A good teacher will always summarize the main point(s) at the end of the lesson, so the most important truths will be fresh on the minds of the students.

I see. Well before we start to summarize any more, are there any other topics to deal with or have all the stones been turned?

No, I had said everything that needs to be said. (until someone responds)

Every stone has been turned except the Rock upon which I stand!

Nothing is ever finished. sigh...

This post is a response to GreekTim carried over from the thread "Sons of Jacob" under the forum "Bible Study".

GreekTim:
Is there a difference to you in learning Hebrew and looking up a Hebrew word to see what it means? There is to me.

You say that I contradicted myself between several posts. Post #110 specifically has to do with learning the languages, not using a study aid. Let's say that you were reading a story and you came across the word "rendezvous". Must you take a year of French and be able to speak the language before understanding the meaning, or would you instead use some English reference tool to get the meaning (ultimately from the French)?

You are trying to establish your point with another unicorn, Brother. It may be a good argument from your position, but it doesn't have any legs either.

It is not stepping away from my position on the Scriptures to admit that I use a study aid. Looking up a Hebrew word in an English/Hebrew reference is not the same as examining the text itself in the original language. Apples and oranges, Brother, apples and oranges.

This post was last modified: Sun Apr 20, 2008 09:03 PM by Brother Tim.

Do you not see the double standard, Brother Tim? You say that a knowledge of Hebrew (even a small knowledge) is unneeded b/c God has perfectly preserved His Word in the English language w/ the KJV. IF that is so, then there is no need to look back at what someone else has done in the research of the language. And yet you rely on someone's research who has gone beyond the translation and looked back at the Hebrew. The Hebrew names are a great example where the meaning of a persons name is not communicated in the translation. Why? Because it is a Hebrew/Greek name not an English name! Even Potter in the source used by artbook says:

So when George said thist statement, he was wrong:

This guy uses the Hebrew extensively. So if you don't use Hebrew personally, then you are relying on someone who did! Therein lies the contradiction. While you say that a knowledge of the language is unneeded, you still rely on someone who has done the work for you who had a knowledge of the language (though you say that is not needed since you have a perfect translation that is unlimited). Your English translation and anyone elses will never be able to communicate the meaning of a name w/o someone going back in the original language and explain what it means from the original language. Therefore all translations are limited. Again I point out that in no way does the name Melchizedek point to its real meaning in English. You have to look back at the Hebrew and figure it out - "i=my, Melech=king, zedek=righteousness".

This post was last modified: Sun Apr 20, 2008 09:09 PM by Greektim.

GreekTim, could you answer my question?

Also, are you saying that I should not use a dictionary to better understand the meaning(s) of certain words in English?

I am not going to back down from this. It is not a double standard. You are correct in saying that someone had to know Hebrew at some point. I am depending on some scholar's work to get an English definition of a foreign word. In essence I am getting a translation into English from that language for that word. That applies for words (names) that have not been translated by the Scriptures already, not for words that have been translated.

By the way, though the meanings of the names given in the other posts are interesting, they have not noticeably furthered my understanding of any doctrine, nor does the meaning of Melchizedek. There is enough said in the Scriptures to understand what is necessary about the one who is so named. Yes, it is neat to go into all the meanings about the names and how those meanings might fit into the stories of Scripture, but God makes a point of defining the names when the message is important. (see Abraham - Genesis 17:5; Israel - Genesis 32:28 )

Are there hidden gems when the meanings of names are known? I would say, yes. But, the loss of those meanings will not hide the truth. I would also say that there are many hidden gems that are lost when one moves from the pure Scriptures found only in the KJB into the modern versions that remove the verses, specific pronouns, and verb endings. In this case, however, critical doctrines can be lost or diminished as well.

By your own admission you say that in the KJV there is a loss of meaning:

That shows that the common sense of this issue is that the KJV or any translation cannot fully convey 100% all of the meaning from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to English. Those "hidden gems" and nuances of the languages are not communicated. Therefore, you have to say one of two things - that the English is limited or God wanted the loss of meaning in the English. But if you say the second, then I have to remind you of 2 Tim. 3:16 w/ all Scripture being inspired and profitable. Even the smallest details that Christ emphasized in Matt. 5:18 (differntiations between letters) are important. Surely the meaning of a name is important and should be communicated.

