Amen, amen and amen!

In Christ,
George

GreekTim, you said:

Just for curiosity's sake, are you saying that you have a Hebrew Old Testament, and you turned to the place where this name is given in Genesis, and sounded out the Hebrew squiggly lines and jots and tittles without using a reference book of some type? If so, I am impressed truly (no sarcasm). We once had a man in our church who was a converted Jew. He continued going to synagogue to "re-establish" his roots, and to learn Hebrew. He was quite intelligent, but struggled to sound out even the simplest (shortest) words without using a guide. If you can vocalize and parse these words, your intelligence is beyond your years. Now if we can work on that faith part.

Sorry about avoiding the questions. Not intentional I promise.

Yes there is a difference. But, what is the need to look up a Hebrew word if all you will ever need is in the English? To me, it seems to be contradictory for you to look up a Hebrew word while you also say Hebrew is not needed b/c the Holy Spirit has superintended the KJV. Why look up the Hebrew? So in that way, there is no difference between learning Hebrew and looking up Hebrew.

I am not aware of any Hebrew lexicon or dictionary that existed back then. But there would be many ways for Greek speaking people to know/learn Hebrew words. First of all, most if not all churches in the NT era had Jews in the church. Secondly, there were in most Gentile cities a Jewish synagogue with HOT access. They could compare and seek instruction there. Thirdly (and I am not sure if I want to mention this), if the LXX was a pre-NT document (and I still believe it to be so), then comparing back and forth from Greek to Hebrew would help them figure out word meanings and name meanings. Fourthly, certain words are common in different languages (I can give you an example for Greek & Hebrew if you want). Other words are common to foreigners (I bet you know what “yo quiero taco bell” means). It is likely that being so close to the apostles and the likes, words like melek and zedek were commonly heard and often used words.

You question is flawed. These meanings to the names were not hidden but quite apparent. They are only “hidden” to you b/c the English cannot communicate the obvious and intended Hebrew meaning.

That is not true first of all. My absolute truth falls back on the text of Scripture. I believe that truth can even be communicated into another language, be reliable and authoritative yet limited in its full conveyence of meaning, and still be aboslute. Secondly, I do doubt the Holy Spirit's invovlement in a translation since I do not have any revelation that tells me He was involved. Since it is not in Scriptures, then you are left to "man's best guess" as well.

Brother you are so involved in your superior attitude of intellectualism you have forgotten to study your Bible. The words you spoke here are completely wrong. Witness the following:

(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (emphasis mine)

There you have proof of the Holy Spirit being involved and that none of the things in the Bible are of man.

In Christ,
George

Yes. Although I sounded it out in my head. Plus sounding it was pretty easy since it is transliterated for us in English. That is my point, some names are quite obvious as to their meanings and would be quite obvious to an ancient Hebrew speaking Jew.

He was quite intelligent, but struggled to sound out even the simplest (shortest) words without using a guide. If you can vocalize and parse these words, your intelligence is beyond your years. Now if we can work on that faith part.

My Hebrew professor (Dr. Colin Smith) emphasized pronunciation in class (that is a big part of Hebrew exegesis, to hear the word play and punning). So sounding out words was forced upon me. When he learned modern Hebrew, his teacher told him that his spelling and pronunciation was much better than even the teacher's. It helped that he was fluent in ancient Hebrew and other semitic languaegs.

Furthermore, Greektim, I suggest that if you intend to continue you here you go back and read our statement of faith. Pay particular attention to the very first statement.

In Christ,
George

I am really not trying to put forth any kind of superior intellectualism. I know I am far from that intellectually speaking. But you must have missed what I said in the section you quoted me before.

Then George said

Where in those verses do you see this emphasize in translation? To the inspiration process, yes the HOly Spirit was directly involved. I have never said anything contrary to that. But that is the original writing of Scripture. Do you have any Scriptures on translation? I don't know of one.

Where is the mention of a translation here? Where have I disagreed w/ this statement? I affirm the original writings as coming directly from God. But even your own statement of faith mentions nothing about a translation. What am I missing?

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 21, 2008 01:39 PM by Greektim.

Wow, I go away for a few minutes and the rocks start flying! Easy, guys.

If I came off as cross, then I apologize. I am just trying to clarify & defend myself before I get kicked out

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 21, 2008 02:05 PM by Greektim.

Referring back to your answers in post #171 to my previous questions.

Response to your answer to question #1:
Are you a closet politician? You answered yes and no in the same post. John Kerry would be proud. There is a difference, plain and simple. I do not need a year of Hebrew to look up "Melchizedek". Looking up a Hebrew word in a Hebrew dictionary is different from looking up the Hebrew for an English word to gain an alternate meaning. A-P-P-L-E-S and O-R-A-N-G-E-S!
You said:

Your argument makes no sense unless you also believe that I am not allowed to use any references at all, including English dictionaries. If that is the case, you are carrying my position to an extreme.

