Its Greek To Me!

Correct. I teach and preach in English. In fact, my study of Hebrew and Greek has done nothing but reinforce my confidence in the translators of the KJV as getting it right. However, also allow me to say that there are times a knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek will expand my understanding of the English translation. That is not to say the English is incorrect, but that the wording, grammar, or syntax of the Hebrew/Greek may give me more information than the English wording, grammar, and syntax can convey. But I constantly remind my people, we don't need an "authoritative magisterium" or a "priestly class" or "clergymen" to tell us what the bible really says. Just read it for yourself. We will never, in this life, plumb the depths of the word of God, in any language!

 

AMEN, everyone needs to remember that, especially scholars. I feel there is some tendency in the 21st century American church to dismiss the gifts of lay brethren and "uneducated" preachers.

 

There is also a large tendency to dismiss preparation and education when it comes to Bible study and ministry. Thomas is correct partly in that we do not need a professional elite to dole out interpretations. But God does call preachers and seperate them to the work of preaching and eldership, and they must be dilligent to show themselves approved (2 Tim 2:15). He is also correct in that studying the languages will give you remarkable confidence in some of the English translations of today and will bring out nuances that are just unavailable in our language. I think the bare minimum for any preacher is to have enough working knowledge so they can use the basic tools (lexicons, commentaries that are beyond devotional, etc.) The learning of the languages is simply a tool to be more effective in proclaiming and living God's Word.

As for the laity, I won't question your salvation if you don't know Hebrew and Greek But in the day in which we live where we have a TV in every room that is on for hours a day and DVDs out our ears, and waste time on tons of other things, would it kill the average person to learn a little of the languages in order to study God's Word better? Would it kill folks to read the Puritans? Spurgeon's sermons? Would it would kill folks to memorize the Shorter Catchecism (Baptist form, of course)?

[ June 04, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Yes, but make sure to sprinkle in some Ryle, Owen and Sibbes

 

What was called into question Tyndale was your basing an entire theory on a mistranslation found in the KJV. If you knew some greek, you realize the error on the part of the KJV translators. Thus, you could have correct doctrine. If you must persist...

 

Brother Glen, I am coming in on the middle of this discussion which apparently began in another thread. Could you give me the verse which Preacher says is an error of translation in the KJV which you base some doctrine on? I love to track down these supposed errors and try to determine why some people call them errors and others don't.

 

It is in the CvA forum in numerous places where the phrase concerning the faith/faithfulness of/in Jesus Christ is under consideration. It is a genitive construct (whether objective or subjective, or perhaps something else). It is in Romans 4 and Gal 2 I believe.

 

Hi Glen:

When you read "faith of Jesus" like in Rom 3:22
you interpret that to be the faith of Jesus (like
Christs faithfulness)?

(KJV) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference

Whereas other translations say "faith in Jesus" which would imply our faith in Jesus? Is this the difference you are talking about?

(NASB) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Just making sure I understand what you were saying.

thx,
-kman

 

Gentlemen. Although I cannot boast before men as being one of those who have this and that degree I would still want to say a few things on this IN and OF thing. Of necessity I felt forced to learn a little NT Greek at one point in time, and so I had to get the grammar books from USA, for here in Finland I cannot find such. But with what little knowledge I have of Biblical Greek before Almighty God I know that Romans 3:22 must be rendered as the KJV renders it: "faith OF Jesus Christ". The word pisteôs ("faith") may also be rendered "faithfulness". One who is "faithful" is one who fulfills something. And said Jesus Christ was "faithful" in His "fulfilling" the law of God for those given to Him of His Father, even God. So the phrase may also read "faithfulness OF Jesus Christ", as the NET-Bible renders it.

I quote from what I said in an other thread:

>>Someone said that the Bible expressly teaches justification by ”faith IN Jesus Christ”, and that the KJV is in error as compared to modern versions. No, the KJV is right when is says ”faith OF Christ”. Both in Rom. 3:22 and Gal. 2:16 the Greek says ”pisteôs Iêsoû Christoû” which correctly and literally rendered reads ”faithfulness (or, faith) OF Jesus Christ”. Both Iêsoû and Christoû are in the genitive. If the Greek construction had been with ”eis” plus accusative of Jesus Christ it might read ”IN Jesus Christ”. But the Spirit of inspiration inspired Paul to say ”pisteôs Iêsoû Christoû”, because this is the truth, that God’s righteousness is by Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, even His perfect voluntary obedience unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:8, Rom. 5:19). Of new versions the NET-Bible correctly renders ”faithfulness OF Jesus Christ”. Also in Rom. 3:26 is the like construction, i.e. ”pisteôs Iêsoû” – ”faithfulness (or, faith) OF Jesus”. Most versions, KJV included, wrongly render this as ”believeth in Jesus”, when it is clear the Greek construction does not call for such a translation. The last clause of 3:26 says ”dikaioûnta ton ek pisteôs Iêsoûs” – ”justifying the one (or, ”him”; masc.) of faithfulness (or, ”faith”) of Jesus”. Just because the translators did not understand the theological meaning of this difficult clause does not give them the right to guess what it means and render erroneously. The translators of the KJV were in the main Protestant pedobaptists who held to Sola Fide as Luther, believing in ”justification by (an act of) faith alone”. This may explain why they so inconsistently rendered the genitive construction ”pisteôs Iêsoû”/”pisteôs Iêsoû Christoû” either as ”faith OF…” or ”believeth IN …”. Luther more erroneously renders all three examples as ”faith IN…” or ”believeth IN…” respectively. These are not things difficult to see, except one has an evil heart of unbelief. It is not without warrant that the apostles warned of mockers and false prophets and antichrists, who ”doth not (biblically) confess Jesus Christ having come in flesh” (1John 4:3). Is it not high time to take forth the precious from the vile. If justification before God the righteous Judge is by an act of subjective faith in Christ as most professors believe then Christ died in vain and righteousness is by creature efforts.>>

