-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
2 Timothy 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1. The Scripture was inspired by God, not the writers.
2. A copy of the original Scripture can be inspired by God.
3. Let's not put more emphasis on the originals than God has. God allowed the originals to be destroyed. Copies can be more valuable to the believer than the originals. Why? We don't have them.
4. God has promised to preserve His pure and holy words without mixture for us. Where are they?
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1. The Scripture was inspired by God, not the writers.
2. A copy of the original Scripture can be inspired by God.
3. Let's not put more emphasis on the originals than God has. God allowed the originals to be destroyed. Copies can be more valuable to the believer than the originals. Why? We don't have them.
4. God has promised to preserve His pure and holy words without mixture for us. Where are they?
First of all, you will learn to think and to make thoughts in a different language, the original one.
You cannot imagine how it will change your mind and style of thinking. Our brain works in our language, thats how we think. If we learn a very different language, we learn how to think differently. For example you will get a new grasp of tenses and time which can change your acceptance of certain theologies, prophecies etc.
This applies to every foreign language you will learn, but, of course, many times more when learning the biblical language.
-----
Second:
The LXX. The LXX was used by the first Church and is quoted in the NT very frequently. If you do not use Greek, your Bible is a mixture of various incompatible sources.
Only reading all in Greek will give you a compatible OT and NT.
-----
Third:
Learning the original language will return to you other options of reading that are lost in a translation. When using translation, you read what the interpreter thought it means. All other meanings are lost to you, because you cannot reconstruct them from English.
-----------
Fourth - in English, you loose the original emphasies. What is emphasised in Greek by the word order etc, is frequently lost in English translation, because English has a given word order and it cannot be changed.
-----
Fifth:
You will be more humble in teaching and understanding, because you will see how many possibilities of readings/understandings are actually in the original language, so you will not become a "one version bigot" saying all others are fanatics and idiots without faith, when they accept another possible meaning.
------
Sixth:
It will help your theology and understading of first Christian literature, because you will not only know what the interpreter said to you it is, you will know what it is by yourself.
-----
To your question: Its quite hard to list some specific example of how this or that changed some meaning, I do not have any list of it... I only know that reading in Greek has given me new insight or better insight frequently. When I will get it again, I will write it down for these discussions
You cannot imagine how it will change your mind and style of thinking. Our brain works in our language, thats how we think. If we learn a very different language, we learn how to think differently. For example you will get a new grasp of tenses and time which can change your acceptance of certain theologies, prophecies etc.
This applies to every foreign language you will learn, but, of course, many times more when learning the biblical language.
-----
Second:
The LXX. The LXX was used by the first Church and is quoted in the NT very frequently. If you do not use Greek, your Bible is a mixture of various incompatible sources.
Only reading all in Greek will give you a compatible OT and NT.
-----
Third:
Learning the original language will return to you other options of reading that are lost in a translation. When using translation, you read what the interpreter thought it means. All other meanings are lost to you, because you cannot reconstruct them from English.
-----------
Fourth - in English, you loose the original emphasies. What is emphasised in Greek by the word order etc, is frequently lost in English translation, because English has a given word order and it cannot be changed.
-----
Fifth:
You will be more humble in teaching and understanding, because you will see how many possibilities of readings/understandings are actually in the original language, so you will not become a "one version bigot" saying all others are fanatics and idiots without faith, when they accept another possible meaning.
------
Sixth:
It will help your theology and understading of first Christian literature, because you will not only know what the interpreter said to you it is, you will know what it is by yourself.
-----
To your question: Its quite hard to list some specific example of how this or that changed some meaning, I do not have any list of it... I only know that reading in Greek has given me new insight or better insight frequently. When I will get it again, I will write it down for these discussions
I happen to know all of the above because I speak two other languages fluently and another one just a little.
It would be interesting to see an example of the article as you mentioned it.
I just do not understand what you meant.
I know someone who taught both koinè Greek and Hebrew and, of course, all of the above is true.
Still, I have to trust that all the important doctrine came through.
I wonder if you know that the Cath Church has rewritten bibles from the original Greek.
Until 2008 (or 2009) they were translated from the Latin and so much was lost.
But I find that the words that have changed do not greatly affect doctrine.
One important reason for knowing Greek would be for the word "hell".
The translators took all the words for hell, and translated them all as "hell", even though they meant different thing.
Likes Hades, sheol (Hebrew), gehenna and tartarus, which is the ONLY correct translation for hell as we understand it ,
in 2 Peter 2:4.
So much to know...
Yes, I know that Vulgate was the source for other translations in the western church, before the original languages got to be preferred.
In East, Greek has been always used as the primary language.
