Is it proper to correct another mans wife/family?

[Verifyveritas76]

I’d definitely second what @Ancient Paths said. There are so many good tools available for one who wants to study the Word. IMO a Journal or Notepad is crucial. Once you get into the habit, you will regularly refer back to those notes on different studies you’ve done for insight or to examine your conclusions based on new insight or information.

Word searches or studies (IMO) are the best way to discover truth from Scripture. Scripture will define itself if you search it out, but keep in mind that a word search in English will not give you all Scripture on a subject. It will at best give you 60-80% simply because the translators often utilized multiple synonyms for the same Greek or Hebrew word. It is much easier to get a tool like a Bible app that has an interlinear function or that allows you to cross reference an English word with the Strongs number. Once you have the Strongs number, you can then do a search within the app for every mention of the Greek or Hebrew word. I’ve found this method to be a much more thorough approach to studying out a topic and allowing me to come to a much more accurate conclusion on the subject.

 

[Pacman]

Blessings, @Pacman. What you wrote here sounds like the standard line the Roman Catholic Church used for 1500 years to limit scripture reading to the priesthood. Beware anyone who tells you that you can't understand the scriptures for yourself or that digging in the ancient languages belongs to the ivory towers.

All of us today are without excuse.... the internet and readily available tools online give you the ability to not just dig in the Greek but to understand the Hebrew concepts and words underlying the Greek! One really good online tool is blueletterbible.org. . Excellent tool.

I have esword on my laptop and mysword on my phone for word studies. I also have youversion on my phone to have multiple translations at my fingertips. Hint: NO translation is perfect. ALL have translator bias..... the only way to overcome that is learning to do word studies and read multiple translations.

I do use some of the tools you mentioned. And I am not completely against referencing the Greek and Hebrew. I still however do not understand things like figures of speach and such from Greek or Hebrew and therefore I am cautious about doing so. Also my concern with other translations is the soures materials used. As far as I understand it many other translations are from corrupted sources and often done simply for the purposes of making a profit and not with pure and honest intent to accurately translate the Bible.

Just to be clear these are all my personal observations questions and thoughts. I am not intending to be argumentative. I am truly seeking to understand.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I do use some of the tools you mentioned. And I am not completely against referencing the Greek and Hebrew. I still however do not understand things like figures of speach and such from Greek or Hebrew and therefore I am cautious about doing so. Also my concern with other translations is the soures materials used. As far as I understand it many other translations are from corrupted sources and often done simply for the purposes of making a profit and not with pure and honest intent to accurately translate the Bible.

Just to be clear these are all my personal observations questions and thoughts. I am not intending to be argumentative. I am truly seeking to understand.

I totally understand what you’re saying about the different translations. They can however be a shortcut in the English, I just don’t trust them too much, personally, and believe it to be time saved to bypass them and go straight to the Hebrew or Greek,

Just don’t be afraid to step out into the deeper waters of study. The best set of study guides and tools will never be able to replace The Bible Teacher, the Holy Spirit! He is the one who will lead us and guide us into all truth so that we may be approved by God as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed and who can rightly divide the word of truth. In my own personal experience, time in the Word in a focused study provided the data input that the Holy Spirit then used to help me formulate conclusions. IMO this is NOT enough to stand on truth because you must try or test the spirits. Once you think you have a true position, the next step is to try to annihilate that position by any means from Scripture. Truth will find confirmation throughout the entirety of Scripture. If you can disprove it entirely or create reasonable doubt from Scripture that means that you still have more studying to do. One truth will lead to and provide the foundation for understanding another truth, and before you know it, you will be beholding incredible wondrous things out of His word and understanding more than the “ancients”.

 

[frederick]

I am truly seeking to understand.

You will understand more and more as you study and prayerfully ponder and meditate on God's word. (Read Psalm 1 here and take particular note v:2-3.) God is perfect therefore He cannot contradict Himself. Anything that appears to be a contradiction can only be our failure to correctly understand what He has said in His word. Pray as the Psalmist did in Psalm 119:18; "Open my eyes that I may see wondrous things from Your law." Shalom.

