Totally agree.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues
- Thread starter Luke S
- Start date
I also agree with your interpretation here about II Samuel 12:8. Concordant Version of the Old Testament [CVOT]: "I also gave you the daughter of your lord, and the wives of your lord into your bosom. I gave you the daughters of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would add for you this way and that way."
Lol, someone pop the popcorn!
Okay, so, maybe one of y'all can clear this up --
The word "hosts".
(Too many verses to cite)
Phrases like "God of Hosts" Psalm 80:4, Psalm 80:7, Hosea 12:5, Amos 3:13, etc.
"YHWH of Hosts" Malachi 3:17, 4:3, Nahum 3:5, Micah 4:4, etc.
Is there any actual difference between the word "hosts" and "armies"? Do we just use that word because it sounds better? Is there a different connotation? As far as I can tell, they're the same word, but nobody in modern vernacular at the very least seems to use "hosts" to refer to armies.
Could these phrases be instead translated "God of armies", "YHWH of armies", etc?
The word "hosts".
(Too many verses to cite)
Phrases like "God of Hosts" Psalm 80:4, Psalm 80:7, Hosea 12:5, Amos 3:13, etc.
"YHWH of Hosts" Malachi 3:17, 4:3, Nahum 3:5, Micah 4:4, etc.
Is there any actual difference between the word "hosts" and "armies"? Do we just use that word because it sounds better? Is there a different connotation? As far as I can tell, they're the same word, but nobody in modern vernacular at the very least seems to use "hosts" to refer to armies.
Could these phrases be instead translated "God of armies", "YHWH of armies", etc?
Maybe I’m off base. But whenever I wonder something like this, I bust out my strongs or concordance software and look up every time that hebrew or greek word is used. And I real all of the verses in context. And I let scripture define the word. Never been let down. Always very clear on the meaning.
This one has come up again so I'll post a comment here.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
This is not a promise of Christ's special presence at small prayer meetings or His legitimizing church meetings with two or three.... .
Context is key:
Matthew 18:15-20 “Now if your brother sins, go and show him his fault, between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
v:20 begins with a Greek explanatory conjunction indicating Jesus is adding an explanation to what has been said; v:20 is not separated from the preceding verses. The two or three in v:20 are those one or two more (v:16) who have come together in His name to help resolve the issue of personal sin.
We know God is omnipresent, no denying that:
Psalm 139:7-8, Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
He is present at small prayer groups and church meetings, and everywhere else
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
This is not a promise of Christ's special presence at small prayer meetings or His legitimizing church meetings with two or three.... .
Context is key:
Matthew 18:15-20 “Now if your brother sins, go and show him his fault, between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
v:20 begins with a Greek explanatory conjunction indicating Jesus is adding an explanation to what has been said; v:20 is not separated from the preceding verses. The two or three in v:20 are those one or two more (v:16) who have come together in His name to help resolve the issue of personal sin.
We know God is omnipresent, no denying that:
Psalm 139:7-8, Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
He is present at small prayer groups and church meetings, and everywhere else
Thankyou @frederick, I had never actually read the context of that critically, just accepted the standard reading of it.
I thank you as well, because I haven't previously contemplated that full context. I generally agree with it, too, although I do tend to see :18 as a bridge between :15-18 and :19-20 -- all of which is in the context of answering the request of the disciples to identify who among them was greatest in His eyes, to which He quickly began to identify snares and pitfalls that prevent men from elevating themselves.
I am in complete agreement that both Yah and Yeshua are aware of everything we do, not just what we do when we gather together in Their Names, but Yeshua was speaking directly to the issue of His Presence being confirmatory to agreements and requests made in such context. The CLNT reads, "Again, verily, I am saying to you that, if ever two of you should be agreeing on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it is they should be requesting shall be coming to them from My Father Who is in the heavens. For where two or three are, gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." The context then changes to a tangential albeit related question about pardoning sins.