This post was last modified: Sun Apr 20, 2008 09:48 PM by Greektim.

GreekTim:

Incidentally, are you also learning Latin so that you can understand the meaning of the English words in the Scriptures that have a Latin heritage?

Example: abhor

Leviticus 26:11 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.

ABHOR', v.t. L abhorreo, of ab and horreo, to set up bristles, shiver or shake; to look terrible.

I have answered that. Those names whose meanings are important are defined within the Scriptures. The alternative is that we must depend on a very few individuals to illuminate us to the needed truths, and the average Christian will never have access to those "secrets". I cannot accept that.

The only Hebrew or Greek that you know is what you have been taught in the books used by you in your classes and personal study. You are not able to independently translate the words. And when you do translate them, you are limited to the English equivalents. In reality it boils down to who has done a better job of translating, the translators of the KJB or the scholars in which you trust. I believe that the Holy Spirit has divinely directed the words found in the KJB. Do you have the same confidence in your scholars?

P.S. Please be fair when quoting me. Your reference to my so-called "admission" left out the important qualification that no truths are lost when the meanings are unknown.

This post was last modified: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:07 PM by Brother Tim.

First of all, I am sorry if you feel my quoting you was unfair, but I did put the entire quote on there that includes "the loss of those meanings will not hide the truth." Did I miss something where you said otherwise? If I did, I will be quick to correct it. If there is one thing I cannot stand, that is to be misrepresented. If I did so with you, please show me so I can correct it.

Second (in no particular order) you must have edited your post while I was replying because some of what you said was not there before. Apologies for the redundancy before.

Third, why would I waste my time w/ Latin when none of the Scriptures were originally written in Latin? That is beyond fruitless for me. Now it might help you since your view takes the authority away from the original languages and places them in a translation that has words w/ Latin origins (and Greek too )

Fourth, no matter what, you did admit to there being a loss of meaning from the Hebrew to the English (I would argue that when there is a loss of meaning, then there is a loss of truth maybe not in total but partial). This is the part about Hebrew that you have to understand. The meanings of their names were significant to Hebrews. If you downplay that, then you are forcing your 20/21st century American mindset on the pages of Scripture which is bad exegesis. Those few times where the names are "defined" (not really a definition but an explanation of why that person is receiving the name) are the exception not the rule. Hebrew names were clear as to what their meanings would be. That was part of the revelation that God has given. When the people reading the Hebrew see their names, they immediately knew what their name meant (most of the time), and that has a significant bearing on the emphasis of a given passage.

Fifth, as to "independently translate" I guess that would be impossible for anyone to do (even the 1611 scholars) since these languages were dead. The only way to do what you are talking about is learn the language first hand from someone who speaks it but all 3 of the Biblical languages are dead in the sense that they aren't spoken. Now if you mean independently translate w/o using a lexicon or something like that, then that is a whole other story.

Sixth, I do have a lot of confidence in my scholars as well as the KJV scholars. I don't believe as you do that they were divinely directed by the Holy Spirit to translate words on the KJV (that would be an extra-Biblical belief and doctrine). But I have faith that these men knew a lot more about the languages then I will probably ever know. With that said, I have seen this kind of scholarship today. My Hebrew professor knew 14 different Semitic languages and pretty much had the entire Hebrew Bible lexicon in his own head. It was amazing how much he knew about Semitic etymologies of certain words. He even broke out Egyptian hieroglyphics on us to show the Hebrew punning or wordplay. I would place him against any 1611 scholar any day of the week and twice on Monday. So yes I have equal confidence in him. Actually, since I have a personal relationship with him, my confidence is more real and might be given greater weight.

Seventh, well I couldn't really think of anything else w/o more coffee, I just wanted to make 7 points (I hear that is the # of perfection =D)

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 21, 2008 07:55 AM by Greektim.

