In trying to find ways to interpret scriptures,

[Colight]

Fair enough...how will you know they are/were under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

For me personally,
I look for what they are teaching... are they teaching man or Christ.

Do they teach we should look to our self and our emotions for truth..or to scripture and solid doctrine.
Do they tell warm fuzzy subjective stories.. or do they dig in to Gods word.
Do they teach works or grace.
Do they teach human view point or divine view point.
Do they teach love (OSAS ) or fear (NOSAS)

[John 8:32]

Yeah, but they all had the original manuscripts, right!?!?!?!?

Isn't this where faith comes in? I trust God that He can show me the truth on any matter using the tools He has preserved to this day.

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

So the principle here is that even if the scribes did not believe, the scripture was preserved accurately. We have all we need today, we have access to the Bible God has chosen to preserve for us. I guess you would say it is a matter of faith. I trust God to have given me all I need.

[Watchman]

Isn't this where faith comes in? I trust God that He can show me the truth on any matter using the tools He has preserved to this day.

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

So the principle here is that even if the scribes did not believe, the scripture was preserved accurately. We have all we need today, we have access to the Bible God has chosen to preserve for us. I guess you would say it is a matter of faith. I trust God to have given me all I need.

Absitivelylutely! Bless ya!

[Jemand]

I have done some studying on the methods of discernment of the meaning of scripture, and I have posted some discoveries of my own. Now, I am even finding that my lessons appear to conflict with my conscience. It is as if God is letting me know that what I thought was a startling revelation requires more discernment.

I learned about dissecting the words in the original languages and finding out their properties in order to rephrase the sentences correctly. l learned about propositions and what all those words COULD mean. In short, I learned how to rewrite scripture so that it means what I want it to mean.

Here are my thoughts right now. The Jury is still out, but I am sure that there are those among you who may be willing to share your knowledge on this subject to help enlighten me.

We have several translations of thescriptures now that have been done by different people at different times by people who are experts in the language of the manuscripts that are used as the source documents. Many of them are God-fearing men who are Christians and aided in life by the Holy Spirit in their actions. I have been led to believe that not all of them were - some were merely linguists.

I refrain from using any bibles written as“thought for thought” or paraphrase books because those books end up being very much the interpretations of the translators and follow the doctrine of those who put their own thoughts into the meanings of the sentences. I am certain that this effect is not seen as much in the literal translations. That is one of the good reasons that I refer to several translations to see what the translators saw as what the sentence really was.

My Rose Book of Bible Charts v2 says thatthe word-for-word translations are: (disregarding the Geneva Bible and The Great Bible)

KJV and NKJV 54 translators in KJV in 1611 and 119translators in 1982 for the New.
ASV done by 30 American scholars in 1901
RSV 32 translators in 1952
NJB done by 36 translators commissioned by the Roman Catholic church in 1966
NAB done by 55 translators by theCatholic Bible Association of American in 1970
NASB 54 translators in 1971 by theLockman Foundation (updated in 1995)
NRSV 30 translators in 1989
ESV over 100 translators in 2001

All of these used various source manuscripts and most of them were done after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and those findings were included in the process.

When I find myself parsing what scripture really means or what the sentence “should have said,” I start to feel convicted about being arrogant enough to think that I know what the source document really meant while the separate groups of translators did not. I can go online and see what these translations say, verse by verse, and compare them. If they all say the same thing, I find it incorrect to then decide for myself how they were wrong. When the translators disagree, at least more than one of them, that's a different issue.

Any thoughts to share?

The Bible is a collection of literature written in three ancient languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The very same principles apply to its interpretation that apply to other ancient literature. The ancient languages must be thoroughly learned—first through the use of the best lexicons and grammars, and then by reading and studying as much literature as possible in those ancient languages until one can think in those languages and read the literature in those languages without translating it as one reads. For those people who do not have the time or the ability to thoroughly learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, we have available to us nearly one hundred translations of the Old Testament into English, and well over one hundred translations of the New Testament into English. Each of these available translations were prepared to meet the needs of a particular set of readers—ranging from the nearly illiterate to the university educated.

In addition to these translations, we have available to us hundreds of thousands of volumes of data and data analysis pertinent to the interpretation of the Bible. Since, in order for any interpretation to be the correct interpretation it must be in harmony with all of this pertinent data, thousands of scholars have devoted their lives to gathering this data, analyzing it, summarizing it, and commenting upon it. For example, Ernest De Witt Burton, in the preface to his commentary on the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, writes that the study of that epistle was, for twenty-five years, his primary field of study. Burton’s 630 page commentary on Galatians was first published in 1921 and has been, to a very large extent, superseded by more recent commentaries that address the nearly one hundred years of research since the publication of Burton’s work.