Harald

 

sounds like a contradiction to me! faith or faithfulness--which is better, which is right?

remember, what's different cannot be the same.

 

Well, Forever settled etc. If you press me I would be bound to say that "FAITHFULNESS of Jesus Christ" is that which to me seems the contextually correct rendering, and this is also that which I have supplied in my own personal translation. When opting for "faithfulness" it clearly glorifies Christ more and will have Him to have the preeminence in the matter of justification before the holy and righteous God. When it reads "faith of Jesus Christ" there is the possibility of religionists unduly wresting the passage to teach justification before God through Christ's faith IN their hearts, which of course is heresy a la damnable. God has only one method of justifying the un-godly, and that is by means of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the persons of the elect, and this justification took place near 2000 years ago when Christ was at Calvary's cross. And when I say Christ's righteousness that is to say the same as His voluntary and faithful obedience unto death (Romans 5:19, Fil. 2:8), viz. His FAITHFULNESS (Rom. 3:22). So it is altogether clear that the Bible teaches justification before God the Lord by Christ alone. The basis or ground of justification is Christ's faithfulness, and the instrument of justification is likewise Christ and His righteousness, and the method sovereign divine imputation.

Harald

[ June 08, 2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Harald ]

 

Are you suggesting the KJV got it wrong? Should we fire up the presses for a change to the "inspired text"??

 

precisely, Harald. altho the context n meaning of the word may be clear to the original readers, they may come across ambiguous or worse to modern readers n--as u've rightly put it--open the translation to the stumbling of others--UNnecessarily. if what it takes is a less literal phraseology, so be it--the KJB translators themselves NEVER tied themselves to some wooden "vniformitie" of wording, but they were by no means throughly consistent w that, which is perhaps how we have "faith" vniformlie--n vnfortunatelie--employed here.

most modern translations also seek to communicate the meaning in such a way as to avoid giving rise to damnable heresies (like calling the Spirit "itself," etc.). in this way, they stand in the tradition of the KJB's translators much more than a few vocal proponents for literalism/formal equivalence.

because things that are different cannot be the same, i maintain that ur following declaration is self-contradictory: "But with what little knowledge I have of Biblical Greek before Almighty God I know that Romans 3:22 must be rendered as the KJV renders it: "faith OF Jesus Christ". The word pisteôs ("faith") may also be rendered "faithfulness". One who is "faithful" is one who fulfills something."

 

Forever settled etc.

>>because things that are different cannot be the same, i maintain that ur following declaration is self-contradictory: "But with what little knowledge I have of Biblical Greek before Almighty God I know that Romans 3:22 must be rendered as the KJV renders it: "faith OF Jesus Christ". The word pisteôs ("faith") may also be rendered "faithfulness". One who is "faithful" is one who fulfills something." >>

In the above you see that I put the word "of" in capitals, and this specifically is which the KJV got right in comparison to most modern versions, which have "IN". It is the "OF" which the KJV got right on target, as to "faith" as I said I would opt for "faithfulness". But as you know the word pisteôs also can be rendered "faith", so in and of itself the word is not mistranslated, nor could I accuse of KJV here teaching heresy. But contextually considered, which I believe is the thing which ultimately decides which rendering is correct, KJV is in the wrong and NET-Bible is perfectly correct, although that version has its weaknesses in other places. But for this brilliant rendering the NET-Bible is to be commended, and I believe it is about the only official version which renders pisteôs as faithfulness in this verse under discussion.

So what I affirm is that when translating the word of God it is not enough to know the lexical meaning of a certain greek word, one must be able to choose the contextually correct rendering, the word the original author had in mind. Therefore I believe the KJV is slightly wrong also in Rom. 3:3 where it renders "tên pistin toû Theoû" as "the faith of God". This is a contextually wrong choice. I for one believe Paul meant "the faithfulness of God". I would not say God has "faith", He has omniscience, so Paul surely meant the faithfulness of God here. I know some KJV Onlyites would not like my thus criticizing or correcting the KJV, but what I say does not de-glorify God the Lord, nor does it malign His word. It is hight time people stop worshipping the KJV-translating pedobaptists as infallible translators. They made some wrong choices here and there when they could have rendered better. But no man can take anything unless it is given from above.

Harald

 

like i said, Harald, i disagree w ur declaration but agree w ur explanation.