Serious Study

I have a terrible system. I cannot just erase whole
blocks, in order to be more concise; I must erase
letter-by-letter. Please pardon me for leaving
your whole note here.

The problem remains that where the text should
have been translated "he," the NIV predsumes to
interpret for us, when it is not clear whether the "he"
refers to our God (my interpretation) or Jepheth.

I do have a hard time with the NIV being allowed to
interpret the "he" above as "Japheth" but okayed
for not clarifying "perfect" as "mature" twice in this
18th verse. Perfect has a completely different
meaning today.

"Mercy seat" would have been better, in my opinion,
because to many have so little understanding of the
foundation of our faith, having rejected he Law and
the Prophets as obsolete. This would have helped
the reader to look back and read to understand how
our Lord was represented in the Tabernacle, bring-
ing the Bible into understand that it is a whole Book,
not a book divided.

Just a pet-peeve. Perhaps it is not relevant to you
as it is to me, having come out of an Arminian
background and needing to understand the differ-
ences more clearly. The Greek translations use
different words for different types of sin; Iimerely
wish this could have been caried out in English.

I went through the whole of the Apostolic Writings,
finding all the occurrences of "law" and "the law"
in them, marking them so that I could understand.
"The Law" and "law" are two different ideas, each
treated differently in Greek. I was amazed at how
this exercise increased my understanding of what
Paul wrote. Again, this is like the "he" and the
"perfect" above--bad translation, in my opinion. 8o)

I know this is the assumption, and it is a logical
one, but it just is not historical, nor is it logical
from a Hebraic point of view. Aand we are talking
about Jews here. It only makes sense, then, to
those bred on Greek thinking, as many today
are. Without great detail, Aramaic was spoken,
but not to the degree thought. School was the
synagogue, and Hebrew was spoken and taught
there; Scriptures were learned in Hebrew, not
Aaramaic; the LXX was merely to tide the people
over until they could once again use Hebrew
fluently.

More than Americans, the Jews are fiercely
nationalistic. They were not going to continue
using their captors' language; they were going
to relearn their own and drop Aramaic as best
they could. And they did. One evidence of this
is the cross. If Aramaic had remained so influen-
tial, why was it not used when the soldiers were
told to write the inscription in "Greek, and Latin,
and Hebrew [Luke 23:38].

I am sorry, but if this were true, they did the seder
wrong. 8o)

To hold this point of view, one must skirt the im-
portance of Isaac being the chosen son of Abra-
ham and Sarah as prophesied, because to accept
Hagar as a true wife of Abraham, one must accept
Hagar's son as Abraham's first son, thus the an-
nointed one promised and the ancestor of the
Messiah. I don't think we want to do that. Our God
didn't, because He called Ishmael illegitimate by
calling Isaac Abraham's "son, your only son Isaac."

In my opinion, to hold this point of view, one must
ignore that their very own Greek text said 70 X 7
and rethink the original intention, making it 77.. I
canot accept that, just as I cannot accept "he"
being automatically interpretted "Japheth," "per-
fect" not being translated better, "the Law" being
used where "law" was intended, "Aramaic" being
used when the Greek said "Hebrew," or any other
of the above. 8o)

8o) Well, we are at an impass. Would you like to
have the "last word"?

Thank you, though, for this conversation; I enjoy
discussing the Bible in any capacity.

[ January 01, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Most people think it is clear and that the NIV is right. They have tried to remove some of the ambiguity to prevent wrong identification of the antecedents of pronouns. I can't see that making it a bad translation.

But the words means perfect. Every major translation translates it that way. Are you rejecting them as well?

Here you are asking straightout for an interpretation, one that is wholly unwarranted, IMO. The idea of 2:2 is that of sacrifice that propitiates. I think they should have translated it propitiation. The hilasterion is the mercy seat but Christ did not become the mercy seat for us; he became the hilasmos... the propitiation for us. Mercy seat does not fit the context, nor the word used. While I hesitant to accuse translations of changing the word of God, that would be a change.

On what basis does you say that "law" and "the Law" are treated differently in teh Greek? I am curious as to what you are exactly saying here.

However, in the argument of Galatians I cannot agree with you. Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law and about those who want to put believers back under the Law. That is not law in general but the Mosaic Law. The context, IMO, clearly speaks to that fact.

The weight of history is completely against you on this point. I would be interested in hearing of any sources that support you. It is widely argued that the first century Jews spoke Aramaic. In fact, off the top of my head, I cannot think of anyone who disagrees. If you have some sources, please let me know. I would like to see what they have to say about it.

]I would simply respond that when some of the greatest theological and exegetical minds in the modern era disagree with you, I am not sure how to answer. These are men who know the language, know theology, and know how to translate. They have no particular axe to grind. I just can't see how your opinion carries more weight than the mass of theirs does.

But again, it is you who are skirting the plain wording of the text. I gave you the information that issha is never translated concubine and that there is a clear word for concubine that is not used in this regard. To accept Hagar as Abraham's wife does not mean we negate the Abrahamic covenant. It has nothing to do with it. I was just reading this morning in Genesis where God specfically says that Ishmael will be a great nation but will not be the son of the promise. The text answers your own question by stating that the first son was not the son of the promise. I cannot see how your statement stands, in light of the clear testimony of Scripture and the uniform testimony of the translations.

The text says "seventy times" "seven." If you have seventy times and then you have seven what do you have? 77 times. Their very own Greek texts says just what I have said above; they say just what the OT LXX says in Gen 4 which everyone recognizes is 77 times. But this is a matter of interpretation no matter which you choose. But again, there is no difference in meaning. This is a mountain out of a mole hill.

When I look at these objections, they stand mostly because you desire the NIV to interpret the text the way that you think it should be, even though the NIV usually sides with all the major translations. I believe you told me previously that you have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew (which is fine). But it leads to the point: If you have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, why are you so strongly questioning those who do? With all due respect (and I mean that) it seems like a 15 year old teenager with a driving permit telling the pilot of a 747 how to fly. I hope you get my analogy. I am not in anyway trying to put you down. I have enjoyed this conversation immensely because it actually centered on theology rather than stupid ad hominem arguments. I would simply suggest that perhaps a more studied approach would yield different results for you as it has for me.

I used to despise the NIV. I heard all the rumors and I hated it. Anyone who used the NIV was an automatic liberal. Then one day I got one and began to read it. It was like reading the Bible for the first time. It was so clear and when I started comparing what the Greek texts said, it was remarkably accurate in most places.

I do not mean this post to sound harsh or too direct. I hope you understand that.

Thanks again.

Thank you as well and for the manner it was carried on in.

 

Thank you, Pastor Larry. I think I would rather let
you have the proverbial "last word" with regard to
the NIV. 8o)

The only thing I would add at this point is that I
never said that I had no knowledge of Hebrew
and Greek, for I do. I have studied long and hard
to acquire what I know, and at my synagogue,
we speak and read Hebrew weekly. Furthermore,
I am presently continuing in Hebrew classes. I am
sorry I gave you that impression; I certainly did not
intend to! 8o)

 

My sincere apologies. I must have confused you with what someone else told me. Please forgive me for that mess up.

 

Hey! No problem!!!!

8oD