What is great or small change is always on us, on readers... for somebody this verse can be very important because of his life situation or what problems he currently has, for somebody else this verse will be irrelevant for now.
In East, Greek has been always used as the primary language.
What is great or small change is always on us, on readers... for somebody this verse can be very important because of his life situation or what problems he currently has, for somebody else this verse will be irrelevant for now.
what is most important to the 'both' of us, is that we actually 'know', that Jesus is 'REAL'
and didn't LIE to us during our 'conversion', it was all Holy, thus our pure FAITH and ASSURANCE,
through 'thick and thin'...we're on edge right now, waiting for yet another NEXT DOSE!!!
especially after the last one!
and didn't LIE to us during our 'conversion', it was all Holy, thus our pure FAITH and ASSURANCE,
through 'thick and thin'...we're on edge right now, waiting for yet another NEXT DOSE!!!
especially after the last one!15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The holy scriptures Paul is referring to is a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...of the "original". Paul didn't call it a good translation, but holy scripture.
Can you not comprehend that God can preserve his scripture for us to read and study and live by? Did God, who gave us His pure and perfect words, not make a way to preserve them for us today? Can't our God do that? Can we have an English version, using the exact English words that we need as if the originals were given in English? Answer...absolutely! That is better than any Greek or Hebrew.
The holy scriptures Paul is referring to is a copy of a copy of a copy, etc...of the "original". Paul didn't call it a good translation, but holy scripture.
Can you not comprehend that God can preserve his scripture for us to read and study and live by? Did God, who gave us His pure and perfect words, not make a way to preserve them for us today? Can't our God do that? Can we have an English version, using the exact English words that we need as if the originals were given in English? Answer...absolutely! That is better than any Greek or Hebrew.
Your reference for this?
Can we have an adequate translation? Yes, of course; there are several. Can we have an exact translation? That's theoretically possible, but your point does nothing to support your belief. Given that English does not have the same structure as either Hebrew or Greek, and that English has a large number of full- and near-synonyms, the best we can have is several good translations, with access to the manuscripts and tools to help us. For most people, that is a perfectly-valid way for God to "preserve His word".
Furthermore, some things simply don't translate well. Idiomatic phrases can have a particular meaning which is not necessarily related to the meanings of the individual words. It is valid to translate the idiom in either way. It simply can't be said that either is the only "accurate" translation, because both are. They're just translated according to different models.
Can we have an adequate translation? Yes, of course; there are several. Can we have an exact translation? That's theoretically possible, but your point does nothing to support your belief. Given that English does not have the same structure as either Hebrew or Greek, and that English has a large number of full- and near-synonyms, the best we can have is several good translations, with access to the manuscripts and tools to help us. For most people, that is a perfectly-valid way for God to "preserve His word".
Furthermore, some things simply don't translate well. Idiomatic phrases can have a particular meaning which is not necessarily related to the meanings of the individual words. It is valid to translate the idiom in either way. It simply can't be said that either is the only "accurate" translation, because both are. They're just translated according to different models.
Way I look at it is, no matter which translation one uses, if one is sincerely earnest in one's seeking, as God knows one's heart, and drawing nearer to God, He draws nearer to one as well! He will see one's struggles with any particular translation, and if needs be (as in my case with the NIV), gently guides (sometimes not so gently...lol), to a more pertinent translation, concerning an particular issue. If one finds oneself seeking many different translations, it surely means, that one has many quesrtions, and/or doubts concerning God's word....But, it does make for "pathways" of study, for a culture, doesn't it?
How about verbal aspect? We simply do not have anything like it in English. The Aorist tense, for example, is normally translated as past tense in English, and 85% of the time, it is! But the other 15% of the time it is present or future. This is because Aorist is about the whole picture, as seen from outside, rather than tense being the most important thing.
In Greek, verbal aspect is more important than tense. How the writer views things, from the outside, requiring a perfective aspect like the Aorist, or an imperfective aspect, like the present, which recalls events from the inside. Time takes a back seat to aspect, resulting in English not capturing the nuances of this important fact.
It's also the reason a verb can be in the present tense, but translated into past tense in English. The historical present is used with verbs of saying and motion, and English can never capture thus imperfective aspect of the historical present.
As for Hebrew, the entire verbal system, which is the most important part of the language is different than English. We don't have Qal, Nifal, or Hithpael. I won't even get into it, here! Hebrew is also a very black and white language, and it is hard to carry that into English.
There are just so many wrong things on this thread, especially by the OP. For instance, doeps Pete know that the science of lower text criticism is very advanced. Every manuscript from the Rylands papyrus of John, dating to the 2nd century to the much later Byzantine texts, have beeen scrutinized, mapped charted and cross referenced.
