is the present tense, an existing state, such as the literal rendering "believing". It is a statement of existing fact. But, it is the other words I find interesting in the main. It is interesting that the person I spend the most time with reading the Bible is from Asia, and even when we read the KJV, he seems to automatically understand how to read certain words and has no trouble with it. Of course with a word like "prevent" I have to explain.

The use of "you" is generally understood in context; that is not an issue. What is an issue is the mention of "unicorn" as a single example. There are nine instances of mention this fictitious animal in the KJV.

Another problem is the addition of Scripture that is not found in the earliest and best sources. For instance, the KJV has "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." whereas most other conservative translations have "Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus." (NASB), "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (NRSV), "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV), "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,: (NIV), and most others. There is a very strong indication that the additional phrase was added to the KJV by a zealous scribe at a much later date. The same can be said for the "long ending" of Mark, which is also considered to be a later addition.

Reading Scripture involves prayerful reading and understanding. This is most easily achieved by reading a Bible in one's own native language, not "transcribing" in one's mind what it actually means. Behold, doest thou haveth understanding of these words that I write here?

 

[2ndRateMind]

I agree with this on general principle, but there are numerous exceptions. One of the most often mentioned is the Jehovah Witnesses. They have their own doctrine which conflicts with what the Bible clearly says -- unless of course it's their translation.

I was careful not to limit my post to merely matters of scripture. Wisdom takes many guises, from common sense to rarefied philosophy and theology. 'Tis my belief that everyone has something to teach me, if I only let them, and discriminate between wheat and chaff.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Eddie42]

2 The group I would most fit in would be dispensationalist . But I in NO WAY believe sacrifices will be renewed and I have not heard that taught by the men of God I have heard speak . We have the same problem with this teaching .

John MacArthur is a dispensationalist and commenting in his study Bible, Eze. 40:41 on page 118, he states: "Four tables are on either side of the inner court's N gate, used for commemorating the death of Christ by slaying burnt, sin, and guilt offerings." On the next page is a chart comparing the Millennial and Levitical sacrifices. Dispensationalists consider Ezekiel chapters 40-48 a description of the millennium and they insist it is to be understood literally.

I view the Bible in 3 dispensations myself: pre-law, Mosaic law, and age of the Spirit or gospel. Paul seems to use the word in reference to the dispensation(administration) of the gospel as compared to the Law of Moses.

 

[Eddie42]

The use of "you" is generally understood in context; that is not an issue. What is an issue is the mention of "unicorn" as a single example. There are nine instances of mention this fictitious animal in the KJV.

Another problem is the addition of Scripture that is not found in the earliest and best sources. For instance, the KJV has "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." whereas most other conservative translations have "Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus." (NASB), "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (NRSV), "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV), "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,: (NIV), and most others. There is a very strong indication that the additional phrase was added to the KJV by a zealous scribe at a much later date. The same can be said for the "long ending" of Mark, which is also considered to be a later addition.

Reading Scripture involves prayerful reading and understanding. This is most easily achieved by reading a Bible in one's own native language, not "transcribing" in one's mind what it actually means. Behold, doest thou haveth understanding of these words that I write here?

Jaybo, I get the impression you think I am a "KJV Only" man. I am not. When I wish to look at modern scholarship I look at the NRSV and the REB from the UK; plus the NETBible with full notes as well as others. I do not know any translation I agree with in every verse but I'm happy with the NRSV and REB but I do use the Englishman's helps to the original languages to understand the various translation differences. My primary textbook on hermeneutics is the Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart and starting on page 45 he discusses the mistranslations in the KJV and the RV corrections so I am quite aware of those. My point is the men who translated the KJV were no spiritual dwarfs and can still be learned from, especially when used with the 1828 Webster's. On the word "you", I notice that at least one of my Greek-English Interlinear NTs give a symbol to alert when "you" is plural, so it is not always so readily apparent in context.

I doubt the KJV translators thought the unicorn was an actual animal rather than myth, but used it as representative and I suspect there is not unanimous agreement as to what the Hebrew word truly refers to. The 1828 Webster's reads:
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

I will repeat, I'll pay more attention to the wording of the KJV from now on by using the 1828 Webster's. I will also use current dictionaries to see what the standard definition of the NRSV words are at times also, and today's Oxford to check the REB.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I like unicorns, even if they don't exist on earth. They just seem like an altogether good idea. Maybe in heaven they will.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[jaybo]

I like unicorns, even if they don't exist on earth. They just seem like an altogether good idea. Maybe in heaven they will.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think they died out sometime shortly after 1611!