No doubt, though, Matthew 18:20 is not in any way limiting the breadth of Yeshua's presence -- or Yah's.
You are a valuable brother, Frederick.
I get frustrated with how people translate the 10 commandments for teaching to children.
Here is an atrocious example with many obviously serious errors, from here. This uses nice short words any child can understand and apply to their life. But it does this at the expense of accuracy, writing down the opinion of the author about what good behaviour looks like and calling it the 10 commandments.
And here is a better example, where a genuine attempt has been made to translate these well (from ministry-to-children.com). However it falls into the opposite error - difficult commands become the vague command to "Respect this" or "Respect that", which doesn't actually mean much to a child so can't be applied easily in a child's actual life.
1. Put God first
2. No fake gods
3. Respect God’s name
4. Respect God’s day of rest
5. Respect your parents
6. Do not kill people
7. Respect marriage
8. Do not steal
9. Do not lie
10. Do not be jealous
A good translation for children should be understandable (small common words), and relevant to a child (explain how they would actually obey the command in their day-to-day life), while remaining technically accurate - saying exactly what the scripture says, and only what scripture says. The ones that are usually most problematic are the following three.
5: Honour your father and mother.
This is usually turned into "obey your parents", which is most certainly not what it says. Obviously children should obey their parents, but that doesn't last all your life, and where is the line between child and adult? This is substituting obvious good advice for the actual words of scripture. The second example of "respect your parents" is much closer, but still doesn't truly capture the meaning of "honour", and still means you have a difficult word that you need to explain - now you just have to define "respect" instead of defining "honour", so it's no clearer than "honour your parents".
I use wording like "Behave in ways that please your parents". I explain this by asking "how would you dishonour your parents?". You would dishonour them by behaving in ways that make other people look at you and think "they must have terrible parents, look at how badly they raised that child". So you would honour them by doing the opposite - behaving in ways that would make your parents pleased (e.g. obey them), and make others look at you and think positively about your parents (which is honouring them). In other words, I am trying to take the word "honour" and explain what it means in practical terms, without using any difficult words.
I have used different wording at different times, this is a tricky one to explain clearly in a single sentence with no big words, and some of you may be able to do it better.
7: Do not commit adultery.
The first example, "Keep your promises to others and God", is ridiculous. The second of "respect marriage" is actually quite accurate, but also very vague. I have most commonly seen this put as "Husbands and wives should not commit adultery", which just says "ignore this one it's not relevant to you, I'll explain what it is when you're older".
I use "Don't break marriages". It's a slight broadening for the purpose of simplification, but not too bad - adultery is a specific way to break a marriage. It makes sense to a child, seamlessly makes more sense when they learn about sex, and doesn't use any difficult words.
9: Do not bear false witness against your neighbour.
This is always turned into "Do not lie" when teaching children, and that is terribly misleading. It is not what scripture says at all. Certainly truthfulness is encouraged and lying is spoken against in many places. But it's a bit more nuanced than that - Rahab lied to save the lives of the spies, and was never criticised for this, it was the right thing for her to do in the circumstances. This is a confusing broadening of the commandment.
I use the wording "Don't lie to get somebody else into trouble". That is precisely what the commandment actually says. It's also a very common problem among children, so something they can easily understand.
I could comment on other ones also, but those are the three that I find are most commonly mistaught. If you have better wording to suggest, go for it.
Here is an atrocious example with many obviously serious errors, from here. This uses nice short words any child can understand and apply to their life. But it does this at the expense of accuracy, writing down the opinion of the author about what good behaviour looks like and calling it the 10 commandments.
And here is a better example, where a genuine attempt has been made to translate these well (from ministry-to-children.com). However it falls into the opposite error - difficult commands become the vague command to "Respect this" or "Respect that", which doesn't actually mean much to a child so can't be applied easily in a child's actual life.