The result is that it is easy to trace manuscripts and their mistakes. So a copyist error in the 5th century might be carried down through the centuries in the copies of the copies of the copies. Byzantine manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, are actually the majority texts, and of the poorest quality. Because Greece and Constantinople kept its Greek, scribes continued to make copies. Sometimes scribes would add a notation in the margin. Often, these notations can be found on the first copy where this was added. Then the next generation of manuscripts, that margin notation would be added into the text, then repeatedly copied. This is a big issue with making simple statements about Jesus, into high Christiology. So for example, the earlier documents might say "Jesus" in a verse. In the 8th century, a scribe would add, "the Lord Jesus." In the 11th century a further scribe might add, "the Lord Jesus Christ." That is high Christology! And it is added. Of course, it is a true statement, but it is often not their in the earliest manuscripts, because it was added by copyists.
Finally, the KJV was translated using 7 very late, corrupted manuscripts, which is why there are so many added verses. Erasmus, a Catholic priest translated them and the Catholic Church made him keep spurious verses to support RCC doctrine, even though the verses were obviously added. Older manuscripts are always better, because they have not welcome corrupted, like a game of telephone! But, they all need to be compared and translated with wisdom.
I hope one day we discover some of the original autographs. There are libraries in Greece and Istanbul, which have millennia of Greek manuscripts. Daniel Wallace is photographing all of them and cataloging them. Who knows what he will find?
I actually do not know what Paul was referring to, only Timotheus knew. It might be Septuagint or its part, it might be hebrew texts read in synagogues, I simply do not know.
He was not referring to the book we have today. It was not accessible in those times as easily.
And I have actually no problem with calling a translation "Scriptures", because it is a translation of Scriptures. Translation of Goethe is also called Goethe.
You can have a translation of Greek and Hebrew and this can give you the message and all main doctrines, everything you need for a good and Christian life.
It will not give you all nuances, all words and all meanings.
It is in no way better then the Scriptures in the original language. You are quite a lazy man, instead of discussing the KJV again and again, if you would give the same amount of time to learn Greeek, you would be able to read 5 or 6 books of the NT in Greek already.
He was not referring to the book we have today. It was not accessible in those times as easily.
And I have actually no problem with calling a translation "Scriptures", because it is a translation of Scriptures. Translation of Goethe is also called Goethe.
You can have a translation of Greek and Hebrew and this can give you the message and all main doctrines, everything you need for a good and Christian life.
It will not give you all nuances, all words and all meanings.
It is in no way better then the Scriptures in the original language. You are quite a lazy man, instead of discussing the KJV again and again, if you would give the same amount of time to learn Greeek, you would be able to read 5 or 6 books of the NT in Greek already.
This is surely true.
But the interesting question is - does it belong there, now?
Almost whole the OT is somehow edited, there are various fixes and conflations scribes made. Even whole chapters added to the original authors like in the end of Proverbs.
Is it a Scripture or not? Should we get rid off it or just accept that it was inspired too, even though added later?
The same with the NT. Yes, a copyist added "Lord" in the 6th century, because he was a pious guy. Now what... should we "clean it to the bone" or accept that this change is inspired too, because it was used in the Church for thousand years?
And using in the Church is what makes writings canonized....
(This is actually a view of the orthodox church on the textual criticism and I think it has some weight. Thats why official Greek texts of the Orthodox church are not "the oldest ones", but "the best ones for the purpose of the Church").
From this reason I use a combination of Byzantine text with reading nuances from NA 27 in footnotes. I simply cannot decide which way to go The way of scientific cleaning of Scriptures or the way of what church used and recognized as holy...
And now, it gets even better, because the cleaned text of NA is actually the most used in the Church... so... eh... Thanks to God that the differences are not too serious
But the interesting question is - does it belong there, now?
Almost whole the OT is somehow edited, there are various fixes and conflations scribes made. Even whole chapters added to the original authors like in the end of Proverbs.
Is it a Scripture or not? Should we get rid off it or just accept that it was inspired too, even though added later?
The same with the NT. Yes, a copyist added "Lord" in the 6th century, because he was a pious guy. Now what... should we "clean it to the bone" or accept that this change is inspired too, because it was used in the Church for thousand years?
And using in the Church is what makes writings canonized....
(This is actually a view of the orthodox church on the textual criticism and I think it has some weight. Thats why official Greek texts of the Orthodox church are not "the oldest ones", but "the best ones for the purpose of the Church").
From this reason I use a combination of Byzantine text with reading nuances from NA 27 in footnotes. I simply cannot decide which way to go
The way of scientific cleaning of Scriptures or the way of what church used and recognized as holy...And now, it gets even better, because the cleaned text of NA is actually the most used in the Church... so... eh... Thanks to God that the differences are not too serious
Last edited: