Jul 26, 2009 -- 5:31PM, Clootie wrote:

You can read the words, but what do they mean?

I have found most writing hermeneutics or biblical interpretation too academic for my mind.

Following is a brief piece that I can understand. It is an appendix in the book Evil, Anger, and God and I quote it with permission. You can read other excerpts on www.Google.com Book Search and www.Amazon.com for free.

This approach to biblical interpretation seems sound to me. What do you think?

________________Beginning of quotation_____________________

My Approach to Scripture (quoted from Evil, Anger, and God)

I "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God," as stated in the Book of Common Prayer. Therefore, the Bible serves as the primary authority as well as the primary source for this book. Although the whole Bible owns primary authority, some passages wield more operative authority than others. Scripture wields operative authority as it becomes the operative verbal map by which people perceive their lives and circumstances.

For a passage to exercise operative authority requires an understanding of its meaning, three aspects of which are the words the author meant to say, what the words meant factually to the author (and what they might factually mean for us), and what the words meant for the author's faith (and what they might mean for ours).

The Words

Textual questions about a few biblical passages exist, but for the most part, the words the author (whether original, compiler, or editor) meant to say are found in the Hebrew and Greek texts: for most modern readers in translation.

Although the Bible's individual books were written by many authors over many centuries, by being accepted as Scripture they have all been incorporated into one book. Therefore, I draw on the whole Bible for passages relating to a topic, and a passage's weight does not depend on its date or author. It derives from its congruity with the Bible's entirety, so what one passage says may be countermanded by others. Examples of this are found in Chapters Nine and Eleven.

Factual Meaning

Factual meaning seeks facts about people, places, and events written about in the Bible. Knowledge of historical context and geography contribute to factual meaning. The factual meaning of a passage is sometimes clarified elsewhere in Scripture.

Faith Meaning

Faith meaning includes (a) the content of faith and (b) the effect of faith on human life.

The Bible communicates the content of its faith by its key words. I seek the content of these words by using a concordance, Bible dictionaries, and word studies. For word studies, I have drawn especially on Colin Brown, editor, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Regency Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975); R. Laird Harris, editor, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); James Strong, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville: Abington-Cokesbury Press, 1890) and Joseph Henry Thayer, trans, A Greek-English Lexicon (Grimm), Second Edition-Revised (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890).

Regarding the effect of faith in human life, some biblical authors, especially St. Paul, provide examples about the effects of faith in their lives, some of which are cited in this book.

__________________End of quotation___________________

Yes, indeed, But what do the words mean if not translated correctly?

Mk 1:15 For he shall be great in the presence of the Lord and 1vintage and 2Barley wine he will in no way drink and  4that the Holy Spirit shall 3come up to him from his own mothers womb.

1 * Greek οινο vintage
2 * Greek σικερα Barley Wine
3 * Greek πλησθησεται come up to
4 * Greek έτι THERETO To that or this

4:38 And he was sleeping on a pillow for the head, in the 1poop,: and they awoke him, and they said to him, O teacher, do you not care that we fall?
1 * Greek πρύμνη, astern towards the rear, poop, deck that is the highest and furthest aft in a ship

5:29 And at once the 1fount of her blood was dried up; (not fountain)
1 * Greek πηγη source, origin

The KJV was a 1611 translation into English from generally sound Hebrew Old Testament texts but considerably flawed Greek New Testament texts. A few parts of the KJV's flawed Greek texts were translated into Greek from a glossed/annotated Latin text of the Vulgate, which contributed to the Greek text's (and KJV's) corruptions. The KJV was revised many times in its first 160 years, with the most major and permanent revision of spelling and punctuation done by Benjamin Blayney in 1769.

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516.

The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99). Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agrees most often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]
 
The Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem is the current version of the Latin Vulgate that was originally begun by Jerome in 382 A.D. and completed in 405 A.D., with the intent to provide a standard Latin version of the Bible and eliminate the differences in older Latin texts. It was many years later that Jerome's work was bound in a single volume and called the Vulgate.