On a point of direct translation. (maybe this should be on the dinner thread). This is from our near neighbours (well mine anyway) the French. Shows how words don't directly translate.

http://www.cmongout.com/recipes_list/min...rs_pig.pdf

http://www.cmongout.com/english_recipes.html

Davo, if I might ask, how does that affect your view of the KJV? In fact, I am not even sure of your view.

GreekTim, I will respond using your numbers:

This is actually my fault in that I read your first line and did not look where you set off my words in the box. Your phrase, "By your own admission you say that in the KJV there is a loss of meaning" caught my attention and I responded there without continuing to read. I am sorry for the too-quick response.

No problem here. I sometimes think that I have time to add comments before someone else responds. I will be more careful to complete my thoughts with the first attempt.

The point that I am making is that the word "abhor" may have more meaning if we understand its etymology, just as you try to do with the Greek. I would support looking up the meaning of any word to get clarity, regardless of its parent language. That is why I see nothing wrong with looking up a Hebrew name to get its meaning. I do not support looking in the original languages to correct the English.

I am going to correct myself here. I used the word "loss" in too casual a manner, and its connotation is getting in the way. The intent of the phrase "loss of meaning" simply is that the meaning does not directly exist in the text. Again, I believe that any of the names for which God intended the meaning to have critical purpose also have an explanation for that name. I believe that nothing is lost in the English, so that additional skills in language and access to the original languages is necessary to obtain the full meaning. Incidentally, did the NT era believers (native Greek-speakers) have a Hebrew dictionary so that they could understand the meanings of the names? Did the believers during the period from 100 A.D. through whatever time it was that a Hebrew lexicon was printed (?) have the ability to understand the "hidden" meanings necessary to fully comprehend the OT?

The phrase may not be as clear as I tried to make it. You are limited to giving English meaning to the Hebrew/Greek as explained by some other person. You do depend on a lexicon or something like that for your sermon preparation, especially with the Hebrew (if I remember correctly your level of expertise).

There are very highly skilled individuals in the area of languages. You give your Hebrew professor very high status, which is fine. However, I am not putting my confidence in men, even the translators of the 1611 KJB. I am putting my confidence in the promises of God that He would not let a single word be lost. I am confident that He superintended the production of the book that I hold in my hand as I preach so that I can say without reservation that every word in it is exactly what God put there.

Well, I guess that leaves you with only 6 things. 6=number of a man, not perfection.

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:43 AM by Brother Tim.

The only way for you to know that (as it concerns Hebrew names) is if you studied Hebrew. But in the Hebrew mindset 4,000 years ago, names had a huge significance. The meaning did exist in the text. You referred to this as “hidden” meanings except they were not hidden at all. It was exposed to all the read and understood the emphasis of a Hebrew. They were intended to be understood by the readers of the text. That is my point. There is a lot in a name, especially a Hebrew name. But w/o a Hebrew mindset, it will be lost in the interpretation.

However, I figured you didn’t mean “loss” the way you said it. I was waiting for you to correct yourself.

Sometimes I need a lexicon and sometimes I don’t. Melchizedek was an easy one that I knew from the vocab and grammar rules I learned already. My point is that even the 1611 scholars had to do the same at one point in time. Since ancient Hebrew was a dead language, learning it would be through other men’s scholarship.

Before we get too far from them, could you answer the following previously asked questions?

Is there a difference to you in learning Hebrew and looking up a Hebrew word to see what it means?

Did the NT era believers (native Greek-speakers) have a Hebrew dictionary so that they could understand the meanings of the names?

Did the believers during the period from 100 A.D. through whatever time it was that a Hebrew lexicon was printed (?) have the ability to understand the "hidden" meanings necessary to fully comprehend the OT?

If we were dealing with purely human effort, I would have to concede to your argument. However!! You leave out the involvement of the Holy Spirit, which not only I cannot, but outside the Holy Spirit's divine guidance, nothing we have is anything but man's best guess. Talk about being up a creek without a paddle!

The greatest problem that you and all others that doubt the direct involvement of the Holy Spirit in the translation of the text is that you have no source of absolute truth upon which to fall back. You have nothing that you can hold up and say without apology, "This is God's Pure Word." You are dependent entirely on the scholarship of men, no matter their character.