The Holy Spirit aids the Christian in discerning whether he should pursue a formal education in the Scriptures or pursue gaining knowledge of them from his own personal study. The Holy Spirit also aids the Christian in his studies, but it is the Christian’s responsibility to carefully and prayerfully study. When Christians fail to study, as all too many of them do, and presume that the Holy Spirit will “teach them the Bible,” the result is sinful arrogance and every imaginable false and conflicting interpretation of every verse in the Bible!

[Proverbs31Woman]

Any thoughts to share?

Well, the goal of Bible study is not to make scripture say what you want it to say but to find out what it is saying. What you want it to say does not matter, what matters is what IT is saying. Don't worry about trying to figure out how it should have been translated as our manuscript evidence shows that we are miraculously accurate in our translations. Look up the Greek words in a Greek/Hebrew concordance (like Srong's), look up the cross references in you Bible, etc. Try and understand, as best you can, what the passage meant to the original audience and then from there you can make your modern application. That should be your main goal. Don't worry about Textual Criticism.

[Proverbs31Woman]

Did Christ speak the Kings English?
Did Paul write in the Kings English?


For me I would want to study under a person who can present what Christ spoke and what Paul wrote.. not present what a translator thinks they spoke and wrote.

Not only that, but with translation you sometimes lose some of the meaning behind a word. Some words in Greek suggest a continual action, some are stronger words than others, etc, and sometimes our English language does not get that across. I don't know that I could sit under a Pastor or teacher who did not know Greek and Hebrew either. I know the extreme basics and even I am sometimes amazed at what I find by just grabbing my Strong's and looking up a Greek word and that still does not tell me anything except the meaning of the Greek.

[Proverbs31Woman]

Yeah, but they all had the original manuscripts, right!?!?!?!?

No. They would be searching the Septuagent, the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and not the original Hebrew manuscripts.

[crawfish]

Note that I'm not speaking as someone who knows Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, but as somebody who has had friends who were and whose jobs it was to translate the bible into languages where it is not available, and who has had some good conversations with them.

Translating is never as easy as converting one word to another. Some words have no meaning in another language. Some words have nuances that cannot be properly explained without exposition. Some ideas a so incredibly foreign to other cultures that they do not, in and of themselves, explain the text properly. You cannot be a dabbler in the other languages and really have a grasp on how to translate them. Proper translation requires not only an understanding of the words and phrases but also of culture and other factors. There is a reason that groups of translators argue about the proper translation for parts of scripture; it's very difficult work.

That being said, I personally leave such things up to the experts. It would be hubris to think that I can discern some meaning that so many others that are so much better qualified has missed. I don't depend on any single translation - when trying to discern on my own I read multiple translations, both word-for-word and idea-for-idea. I get the thoughts of literally thousands of bible scholars this way, and, through prayer and the Holy Spirit, I can learn what God wants me to from the text.

I think it's important that we are not like Muslims, who think that the Koran is only to be read in Arabic and it is the responsibility of each individual Muslim to read it. The bible was written for all people of all time and of all cultures. It is our responsibility to go out into the world, not their responsibility to come to us. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead us in this, even when translating God's word into other languages.

[Boo]

I have been doing a lot of reading. I find a couple things that I have seen to be really interesting.

1. We don't speak the language of our source manuscripts. We have trouble understanding them because of language and culteral limitations so we trust the "experts" who translate into English for us. We have several "good" literal translations done by those experts, yet we don't trust them to tell us what those written words in Hebrew and Greek meant. Therefore, we require that another man learn Hebrew and Greek so that we can trust HIM instead.

2. In the first and second century church, there were scholars and teachers who DID speak and understand the languages. They wrote of their understanding of the Gospels and practiced those teachings - yet we ignore what they said about those doctrines that we argue about. We don't trust THOSE TEACHERS either. We require that a man learn Hebrew and Greek today so that we can trust HIM instead.

Does anyone else see how this turns into a circle of troubling questions?

Yes, there were men from the very start who wanted to change the teachings of Jesus and His disciples. Yes, there are men who scribbled on the pages of the original manuscripts and ended up changing the scriptures by additions or even missing words while copying. As has been seen, some even added whole verses to books in their attempts to "get it right."

The reason for Textual Criticizm is to correct those errors. it would be foolish to ignore our attempts to remove those errors while comparing manuscripts. To fail to do that would be to accuse one manuscript to be without error and negate the others. Which one of the four is totally accurate? Is it not better to believe that they all should say the same things? (If they do not, eliminate the words of the one that does not agree with the other three and you can be certain that the remaining words are true.)

