The Meat Of The Word

[jaybo]

Does anyone actually think that a Galilean carpenter, speaking to illiterate people, would actually say anything resembling "And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room"?

 

[jaybo]

Here is the passage from Luke translated into 21st Century English in my favorite translation (NET 2.1)...

"Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Now seriously, isn't this a far better, clearer translation than the confusing wording of the KJV?

We all communicate in the language of our time and culture. That is how we read-write-think! I haven't seen a single post wherein there is wording that is akin to the form of Englyshe that was used over 4 centuries ago. If that Englyshe is so very clear, why doesn't everyone use it today? The answer: if we want to understand and communicate what we hear and read, we use the language that we use every day. There is nothing to be gained by obfuscation!

 

[jaybo]

I recommend reading the preface to the TNIV Bible in its entirety. Here is an excerpt...

"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.

To achieve clarity the translators have sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. In a few instances, where some uncertainty about such material remained, it is enclosed in corner brackets. As an aid to the reader, italicized sectional headings have been inserted. They are not to be regarded as part of the biblical text and are not intended for oral reading. It is the Committee’s hope that these headings may prove more helpful to the reader than the traditional chapter divisions (which were introduced in the thirteenth century).

(Emphases such as underlining are mine}

While I don't think the TNIV is the best translation -- I prefer the NET and NIV translations -- it is an excellent statement about the principles of modern Bible translation. You can read the entire preface here: https://bibleversion.org/bible/vers...odays-new-international-version-preface-2005/

 

[Quantrill]

Hello Stranger, and greetings.

I do agree that maturity and growth comes through consuming greater amounts of the word, and that may be the most important thing to be gleaned from the whole teaching. The question is what constitutes the teaching that is harder to "chew on" so to speak, and harder to digest. Ones needs teeth to eat meat, and that in and of itself suggests a stage of growth in the life of a child.


Curious then: What teachings do you consider milk and what do you consider meat? Specifically, I mean.


That's correct. It's why I'm curious what you think the meat should be. He appears to categorize the milk as the first principles (baptisms, laying on of hands, repentance from dead works, etc.)

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God. And you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. (Hebrews 5:12-13)


Good point. I think they had issues with pride (as the text itself suggests), and this is why he had to keep his focus on our humility in light of the sacrifice of Christ, and not become "puffed up" with knowledge or about whose "disciple" we might be (1 Corinthians 1).

Maturity and growth doesn't come about by consuming greater amounts of the Word. Whatever amount you consume, will be dictated by God as to your being given milk or meat.

As I have said, wherever you are at in your spiritual life dictates what God will give you as to milk or meat. In other words, it is God's decision.

There is milk and meat in every doctrine known in Scripture. God only gives you what you are ready for. For example: If I have a child and want to teach them about guns. What do I teach them first? Guns can kill you. And, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. They don't exist.

But, as they grow up in the gun culture, they get old enough to learn how to shoot. They become familiar with a gun. Keep the barrel pointed to the target or the ground and never pointed at anyone. They become proficent marksman.

As they progress in the gun culture, they learn the mechanics of a gun. How it functions. The various ways to use it. The ability to take it apart and put it back together. They know how it works and how to fix it if it breaks down.

Also, they progress in knowing the ammunition and caliber of gun necessary for what they need. In other words they don't go after a Grizzly Bear with a 22 or 9mm pistol.

When you're learning about it, it is the milk. As you use that, it will become meat.

All is centered on knowing, not knowledge about a text book, but God. We grow as we learn more about God.

(Psalm 103:7) "He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel." In other words, Israel knew what He did. But Moses knew why He did it.

Quantrill

 

[smaller]

No one has ever said God did not hate evil as He created the type of evil that befalls man who have an evil heart. I explained this in post #22, but you would rather believe the doctrines that Calvinism teaches.

You know full well by now that mankind is not the problem, Satan is. Let's not deter and defer from the root cause and blame the captives. A point Calvin himself shot right past, and missed the mark

 

[smaller]

If you keep reading to chapter 8 you'll understand that in Romans 7 Paul was describing his state before he became a Christian (born again filled with the Spirit).

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:1-2

So some people would like to read it as, but it is clear that Paul used present tense terms, such as "evil is present with me" not "evil used to be present with me" etc etc

When you discern the person and the tempter are in fact together in this present life, the condemnation portion will become clear to you, and not an offence. In fact you would be GLAD for that condemnation. Rejoicing even.

 

[smaller]

Now does one "hate" his own soul? That's the contention of Smaller. I can't say as I truly "hate" my entire soul; there are parts of me that I think are of value. But I do disdain those parts of me prone to sin. Likewise, I don't hate my family, but I have disdained some of them for continuing to live for themselves, and not dedicate themselves or their lives to serving Christ.

I'd have to do a more thorough study of the use of the word in ancient cultures to be certain, but it is something I have held to personally when reading those verses.

Several points of note. God really does hate the natural carnal spiritually blinded first man, the unsaved. And God loves the children of promise. The called and chosen so to speak.

Nevertheless one of the reasons God loves the born again is that they "tell the truth"

Jacob for example, came before his father Isaac as a liar, a usurper, a poser, your basic deceiving thief, draped in goat skin no less for a little touch of symbolism.

And Isaac BLESSED him. Do you know why? Jacob, I'm sure even unbeknownst to even himself at the time, was being TRUTHFUL.

If we understand the principle of Mark 4:15, we are essentially in same position, and again often unbeknownst to us.

So who does God hate in that equation? It was Esau, but Esau's capTOR.

God LOVES the children of promise and hates the devil

It has nothing to do with the person, really, because in scripture there is no such thing.

Jacob, by the end of his life, knowing that his own days were fewer and evil than his fathers, finally got it at the end when laying hands "knowingly" on the younger, and blessing the 2nd child over the first.

It's a consistent principle throughout the text, the pairings of elder/younger, the younger being favored. The firsr and most obvious, Cain and Abel. But there are many such pairings.

Yes, it is hatred, and God's wrath abides on the children of disobedience, regardless upon whom's flesh and mind they cling.

As believers, we are to "tell the truth" of the matters. Not pretending, hiding and giving excuses for the tempter.

Isaiah 63:8
For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.

 

[jaybo]

So some people would like to read it as, but it is clear that Paul used present tense terms, such as "evil is present with me" not "evil used to be present with me" etc etc

When you discern the person and the tempter are in fact together in this present life, the condemnation portion will become clear to you, and not an offence. In fact you would be GLAD for that condemnation. Rejoicing even.

Glad for that condemnation? I don't think so! I rejoice in my salvation and that I am free from condemnation.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1

 

[smaller]

Glad for that condemnation? I don't think so! I rejoice in my salvation and that I am free from condemnation.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1

Didn't say you had condemnation.

The mini lesson here is that if we are capable of acknowledging that temptations of the tempter transpire in our own minds, then scriptural condemnation IS OUR ALLY, against our adversary.

Mark 4:15 is real. As are Jesus' statements in Matt. 4:4 and Luke 4:4 advising us that we will live by every word of God, presumably even the words we are used to shunning, hiding and running away from, when, if we think about it, then there is no use to run, hide or shun a single word of God.

Elemental stuff, really

 

[smaller]

Was going to post this earlier, and since Jaybo brought this up, thought some might enjoy the exercise, knowing that we "live" by every word of God, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4

These make for very interesting contemplation, imho:

Luke 17:10

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Matthew 25:30
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

IF the reader believes and understands Jesus' statement of Mark 4:15, THEN the unprofitable servant should be exceptionally clear, and there is no need to fear hearing and even applying Matt. 25:30 to ourselves, knowing that there is more going on than "just and only me"

 

[jaybo]

Was going to post this earlier, and since Jaybo brought this up, thought some might enjoy the exercise, knowing that we "live" by every word of God, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4

These make for very interesting contemplation, imho:

Luke 17:10

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Matthew 25:30
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

IF the reader believes and understands Jesus' statement of Mark 4:15, THEN the unprofitable servant should be exceptionally clear, and there is no need to fear hearing and even applying Matt. 25:30 to ourselves, knowing that there is more going on than "just and only me"

It's necessary to keep in mind to whom the gospels were written: unbelievers, both Jew and Gentile. They were not written to people who were already believers, a.k.a., Christians.

 

[for_his_glory]

Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate, I learned the phrase "language is culture". => It is impossible to translate the earliest manuscripts, written in a society that existed thousands of years ago, into a word-for-word Bible that would mean anything to those of us living today. <= There are several reasons...

1) Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are languages that are very different than English, whether the early 17th Century or the early 21st Century. Not only are there vocabulary differences, there are word tenses and idioms that translate very poorly. For example, if we said "it's raining cats and dogs" (as it often does in South Carolina), someone from another culture would think we were insane. The same principle applies to the early manuscripts.

2) I don't think too many of us are shepherds keeping watch over our flocks, putting them in and releasing them from "sheepfolds". Nor have many of us sacrificed animals on altars or fought battles with chariots and spears. When Jesus said "I am the good shepherd", how many of us really understand this? For example, John 10:11-18 says "“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep." How many of us can actually identify with this scenario? The difference in our cultures is extreme! It takes a skilled translator to convey the meaning of Scripture to our modern minds, which should be the translators' goal.

It is impossible to create a word-for-word translation. Additionally, the King James translation was created for a society that no longer exists. We don't live in early 17th Century England, so the language used is at least partially foreign to us. We are two steps removed from the Biblical times and from the early English culture. We need modern translations to convey the words and meaning of the ancient texts to our 21st Century minds. Fortunately, there are several that are excellent.

Luke 14:8-11 (KJV)...
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Luke 14:8-11 (NIV), " “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Which is more understandable? And more importantly, which is more accurate? a) There were no separate "rooms"; the banquets actually took place in a single room. b) Nobody sat at the banquet table; people reclined. c) "Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room." What does "give this man place" mean? Was it so crowded? d) "thou begin with shame to take the lowest room" Again, there were no separate "rooms" And how does one "take" a room? e) Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." What on Earth does "then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee" mean? They weren't worshiping, and how does someone "sit at meat"?

Don't you see how much clearer the NIV translation is?? "Do not take the place of honor" (in the room) ... give this person your seat". "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ [at the banquet table] " "Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests." The situation described is much more accurately translated into our language and culture in the modern version. And of course this is just one example.

We do not "sit at meat" and "have worship"; we sit at the banquet table and have a celebratory feast.

There are of course many, many other places in the KJV (and other historic translations) where the meaning is obfuscated. We need the translation that best conveys the language and meaning of the Biblical cultures to our modern minds. There is absolutely no need to re-translate early 17th Century Englyshe into 21st Century English. Many people do so, using the archaic language to put their own personal interpretation on what the Bible means.

Guess whom I trust!

I guess to each their own what Bible they want to use, but I like my KJV of the Opened Bible as it has served me well over the past 67 years and can understand it pretty easily.

The thing is that God's word never changed from the oral to the written, but through the cultural generations and languages we have seemed to come up with so many different religions and doctrines that have either added to God's written word or has taken away from it.

We try to define English words and phrases by our own logic that at times unknowingly leads us away from truth as we start believing in a carnal way only deceiving our self in thinking what we believe scripture is teaching us instead of letting scripture teach us. I'm sure many of us have done this.

One thing we all share in is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who is the only one who can break through all barriers, cultures, generations, definitions and what have you that clouds the mind from seeing truth that is right before our eyes.

I call myself a digger for truth wanting the meat of the word for my spiritual nutrition. Many years ago I got to the place where I just had to empty my head of all the various things that I was taught, but just did not sit well in my spirit. I came to Christ in a childlike faith and asked Him to teach me apart from man, which was 24 years ago.

I'm not infallible and I know I miss hearing the Holy Spirit teach me at times as I believe we all do if we are honest with our self. But, in where I might error the Holy Spirit always sends correction by others and am so appreciative.

I'm just a simple country gal with barely a 12th grade diploma and I have probably used the dictionary more times in the last ten years of coming to this forum as so many use words I never heard of before and have to look them up just to understand what they are saying, Oy Vey!!! I like teaching in simplicity that even a child can understand. But I do like a good challenge from others that makes me dig deeper into the word.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Whatever amount you consume, will be dictated by God as to your being given milk or meat.

Strange concept. The analogy is one of a father feeding a child. How much they consume can be partly limited by the parent, yes, but the appetite/ bodily needs of the child are nevertheless the primary factor, IMO.

There is milk and meat in every doctrine known in Scripture. God only gives you what you are ready for. For example: If I have a child and want to teach them about guns. What do I teach them first? Guns can kill you. And, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. They don't exist.

But, as they grow up in the gun culture, they get old enough to learn how to shoot. They become familiar with a gun. Keep the barrel pointed to the target or the ground and never pointed at anyone. They become proficent marksman.

As they progress in the gun culture, they learn the mechanics of a gun. How it functions. The various ways to use it. The ability to take it apart and put it back together. They know how it works and how to fix it if it breaks down.

Also, they progress in knowing the ammunition and caliber of gun necessary for what they need. In other words they don't go after a Grizzly Bear with a 22 or 9mm pistol.

When you're learning about it, it is the milk. As you use that, it will become meat.

Too far adrift from the Biblical analogy for me. The analogy was of bodily needs, not personal interests, and the body has a will of its own. It needs food because it was designed to, and this is not a matter of choice. The more it grows, the more food it will need.

 

[Hidden In Him]

God LOVES the children of promise and hates the devil

Well, I read through it, but I can't say as I find the argument convincing, Smaller. Scripture says God is love, which means that is His nature. He doesn't change that nature on account of His enemies, even Satan, and I don't see Him as being able to command us to love our enemies when He Himself does not, and Satan is most certainly someone the Lord acknowledges to be His enemy.

 

[Sister]

I think as long as people fight over translations, it is harder getting to the meat of the Word. I personally like to look at a variety. It is my commentary paralleling version to version I am finding.

 

[Quantrill]

Strange concept. The analogy is one of a father feeding a child. How much they consume can be partly limited by the parent, yes, but the appetite/ bodily needs of the child are nevertheless the primary factor, IMO.


Too far adrift from the Biblical analogy for me. The analogy was of bodily needs, not personal interests, and the body has a will of its own. It needs food because it was designed to, and this is not a matter of choice. The more it grows, the more food it will need.

The appetite is always there. What is given, digested as beneficial, comes from God.

I don't see why it is 'strange'.

This is why you never cease reading or studying the Bible. Because you are always growing. And in your next studies or reading, you will see things you never saw before. You see them because God gives you what you need based on where you are at in your maturity.

Quantrill

 

[Hidden In Him]

The appetite is always there. What is given, digested as beneficial, comes from God.

I don't see why it is 'strange'.

This is why you never cease reading or studying the Bible. Because you are always growing. And in your next studies or reading, you will see things you never saw before. You see them because God gives you what you need based on where you are at in your maturity.

Quantrill

I agree with the latter part of this post. I think our only point of contention is what plays the primary role: Our seeking Him, or Him simply granting it whenever He wills arbitrarily. I believe what James said applies here, "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." I think the Lord is always ready to grant wisdom to those who ask Him for it, but as James also said, those who ask for wisdom must pray for it in faith, without being double-minded about it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think as long as people fight over translations, it is harder getting to the meat of the Word. I personally like to look at a variety. It is my commentary paralleling version to version I am finding.

Reading multiple translations can be helpful. I sometimes do that out of curiosity, to see who all went one way and who another. In the end, however, I believe there is one preferred translation above all others... though it sometimes again makes me wonder how the truest interpretations, even when they are arrived at, will become established in the church. It again makes me wonder if it will not take signs and wonders confirming the true word. There are SO many different ways in which verses and passages can be translated and/or interpreted. It's as if the Lord set it up to where mankind would be free to believe as we wished (within certain limits, of course), even in studying the word of God.

But I believe what Paul said to Timothy applies here: "The Lord knows those who are His, and let all who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity." I think those who are His are increasingly growing a little closer to Him all the time, and departing from falsehoods one-by-one. It's just a slow journey right now, but I believe it will speed up over time as we get closer and closer to the Lord's return.

 

[BeyondET]

Anyway, back to subject... There IS so many layers to the Word of God and we always need to be seeking revelation for deeper matters, even when it is hard to swallow.

I like the mentioning of many layers, for a example do we really need to wonder or come up with theories on how plants and trees can grow without sunlight, surely this order below would be hard to swallow for anybody who has read genesis 1

The Second Day

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15 And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. 17 God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[jaybo]

I like the mentioning of many layers, for a example do we really need to wonder or come up with theories on how plants and trees can grow without sunlight, surely this order below would be hard to swallow for anybody who has read genesis 1

The Second Day

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15 And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. 17 God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1:3-5, "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day."

We don't really need to wonder or come up with theories on how plants and trees can grow without sunlight; they grew with the light God provided ... for two days prior to showing us the sun.