 

[PeteR]

I do use some of the tools you mentioned. And I am not completely against referencing the Greek and Hebrew. I still however do not understand things like figures of speach and such from Greek or Hebrew and therefore I am cautious about doing so. Also my concern with other translations is the soures materials used. As far as I understand it many other translations are from corrupted sources and often done simply for the purposes of making a profit and not with pure and honest intent to accurately translate the Bible.

Just to be clear these are all my personal observations questions and thoughts. I am not intending to be argumentative. I am truly seeking to understand.

You can trust most major translations. The KJO boogeymen claim special annoinying on that translation, but it simply isn't so. It is a good translation. Another solid translation worth having is the NASB. To get closer to some idioms, the CJB.

Very few Bible translations are motivated by money.

Even the NIV is okay at points, though definitely not my favorite. It gets trashed because it is a 'dynamic equivalent,' but ironically, so was the KJ.

Don't get hung up on translations.... they are just that, translations.

Blessings.

 

[aineo]

I do use some of the tools you mentioned. And I am not completely against referencing the Greek and Hebrew. I still however do not understand things like figures of speach and such from Greek or Hebrew and therefore I am cautious about doing so. Also my concern with other translations is the soures materials used. As far as I understand it many other translations are from corrupted sources and often done simply for the purposes of making a profit and not with pure and honest intent to accurately translate the Bible.

Just to be clear these are all my personal observations questions and thoughts. I am not intending to be argumentative. I am truly seeking to understand.

@Pacman, I’ll take a different approach than the others have. I think you are showing some wisdom in realizing your weakness in languages. But I would offer up to you another alternative. I am not an expert in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but I try to read from the appropriate lexicons when I can to better understand other alternative translations. If I see something that seems different than what I am reading, I try to find someone who understands the language better than I do so I can get their opinion on the various potential translations. A great example of that happening somewhat regularly here is when someone has a question about a Hebrew translation, they often as @IshChayil his opinion on the passage.

I also read from the NET Version of the Bible (with notes) as one of my go-to translations. Why? The notes often explain why they chose the English word they chose vs. other options and why others might have chosen the other options. I find it incredibly helpful. For me, comparing translations is another good way to see if anyone else is translating it differently. Just be cautious because some translations are translations of translations, so they aren’t really going back to the original text.

Finally, one other thing I do which I find useful is to go to the Aramaic texts at http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php for the New Testament. I personally think it is plausible that some of the NT books were written in Aramaic, not Greek, but that point aside, these are very old translations if they are translations, so we can get an idea of what others felt much closer to the time the original texts were written. I find it very helpful.

 

[IshChayil]

I’d definitely second what @Ancient Paths said. There are so many good tools available for one who wants to study the Word. IMO a Journal or Notepad is crucial. Once you get into the habit, you will regularly refer back to those notes on different studies you’ve done for insight or to examine your conclusions based on new insight or information.

Word searches or studies (IMO) are the best way to discover truth from Scripture. Scripture will define itself if you search it out, but keep in mind that a word search in English will not give you all Scripture on a subject. It will at best give you 60-80% simply because the translators often utilized multiple synonyms for the same Greek or Hebrew word. It is much easier to get a tool like a Bible app that has an interlinear function or that allows you to cross reference an English word with the Strongs number. Once you have the Strongs number, you can then do a search within the app for every mention of the Greek or Hebrew word. I’ve found this method to be a much more thorough approach to studying out a topic and allowing me to come to a much more accurate conclusion on the subject.

The method mentioned by VV is also how scholars argue for a certain shade of meaning ascribed to a particular original language word in certain contexts. When you notice that word x when occurring with word y is usually translated as "blah" while it's "bleh" in other contexts, you can see that "blah" is likely the correct rendering for the verse you are looking at even if the popular translations through bias chose to go with "bleh".