My suggestion would be to become familiar with the teachings of the early churh leaders and read what they wrote about the practices and the understanding of that early church. THEY understood the language of the manuscripts - they did not have the cultural barrier that we have. Their writings can shed light on what we think we understand today.

Nowhere in the bible did God tell us to ignore those teachers. Actually, Jesus told His followers to go and teach the people, yet we don't want to learn from those He sent. Is it any wonder that we have a proliferation of denominations when we go around creating doctrines based on our current desires and understanding and ignoring those who were trying to teach us?

Before anyone gets offended and lashes out, I am NOT defending what the early church turned into. I acknowledge the non-scriptural practices that man created in that church over the years. I am referring to only the first 150 years or so AD. I think we can be somewhat comfortable with the heart and intent of the early church leaders up until the corruption started.

[crawfish]

Boo, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Certainly you understand that the teachers of the first 150 years did not speak English. We have to work to translate their words the same way we work to translate older scriptures.

I think you have to trust that the Holy Spirit is still alive within us and within the biblical translators.

[Watchman]

Hi Crawfish,

If I understand Boo correctly, he's saying we don't really know which translators are truly Spirit-led and which might have a bias or agenda. Further, this also applies to writiings by those naming Christ. Consequently, it is incumbent upon us to listen carefully for the confirmation, or denial, from the Holy Spirit whether what we're reading is true. We cannot simply rely on the majority of writers being correct and true.

blessings,

Watchman

[Watchman]

For me personally,
I look for what they are teaching... are they teaching man or Christ.

Do they teach we should look to our self and our emotions for truth..or to scripture and solid doctrine.
Do they tell warm fuzzy subjective stories.. or do they dig in to Gods word.
Do they teach works or grace.
Do they teach human view point or divine view point.
Do they teach love (OSAS ) or fear (NOSAS)

Nobody who is credible teaches that emotions or self are the source of truth...and we will have a conversation regarding the role of mind and emotion in the future. You and I disagree on some things, yet we both work from scripture. Which, if either, is divine pov? Regarding OSAS/NOSAS, I'm staying outta that one. In the past, I've invested a huge amount of time into that discussion, and have yet to see any edifying results on anyone's part. As far as works or grace goes, I suspect we are in agreement. Works are a result, not a means to an end.

W

[crawfish]

Hi Crawfish,

If I understand Boo correctly, he's saying we don't really know which translators are truly Spirit-led and which might have a bias or agenda. Further, this also applies to writiings by those naming Christ. Consequently, it is incumbent upon us to listen carefully for the confirmation, or denial, from the Holy Spirit whether what we're reading is true. We cannot simply rely on the majority of writers being correct and true.

blessings,

Watchman

I guess I'd need to know more about the early teachers he is referring to. I trust the process more than any individual person - while a person or even a committee might get something wrong, there have been enough scholars studying the work of the major translations that we know all the controversies and can get opinions on every side.

[Watchman]

I guess I'd need to know more about the early teachers he is referring to. I trust the process more than any individual person - while a person or even a committee might get something wrong, there have been enough scholars studying the work of the major translations that we know all the controversies and can get opinions on every side.

........................................Precisely.

[Boo]

Watchman is correct.

But, I can really can't show you in this forum as the results of my study of just one doctrine cover well over a dozen typewritten pages.

The end result shows me that the translators of our English literal translations were honest in their translation and those first and second century church thologians/historians who were actually able to understand the epistles and the gospels in their original languages confirm what the translators wrote in their writings. (The excuse that "we don't really understand the culture or the nuances of the languages, so we don't really know what the sentence means" are eliminated - or greatly reduced at least.) I have writings by IRENAEUS, TERTULLIAN, CLEMENT, CYPRIAN, HERMAS, THEOPHILUS, and MARTYR that validate the meanings of scriptures (in my current study) given in our literal transations - as written.

Yet, I see all the time how people today work so hard to make those statements into something else and change the meanings to fit doctrine. Your guess as to why people feel the need to do that is as good as mine. Maybe they do it just because they are paid to do that.

I am convinced that we do err in our methodology. I do think that we should just believe the scriptures that come in literal translations and accept the work of honest translators. I thank God that people have done textual criticizm to eliminate the errors in our bibles so that we can have dependable versions from which to read. Each person should search for himself.

Be careful of "thought for thought" or paraphrase versions or you'll just end up buying into someone's else beliefs. There may be good ones, but I have not yet spent any time determining which ones.

Sola Scriptura is OK, but we don't follow it. Historical writings confirm, yet we still don't believe. Scriptura is not valid if we amend it constantly through dissection, redefinition, and rearrangement.