Response to your answer to question #2:

Point#1 - speculation, therefore, unsupportable.
Point#2 - You're kidding here, right? You mean the same Jews that did whatever possible to destroy these same believers? R-I-G-H-T!
Point#3 - Did the LXX have the Hebrew names transliterated or translated (I don't know)? Even then a lexicon would be required, barring #1 or #2 being true.
Point#4 - Don't fill out your argument about a general topic with very specific thoughts. This would not apply to a sufficient number of names to be viable as a response.

Response to your answer to question #3:

Your understanding of my question is flawed. (seems to be a problem with us English speakers - we read what we think instead of what is said - see George's answer to a statement you didn't make)
I'm not talking about believers who knew Hebrew as their native language and therefore could read the HOT. I'm talking about those who had available to them the Scriptures in their languages (such as Greek, Syrian, Latin, etc.), but did not have the access to the Hebrew meanings. Was the truth lost to them?

Brother, you've made me use up my whole week's worth of brains in one-half of a day. I need to go to work and get some rest (no thinking required). I will don my gloves again tonight and come out swinging.

I guess I am confused between the 2 areas. Maybe you should explain the difference between looking up a Hebrew word in a Hebrew dictionary and looking up the Hebrew for an English word. I know there is a difference, but I am not sure what you mean by a Hebrew dictionary. A Hebrew lexicon does exactly what you say to look up the Hebrew for an English word. Plus I thought the argument was about learning Hebrew vs. using a source of someone who has learned Hebrew. Now I have confused myself. See, no superior intellectual prowess here.

I don’t think point #1 is speculation. If you read Paul’s missionary journeys and through the epistles sent to churches, almost all of them have a Jewish audience (definitely Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, & Thessalonians). Plus, you can do historical research to see that there is a Jewish influence in every city written to. So I don’t think it is speculation. I think it is supportable.
Point #2 might be farfetched, but it still proves that they had access to the HOT and Hebrew teachings.
Point #3 the LXX transliterates the names (just as the English does). But even with a transliteration, one could simply break down the name and figure out from comparing other places those words are used. A lexicon would not be necessary.
Point #4 I have no clue what your argument was here. (again no superior intellect here)

Please clear my understanding then. I see the flaw when you speak of “hidden” meanings. There were no such hidden meanings in Hebrew names for a Hebrew or someone who has learned Hebrew. So in that way, you are asking about something that isn’t so. There is the flaw in the question that I see.

Truth is never lost (preservation). It might be difficult to unveil b/c of the language barrier, but it was never lost. It was present for them to uncover. And I would argue that the early church, even post 100 ad, had smart enough pastors/bishops/elders to teach the people these truths.

I look forward to recieving my shellacking tonight when I am at your mercy, Brother Tim.

Brother I just showed you that area which speaks of translations. The Bible clearly says that no portion of scripture is open to any private interpretation.

Let me give you the intent of the word "interpretation" as used in this verse as found in the Noah Webster's 1929 Dictionary of the American Language:

Interpretation
INTERPRETA'TION, n. [L. interpretatio.]

1. The act of interpreting; explanation of unintelligible words in language that is intelligible. Interpretation is the design of translation.

Since all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and none is open to any private translation then one must believe that the interpretation or translation of the Bible into the English language was inspired of God.

Furthermore God tells us in His Own Words that the King James Bible is His Word in the English language. Witness the following:

(Psa 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

(Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (emphasis mine)

The King James Bible is the seventh major translation of the English Bible hence it is the fulfillment of this portion of scripture. We are also told that it is preserved forever.

In Christ,
George

George, you are telling me that the intent of Peter in 2 Peter 1:21 in using “interpretation” is found in Webster’s dictionary? I have a hard time believing Webster’s intent was to say such a thing. Webster is not my authority anyways. Interpretation and translation are not the same thing. Plus, Peter didn’t mention “interpretation” with Webster’s definition in mind. Peter was speaking of the original writings which were not translated. Therefore his idea of interpretation does not include translation.

You misquoted your KJV. It says private interpretation not private translation. Plus, you have pretty much affirmed reinspiration of the KJV.

I want to ask how many other KJV advocates hold to this proof as well (especially Brother Tim).

If you can prove to me based on authorial intent that David was referring to the KJV, then I will acquiesce. But I have a hard time with such a view for obvious reasons. I believe your interpretation of this text is not only biased and wrong, but you are making the simile walk on all fours (not what a simile is supposed to do).

If this is going to be a problem, then I will humbly leave and never return. I firmly hold to the inspiration of Scriptures in the original autographs. That seems to be more in line w/ the statement of faith here on FP than your view of the KJV. If you changed your statement of faith to match your KJV view, then we would be in disagreement and I would have no choice but to leave.