You can't just say "look the dictionary has 5 meanings for this word and my theology will work if I select the 3rd meaning on the list", you gotta prove it using the method VV described. A common mistake folks just getting into digging in original languages make is to think that a particular Hebrew or Greek word has "all the meanings" listed in the lexicon in any given context. So they'll say from the pulpit all those definitions in a given verse trying to make the verse more broad-based or interesting than it actually is. Those languages, just like English, usually nail down a word to exactly 1 meaning in a given context. You can't just freewheel and choose them all or choose the one you like (that's anti-polygamy or whatever) Context is king.
I'd like to add to the list of free tools: BlueLetterBible.com
Has great free resources for digging into original language meanings. The lexicons are dated but often very useful and I noticed they display strongs numbers so you can probably search on those references if you want to. Just avoid the initial glosses (strongs definitions) and be sure to click through the links to get to the deeper lexicon definitions (Gesenius for Hebrew and Thayer's for Greek)...

 

[The Revolting Man]

I would go further than Steve, then, and say that I believe that position is wrong.

The man. The woman. Definite articles. What Paul teaches here is that THE woman is the glory of THE man, is created of THE man, and created for THE man. Extrapolating from the story of Adam and Eve (one woman, one man), we see that God created a specific remedy for a specific lack of Adam's, creating a specific helper with a specific kind of relationship, and we infer that the same motives and purposes apply in other husband/wife relationships.

Pacman, you do you, and run your house however you want, but as a matter of bible teaching, for what you're saying to make sense Paul would have had to say something along the lines of "women are the glory of men, for women are of men and created for men". That's not what he said.

Anybody that tries to assert any authority over my women on the basis of some generic male privilege is going to get told where to get off. By the women.

This is where I'm at. There is no intrinsic male authority. There is the authority of a man over his household. No other man has any authority over my wife or children. If there's a problem come get me. If there's danger then do what needs to be done. But the quickest way to start an argument with me is to try and take any kind of authority with my wife. I allow some wiggle room for children but not much. And I'm never that far away that you couldn't get my input on the situation.

 

[IshChayil]

You can trust most major translations. The KJO boogeymen claim special annoinying on that translation, but it simply isn't so. It is a good translation. Another solid translation worth having is the NASB. To get closer to some idioms, the CJB.
…

I agree, KJV is a nice translation; it's problems in my opinion are in 2 areas:
1) English has changed a lot since the Victorian era and so often King Jimmy is abused because people don't realize the words now mean something else. "Study to be silent!" doesn't mean to get books on silence and read them; it means "try to be silent". Other words like "meat" now mean animal flesh whereas they used to mean any kind of food. I would never ever recommend any student of mine to read KJV by itself without a modern parallel translation such as ESV or NET or NASB by its side.

2) King James new testament portion is the unreliable portion according to the vast vast majority of Greek scholars. It's not the King James translators' fault, they just did not have in those days the oldest complete texts that we have today, i.e. Siniaticus and Vaticanus, a gift to later generations. The King James translators note says they will continuously update and improve their translation as their knowledge improves.
I understand many are attached to this translation and I used to love it (after my initial year and half of discipleship suffering through it to learn Victorian English).

That said, I still have many KJV new testament verses memorized so I can "quench the fiery darts of the wicked!"

 

[IshChayil]

I think the whole "all men over authority of all women" is not the real issue at hand. The real issue is sometimes women behave very very badly in public as do men, and in my opinion anyone (male or female) has the right to correct such public misbehavior (though there may be limits in how much a woman is allowed to correct a man). In Jewish culture this is called a "violation of derekh erets", something like common societal norms of behavior.

The English rebuke comes across so strong when the underlying Hebrew word has an array of response levels; correct may be more appropriate here.

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree with @aineo that it is right to be cautious to some degree, and @IshChayil has outlined some of the errors people can fall into when using the original languages incorrectly. There is such a thing as having just enough knowledge to get you into trouble. But I wouldn't let that put you off deeper study - rather use it as an encouragement to simply do that study carefully and wisely.