 

[eddif]

Do you really use thee, thou, and other archaic pronouns, as well as the obsolete words, grammar and sentence structure of 17th Century England.

For all the years I lived in Florida I never heard anyone use archaic language.

Nah. But
Rekon it’s so
Sabbath
Nigh unto 5 mile
I use reins = kidneys (as a joke usually)

But I talk about ox treading out corn ( I haven’t seen an ox in forever)
I have an upper Mill stone (griss Mill stone)

I speak some biology
Some mechanic
Lots of types and shadows.

One of the funniest things was listening to a son telling someone Magee MS hasn’t changed in 50 years, and his dad saying 40 years ago there were still hitching rails on Main Street. Course now that be done quite a piece back in time.

Some speak archaic farming tools.
Hit really ain’t no big thang no how.
LOL
eddif

 

[eddif]

"But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8, KJV)

This is one I am working on now.
Job’s friends did not tell the truth. So I can just look for the error in their speeches.

The author of this verse is an extremely angry person. He fusses at everyone. God does not acknowledge his words (?) (I don’t know yet). He sounds religious. Before long I I’ll have to deal with this person.

eddif

 

[Eddie42]

This is one I am working on now.
Job’s friends did not tell the truth. So I can just look for the error in their speeches.

The author of this verse is an extremely angry person. He fusses at everyone. God does not acknowledge his words (?) (I don’t know yet). He sounds religious. Before long I I’ll have to deal with this person.

eddif

I'll readily admit, I am NOT an 'original thinker' and for that matter, there is nothing new under the sun. So, I try to read from others of varied denominations whose works are respected and remain in print and then consider their reasoning. I find caution is necessary when reading Job as well as Ecclesiastes. Solomon in Ecclesiastes often is speaking from a purely human perspective, rather pessimistically at times, and the Jehovah's W* are infamous for misusing Ecclesiastes regarding the soul. I tend to understand the 3 'friends' of Job to not necessarily speak false words, but misapplied them as if they were judges and knew why Job was undergoing such troubles. In a way they seemed to think like this: "And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2, KJV)

I'm inclined to think John Gill is correct on understanding Job 42:7 -
"for ye have not spoken of me [the thing that is] right, as my servant Job [hath]; they had said many right things of God, and Job had said many wrong ones of him, and yet upon the whole Job had said more correct things of God than they; their notion, and which they had expressed, was, that God deals with men in this life according to their outward behaviour; that God did not afflict good men, at least not sorely, nor long; and that wicked men were always punished now: from whence they drew this inference, that Job, being so long and so greatly afflicted, must be a bad man, or God would never have dealt with him after this manner."

I suppose any time we judge God's purpose in how he deals with others, causes us to be rather hypocritical about ourselves. I've noticed when any natural catastrophe happens to a city here in the US, invariably you'll read where someone attributes it to the city's sinfulness and it is God's punishment. I'm grateful for the love given in Jesus Christ that God does not deal with me as I truly deserve.

 

[eddif]

One thing people forget is that common sense is not inborn. Common sense is a learned skill and/or the application of wisdom.

Thanks WIP
I have been chasing a thought for years. The thought is not quite developed enough to fully present yet, but your post supports / provides foundations that will help it develop to maturity.

The strange thing is I will be in trouble with what I post. Now I must find out how to present it as well as complete the concept. Every thread lately seems to contain part of the concept.
Thanks God (I have been asking)
eddif

 

[Delete_me]

Not that I know of. Nobody has ever mentioned that I have an accent.

Everybody has an accent. It only depends on where you are

 

[eddif]

Everybody has an accent. It only depends on where you are

It could be everybody has a tendency to have a local accent,
But
Some people make a concerted effort to not have sounds or key words that will tell off on their heritage. These people sometimes shift into and out of their new to them voice.

eddif

 

[jaybo]

Everybody has an accent. It only depends on where you are

You asked "do you have an accent that hints of your upbringing" and I said 'no'. Then you come up with pseudo-answer to a different question. Neither has anything to do with understanding Holy Scripture, so I'm dropping this subject.