1. Put God first
2. No fake gods
3. Respect God’s name
4. Respect God’s day of rest
5. Respect your parents
6. Do not kill people
7. Respect marriage
8. Do not steal
9. Do not lie
10. Do not be jealous
A good translation for children should be understandable (small common words), and relevant to a child (explain how they would actually obey the command in their day-to-day life), while remaining technically accurate - saying exactly what the scripture says, and only what scripture says. The ones that are usually most problematic are the following three.
5: Honour your father and mother.
This is usually turned into "obey your parents", which is most certainly not what it says. Obviously children should obey their parents, but that doesn't last all your life, and where is the line between child and adult? This is substituting obvious good advice for the actual words of scripture. The second example of "respect your parents" is much closer, but still doesn't truly capture the meaning of "honour", and still means you have a difficult word that you need to explain - now you just have to define "respect" instead of defining "honour", so it's no clearer than "honour your parents".
I use wording like "Behave in ways that please your parents". I explain this by asking "how would you dishonour your parents?". You would dishonour them by behaving in ways that make other people look at you and think "they must have terrible parents, look at how badly they raised that child". So you would honour them by doing the opposite - behaving in ways that would make your parents pleased (e.g. obey them), and make others look at you and think positively about your parents (which is honouring them). In other words, I am trying to take the word "honour" and explain what it means in practical terms, without using any difficult words.
I have used different wording at different times, this is a tricky one to explain clearly in a single sentence with no big words, and some of you may be able to do it better.
7: Do not commit adultery.
The first example, "Keep your promises to others and God", is ridiculous. The second of "respect marriage" is actually quite accurate, but also very vague. I have most commonly seen this put as "Husbands and wives should not commit adultery", which just says "ignore this one it's not relevant to you, I'll explain what it is when you're older".
I use "Don't break marriages". It's a slight broadening for the purpose of simplification, but not too bad - adultery is a specific way to break a marriage. It makes sense to a child, seamlessly makes more sense when they learn about sex, and doesn't use any difficult words.
9: Do not bear false witness against your neighbour.
This is always turned into "Do not lie" when teaching children, and that is terribly misleading. It is not what scripture says at all. Certainly truthfulness is encouraged and lying is spoken against in many places. But it's a bit more nuanced than that - Rahab lied to save the lives of the spies, and was never criticised for this, it was the right thing for her to do in the circumstances. This is a confusing broadening of the commandment.
I use the wording "Don't lie to get somebody else into trouble". That is precisely what the commandment actually says. It's also a very common problem among children, so something they can easily understand.
I could comment on other ones also, but those are the three that I find are most commonly mistaught. If you have better wording to suggest, go for it.
I have a question about this verse.
John 4
16¶Jesus saith to her, 'Go, call thy husband, and come hither;'
17¶the woman answered and said, 'I have not a husband.' Jesus saith to her, 'Well didst thou say -- A husband I have not;
18for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'
For the view of sex=marriage how do you deal with this?
John 4
16¶Jesus saith to her, 'Go, call thy husband, and come hither;'
17¶the woman answered and said, 'I have not a husband.' Jesus saith to her, 'Well didst thou say -- A husband I have not;
18for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'
For the view of sex=marriage how do you deal with this?
Agreed, but may be too easy lol, she does "have him"
And he's a eunuch.
There are a few passages that challenge the “sex=marriage equation”. This is the most effective. The other being the freed servant who must leave his wife and children behind.
Dealing strictly with this passage though; any answer is going to be a little unsatisfactory. We’re given very little information about this situation. It was never meant to be a statement on one flesh or any kind of a proscriptive command at all. The woman’s marital status is completely ancillary to the story.
There are a few things we can suss out though. Jesus knowing that the man she was living with was not her husband was shocking to the woman. It proved to her that He was prophetic. That means there was no other way in her mind that information could have come to Jesus without revelation.
Had the marriage been dependent on a public ceremony of some kind then everyone would have known that she wasn’t married. It wouldn’t have been shocking to her that Jesus then also knew; maybe surprising or even suspicious but definitely not a declaration that the Messiah had come.