I like the KJV, and generally use it as my default study bible - but to be honest that is mainly because it's so easy to find KJV-based study tools (Strongs concordances for instance are generally based on the KJV). I take it as a base to use as a reference, not as an authoritative translation that trumps all others. I actually prefer the Geneva Bible when it comes to old translations. I tend to also use the WEB, YLT, ESV, NASB and one of several translations of the LXX to try and get a broader understanding of a passage. I also drill into the original language using Strongs numbers, using Strongs concordance to look up all instances of particular words and give a quick overview of the meaning of words. Whenever I have to understand the meaning clearly, I refer to BDB to get a more accurate understanding than in Strongs. There's a whole lot of different ways to look at an issue, so look at it from several angles.

 

[mystic]

English has changed a lot since the Victorian era and so often King Jimmy is abused because people don't realize the words now mean something else. … I used to love [the King James Version] (after my initial year and half of discipleship suffering through it to learn Victorian English).

"Victorian" isn't quite the word; work on the KJV was completed over 225 years before the start of the Victorian era. But its language isn't Elizabethan, as is often claimed, or even Jamesian. It's a variety of English that was never spoken in any century and was specifically created by the translators. So we'd best call it Biblical English or something like that.

 

[IshChayil]

"Victorian" isn't quite the word; work on the KJV was completed over 225 years before the start of the Victorian era. But its language isn't Elizabethan, as is often claimed, or even Jamesian. It's a variety of English that was never spoken in any century and was specifically created by the translators. So we'd best call it Biblical English or something like that.

Ah I didn’t realize it was an artificial English. It had been my understanding that when they first produced the KJV they were attempting to use the language as it was spoken in that day (not the current King James we have which has long since been updated). My source is zDr. Michael Brown (doesn’t mean it’s right). Is this what you mean, that the “current” KJV doesn’t fit into VictorianmEnglish or whatever phase?
I won’t call any language other than the originals “Biblical”, how about we call it Shakespearean English or is that far off base? (I’m ignorant in this area).

 

[andrew]

Perhaps you can help me. I have always been taught that I should be causous about going back to the Greek because I don't speek Greek and it's difficult to infer meaning from a language that I do not understand. For example there are words in English that have multiple meanings and we understand the meaning based on the context of what's being said. Therfore my tendency is to simply accept the English (more specifically KJV) as it's written because the translators did have a much deeper understanding of the original text and implied intent. The only times I typically would look at the Greek would be to clarify portions of scripture that are difficult to understand in English.

Am I off base with my ideas on this? If so what would you suggest as a more appropriate approach?

@Pacman, you're not off base. It's good to have a little humility approaching new languages, and to realize you'll inevitably go through the 'tyro' phase in which you think you know a lot more than you do, and it's good to be patient and just keep studying and learning.

That said, my points didn't really depend on any nuanced understanding of Greek vocabulary. Studying other English translations will open your mind to the general idea that unless you were born a native Greek speaker 2000 years ago, we're all just doing the best we can with the tools we have, and that's good for humility, too.

My suggestion (looks like it's a little out of sync with some of the other advice you've received, but that's okay) is that you begin by focusing more on comparative study with different English translations. Find a good printed parallel bible, or use one of the many suggested computer bible programs (I prefer e-sword to online resources, but do your own evaluation) to compare different translations, including at least the AV, a modern translation, and a 'literal' translation, and let that drive the 'why' questions (why did this translation use this word and that translation used that word? what difference (if any) does it make?), and let the why questions drive your (limited) Greek study.

What you'll end up with is a good feel for what is the 'main and plain' in scripture (the stuff the translators pretty much agree on, or where the minute differences don't matter) and what is 'the weeds', the different positions driven by different assumptions, points of view, and academic issues, the arguing over which may or may not be the best use of your time.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

 

[andrew]

I won’t call any language other than the originals “Biblical”

I don't know, Ish. I think using 'biblical English' or 'bible English' to denote that class of jargon we only use in church might be useful. Or maybe just 'church English?...