 

[eddif]

You asked "do you have an accent that hints of your upbringing" and I said 'no'. Then you come up with pseudo-answer to a different question. Neither has anything to do with understanding Holy Scripture, so I'm dropping this subject.

Ok you can stay dropped on the subject.
But
Getting scripture into a persons understanding does require effort.
Acts2:5 kjv
5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

I think we were off track and missing the major point. What point? That no matter what we have to go through to learn scripture, we need to work on finding out how to express scripture in the new persons language (new scripture learner). We can do English / Greek language studies all day long, but most of the 100.000 south sea islanders will be totally lost. Two may respond, but the majority will be lost in the presentation.

That is where Romans 1:20 helps sometimes. I imagine when King James English Version came out, people were amazed to hear in there own language.

Ok eddif enough is enough.
eddif

 

[Delete_me]

I'm not really following the train of discussion, but accents do shed some light on understanding scripture in that it can shed some light on absolutes vs. relative. If you live in Alabama and an Englishman walks by, he has an accent. If that same Englishman walks down a street in London, he does not have an accent. If you walk down that same street, now it is you who has the accent. Nothing either of you said, nor your manner of speech, ever changed. It is your legs that moved--not your tongue. In the same way, we can get confused as to what moral absolutes vs. relativity are. The absolute is there--your speech, your intent of meaning--but we judge everything based on where we are. The relative is very much there, too. It is, by definition, fallacious to call absolute that which is relative; just as it is to deny that either moral relativism or absolutes, as given by God's word, exist. Both do. The Bible absolutely has a relative element to it, and one must understand, you are not the local:. ancient Mediterranean peoples are. It is not they who have the accent. It is you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Paul in Gal. 3:16 makes a profound statement based on one single word, "seed" instead of "seeds". It is often said "Words have meaning!" and in the Scripture we must pay attention to this. An example is when dealing with the Watchtower organization which knocks on your door and tries to teach that the Son of God is a created being. They will use the revered KJV and point out that in Col. 1:15 it reads "firstborn of every creature" so he is a creature thay say... then they go to Rev. 3:14 "the beginning of creation", to bolster their deceit. When using the KJV, it pays to use the 1828 Webster's since it is close to the time period, the 1769 revision of the KJV. In the Webster's it is "first-born" and with our Bible software it is so easy to see the definition of first-born that fits the context of Col.1:15 and likewise about "beginning" in Rev. 3:14. (If not in your Bible software, use 'onelook.com' for the 1828 Webster's.)

FIRST'-BORN, a.
1. First brought forth; first in the order of nativity; eldest; as the first-born son.
2. Most excellent; most distinguished or exalted. Christ is called the first-born of every creature. Col 1.

Yes, this is my interpretation of Colossians 1 as well, as the context bears it out.

I will say this: I had never studied Jehovahs Witness doctrine until just recently when they began overrunning a forum I am a part of. I have come across false theologies that are rather easy to refute in the past, but I have to say that dealing with the debate on the Deity of Christ is not nearly as simple. In passage after passage, there are legitimate loopholes where non-Trinitarians like the JWs can wiggle out of things, particularly when you look at the original languages. So it has forced me to back up and accept that not every heresy out there (or what I believe to be heresy) is going to be easy to simply slam dunk in debate. But it's healthy in a way. Gives me a newfound respect for opinions that differ from my own, and is challenging me to try and listen better to what is actually being said. I still fall on the side of orthodoxy unless proven otherwise, as I don't personally believe the Living God would have allowed His church to fall into heresy overnight without correcting it. But I do see how men can become convinced by more complex, more involved arguments now.

 

[Edward]

Do you really use thee, thou, and other archaic pronouns, as well as the obsolete words, grammar and sentence structure of 17th Century England.

For all the years I lived in Florida I never heard anyone use archaic language.

I have repeatedly caught myself using these terms unconsciously. I was weaned on a KJV and been reading it so long that it's become ingrained and just comes out sometimes.

I like it. I think it is a colorful language.
And I'm not even southern, lol. Western in nature, Midwest in location.

 

[Edward]

My drawl is so thick it speaks of cornbread , blacked eyed peas and turnip greens ,oh I forgot I need buttermilk and a slice of onion on that plate too .

You can almost hear that drawl in your posts. How you speak, noticed that a while back.

do you have an accent that hints of your upbringing ?

Out west some said I have an accent. I can't hear it. I'm from Ohio and no one says I have an accent here. But out west in Colorado they did.