@steve is right that the idea that she simply hadn’t slept with this man she lived with is a little convenient. But I would posit that if your definition of one flesh is hingent on this passage then your definition is deeply flawed. This passage is not about forming one flesh. It’s not meant to give us that information.
We know that this woman hadn’t formed one flesh with the man she was living with and none of her contemporaries knew that. There are only a few things that could have formed one flesh that no one would have been aware of the absence of. This passage is neutral on the forming of one flesh, but it’s at least as supportive of the “sex=marriage equation” as not.
Last edited:
What about all the scripture about whoring? Why make a distinction between whoring and adultery? An unmarried woman commits whoredom/harlotry, a married woman commits adultery. Hosea 4.
If becoming one flesh was all it takes to create a marriage. Why is there whoredom?
Zanah and naaph.
That’s why I can’t get on the one flesh creates marriage. You can fornicate and not marry. You can play the harlot. But not marry. You can become one flesh and unite with a beast but that doesn’t mean you married a cow. (Reminds me of a news story I saw once about a guy who “married” his cow)
Really interesting concept Zec but I don’t think it pans out. Willing to hear explanations though.
If becoming one flesh was all it takes to create a marriage. Why is there whoredom?
Zanah and naaph.
That’s why I can’t get on the one flesh creates marriage. You can fornicate and not marry. You can play the harlot. But not marry. You can become one flesh and unite with a beast but that doesn’t mean you married a cow. (Reminds me of a news story I saw once about a guy who “married” his cow)
Really interesting concept Zec but I don’t think it pans out. Willing to hear explanations though.
Part of your problem is going to be purging western ways of thinking about sex.
You can not commit fornication. Search scripture high and low for the sin of fornication. It’s not there. There’s no such thing? What then is the sin of having sex before marriage? Why there is none. Nowhere is there listed such a thing as a prohibition against having sex before marriage, a penalty for sex before marriage or a system for adjudicating it.
Forget about fornication. It doesn’t exist. When the Bible references it (as it does frequently in the New Testament) it’s simply referring to the totality of the Torah involving sex. This fact right there tells you I’m right.
There is a peace about a woman who’s engaged, we can go in to it but it’s not relevant.
I’m not familiar with the difference between whoring and adultery, you’ll have to educate me. I though they were the same thing. If you’re referring to Hosea 4:13 don’t let the poetic nature of the passage get away from you. The adultery and the whoredoms are linked. Their wives are committing adultery against them and their daughters are whores. It’s literary, not theological. It’s not meant to be Law.
If the daughters had sex then they would have been immediately married. So they would all be adulterous. Why use two different words denoting different acts? I think the reason for two different hebrew words is because one is a woman having sex outside of ownership (zanah), basically stepping outside of her father’s authority and having intercourse outside of the acceptable parameters in scripture. The wives go out and sleep around and their crime is adultery (naaph). The daughters are committing whoredom (zanah).
Of course I’m no bigwig scholar. Just what my initial scratching of the surface seems to indicate. Hoping those more learned than I will chime in.
Except this distinction is made nowhere in the Law. You’re going to a poem about God’s wrath and judgement to find a category of sin that isn’t described or explained anywhere else, certainly not at Sinai.
Remember in Hosea God is speaking to an Israelite every man. He’s speaking to all of Israel as of its one man. That man’s wives are committing adultery against him. His daughters are also committing adultery but it’s not against the man who’s being spoken to, so it’s described as whoredoms. You can call it scrimping or you can call it humping but either way it’s the same thing.
I can save you a lot of time. Nowhere in the Bible are we ever told about the sin of sex before marriage. It’s not forbidden, it’s not described, it’s penalties aren’t laid out. It doesn’t exist. If there’s no such thing as sex before marriage then there’s only one conclusion I can draw, it doesn’t exist. That means until someone can find me some kind of scriptural reason why not then I have to assume that sex either forms a one flesh relationship or is adultery. Those are the only two states we find it in.