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Pacman, you're not off base. It's good to have a little humility approaching new languages, and to realize you'll inevitably go through the 'tyro' phase in which you think you know a lot more than you do, and it's good to be patient and just keep studying and learning.

That said, my points didn't really depend on any nuanced understanding of Greek vocabulary. Studying other English translations will open your mind to the general idea that unless you were born a native Greek speaker 2000 years ago, we're all just doing the best we can with the tools we have, and that's good for humility, too.

My suggestion (looks like it's a little out of sync with some of the other advice you've received, but that's okay) is that you begin by focusing more on comparative study with different English translations. Find a good printed parallel bible, or use one of the many suggested computer bible programs (I prefer e-sword to online resources, but do your own evaluation) to compare different translations, including at least the AV, a modern translation, and a 'literal' translation, and let that drive the 'why' questions (why did this translation use this word and that translation used that word? what difference (if any) does it make?), and let the why questions drive your (limited) Greek study.

What you'll end up with is a good feel for what is the 'main and plain' in scripture (the stuff the translators pretty much agree on, or where the minute differences don't matter) and what is 'the weeds', the different positions driven by different assumptions, points of view, and academic issues, the arguing over which may or may not be the best use of your time.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is no need for most of us to reinvent the wheel. The occasional shallow word study is very useful at times but for the most part there are a ton of really good translations that God shepherded to deliver us His Word in a way we could comprehend it. I have a hard enough time applying my limited understanding of the English. I don't need to overburden myself with the Greek just yet.

 

[rockfox]

Biblehub is the best online tool I've found so far. It connects a parallel, interlinear and lexicon together well. I used to use Blueletterbible a lot but Biblehub's lexicon and interlinear is better. Both have commentaries but I haven't compared them. BLB's search sometimes works better. But it is highly KJV centric whereas Biblehub emphasizes the parallel.

My understanding was the KJV followed contemporary [to them] English except for the thee/thou and the church language (i.e. the translators instructions mandated the use of words like bishop, church, etc as opposed to more accurate translations).

The most accurate modern English versions are NKJV and NASB in my experience. KJV is still pretty good though the meaning of several English words it uses have changed dramatically. It's good, but its not accurate for modern ears. There are a raft of new translations. Many thought-for-thought ones don't pretend to be super accurate. ESV is popular in some circles and is fairly literal but is prone to run off the reservation from time to time with dumb translation choices.

 

[FollowingHim]

If you read the older Geneva bible, you'll find it's actually easier to read and more like modern English (it's obviously old, but less archaic than the KJV, it just reads like a modern translation with thees and thys). As I understand it, the primary reason for this is the different people behind the translations. The Geneva was translated by the Reformers, who wanted to put the plain meaning of the text in front of ordinary people, but also shake up the traditional understanding a bit and use different words to the usual "churchy" ones where they felt it necessary to shift people away from looking at it through Catholic glasses. The KJV translators on the other hand were specifically required, by order of the King, to produce a revision of the Bishops Bible already used in the Anglican church to some extent, preserving the ecclesiastical language used in that bible as much as possible, in order to preserve establishment theological interpretations. So as I understand it it's not so much an invented version of English, but rather the "churchy English" used in sermons at that time, which was deliberately archaic.

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
...
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.
...

Full instructions here.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Has anyone here done much research on the two different bibles that have been translated into english? Essentially the KJV, the Bishop’s Bible, and the Geneva Bible are translations of the Received Text and all other translations are from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Edit: just realized the title of the thread, feel free to move this post to a more appropriate place if need be.

 

[FollowingHim]

Add to that note, for reference, that the WEB is a modern translation of the majority text, which is basically the received text tradition with access to more source material, so that can be included in the list alongside the KJV.
This, in my opinion, is the primary thing that is valid in the KJV-only arguments. There is a lot of good material on this issue from the KJV-only perspective, if you read it to extract this part of the argument. I personally feel this is a very valid concern, but again one that can be addressed in part by simply comparing a number of translations before forming a view on a subject. Most theological issues aren't seriously impacted by it.