Serious Study

[Abiyah]

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.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Sorry to be a bit in responding. Things have been busy here with some out of town guests. Let me take a minute and respond.

On Gen 9:27, the "he" in mind is not identified in the text. Having recently preached through that passage last year, I do not remember one evangelical commentator who takes your position. It rather makes more sense to take it as Japheth and most likely in the sense of the Abrahamic covenant that "in you (the shemites, descendants of Abraham) would all the nations of the earth be blessed." This is a curse on Ham and a blessing on Japheth, relating both of them to the chosen line of Shem. Your position is an interpretive issue (and apparently a minority held view).

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.

Glancing at 1 John, "perfect" is only used one time in the NIV is 4:19 about perfect love. I don't quibble there with the translation of perfect. Again, that is a interpretive issue, not a translational one. "Mercy seat" is never used in 1 John. I think you are referring to 2:2 where "propitiation" is used and the NIV has "atoning sacrifice." The idea is one of satisfying God's wrath. An atoning sacrifice is not technically correct but is better than mercy seat in that it is closer to the meaning of hilaskomai.

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.

As for the translation of sin, I am not convinced that a great diversity of words is needed. The biblical words are generally translated according to the Greek/Hebrew word. I am not sure how that can be improved upon.

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.

As for "the Law," in most places where Paul talks about "law" he is referring to the Mosaic Law and hence, the translation "the Law" is the correct one. The confusion is caused when "the" is omitted and people think that Paul is referring to law in general. Paul's intention in Romans and Galatians is to contrast righteousness through the Law with righteousness through faith. So in this case, I differ with you all the way around. I think Paul was referring to "the Law" meaning the Mosaic Law of the OT.

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)

On the translation of "hebrais," most lexicographers appear to agree that it is not the Hebrew of the OT, but at Acts 21:40 refers to, the dialect spoken by the Hebrews. In the first century and for a time before that, it was Aramaic. Thus "Aramaic" is what the Hebrew dialect was. That appears to be an accurate translation as far as communicating what Paul actually did. Had they translated it "Hebrew," they would have mislead the reader to thinking that it was the OT Hebrew they were speaking when it was rather Aramaic that was being spoken in the first century.

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].

As for John 13:26,27, the word psomion is "a piece of meat or meat" as the lexicons agree. While morsel would be an acceptable translation, "a piece of bread" is certainly within the semantic domain, and in light of the occasion, perfectly appropriate. A morsel is a piece of bread. The lexicons and commentators seem to agree on this. Carson references the position you suggest here as a possibility. However, the translation "piece of bread" is what the lexicons say is appropriate.

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

About Jacob and his wives, you say However, when it comes to Rachel's and Leah's servants, whom they gave to Jacob in order to gain children through them, the Bible calls these women "concubines," not wives. All major translations call Zilpah and Bilhah "wives." The word used in reference to these woman is "issha," a word that is apparently never translated concubine. There is a Hebrew word for concubine (philegesh) and it is not used here. The only conclusion we can come to is that since Moses used the word "issha" rather than "philegesh" he intended us to understand "wife" rather than "concubine." So the text tells the same story in the case of Abraham and Jacob: their wives handmaidens were given to them as issha (wives) rather than "philegesh" (concubines). (Here is where I think you are inconsistent. Where you have above rejected the NIV for too much interpretation, here you have rejected it because it is too literal.)

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."

Returning to Matthew, again, the text can be interpreted either way. It is unclear as to which is intended because the word is only used one time in Scripture. With reference to Dan 9:27, the Hebrew does read "seventy sevens" making the NIV the most literal translation there. However, it is a huge stretch to shoehorn that into the Matthean passage on forgiveness. I do not know of any commentator who sees that connection. Perhaps you can name one. I would like to see his reasoning. I think Christ is talking of unlimited forgiveness. But again, we get back to translation: the words are two words: one meaning "seventy times" and one meaning "seven." I cannot see how we can be dogmatic that it is a math equation. The OT equivalent leads us to another conclusion. Ultimately, the point of Christ is not in danger. Forgiveness is to be unlimited.

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)

I haven't looked at the NIV in this much depth in a while (though this is admittedly not much). Having examined it again, I cannot see where these are valid reasons to reject the NIV. It rather strengthens my regard for it as a good translation.

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 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
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.

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.

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.

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

"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, bringing the Bible into understand that it is a whole Book, not a book divided.

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.

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.

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.

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 thesynagogue, 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.

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

]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.

To hold this point of view, one must skirt the importance of Isaac being the chosen son of Abraham 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 annointed 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."

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.

In my opinion, to hold this point of view, one must ignore that their very own Greek text said 70 X 7 ...

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

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

 

[Abiyah]

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)

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

 

[Abiyah]

Hey! No problem!!!!

8oD