Jerome did not do all of the translation in that volume. Only the Old Testament, Tobit, Judith, and the four gospels can definitely be attributed to Jerome. It was many years later that Jerome's work was bound in a single volume and called the Vulgate. Over the centuries Jerome's text continued to be copied, annotated, corrupted, and revised.

The Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text.

Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.
Stephanus' 1550 Greek text was very close to being the same as Erasmus' fourth- and fifth-editions. It was the primary basis for Beza's 1565 edition, which was virtually the same as the Elzevirs' 1633 edition, which became known as the Textus Receptus.

Jul 27, 2009 -- 9:36PM, God_Is_A_Tarradiddle wrote:

Here are some of my thoughts related to parts of your quote:

Jul 26, 2009 -- 5:31PM, Clootie wrote:

I "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God," as stated in the Book of Common Prayer. Therefore, the Bible serves as the primary authority as well as the primary source for this book. Although the whole Bible owns primary authority, some passages wield more operative authority than others. Scripture wields operative authority as it becomes the operative verbal map by which people perceive their lives and circumstances.

The writer's opinions seem to be little more than rephrasings of trite, timeworn, Christian rhetoric.

These are my thoughts. All else is pro-denomination commentary.

Yes, indeed, But what do the words mean if not translated correctly?

Mk 1:15 For he shall be great in the presence of the Lord and 1vintage and 2Barley wine he will in no way drink and  4that the Holy Spirit shall 3come up to him from his own mothers womb.

1 * Greek οινο vintage
2 * Greek σικερα Barley Wine
3 * Greek πλησθησεται come up to
4 * Greek έτι THERETO To that or this

4:38 And he was sleeping on a pillow for the head, in the 1poop,: and they awoke him, and they said to him, O teacher, do you not care that we fall?
1 * Greek πρύμνη, astern towards the rear, poop, deck that is the highest and furthest aft in a ship

5:29 And at once the 1fount of her blood was dried up; (not fountain)
1 * Greek πηγη source, origin

The KJV was a 1611 translation into English from generally sound Hebrew Old Testament texts but considerably flawed Greek New Testament texts. A few parts of the KJV's flawed Greek texts were translated into Greek from a glossed/annotated Latin text of the Vulgate, which contributed to the Greek text's (and KJV's) corruptions. The KJV was revised many times in its first 160 years, with the most major and permanent revision of spelling and punctuation done by Benjamin Blayney in 1769.

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516.

The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99). Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agrees most often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]
 
The Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem is the current version of the Latin Vulgate that was originally begun by Jerome in 382 A.D. and completed in 405 A.D., with the intent to provide a standard Latin version of the Bible and eliminate the differences in older Latin texts. It was many years later that Jerome's work was bound in a single volume and called the Vulgate.

Jerome did not do all of the translation in that volume. Only the Old Testament, Tobit, Judith, and the four gospels can definitely be attributed to Jerome. It was many years later that Jerome's work was bound in a single volume and called the Vulgate. Over the centuries Jerome's text continued to be copied, annotated, corrupted, and revised.

The Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text.

Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.
Stephanus' 1550 Greek text was very close to being the same as Erasmus' fourth- and fifth-editions. It was the primary basis for Beza's 1565 edition, which was virtually the same as the Elzevirs' 1633 edition, which became known as the Textus Receptus.

Jul 29, 2009 -- 5:28PM, God_Is_A_Tarradiddle wrote:

Jul 29, 2009 -- 9:37AM, he-man wrote:

But what do the words mean if not translated correctly?

Preeeecisely!  Here's an example I've been discussing elsewhere. The Westcott & Hort (W&H) and Tischendorf's 8th (T) versions of the first four words of 1 Peter 3:15 tell Christians to κυριον δε τον χριστον, and κυριον δε τον χριστος, respectively. The TR rendering is κυριον δε τον θεον.

Which is the correct/original version? Unquote

15 κν  δε τον χν  αγιασατε εν ταισ καρδιαισ υμω  ετοιμοι αει προς απολογιαν παντι τω αιτουντι  ϋμας λογον περι της εν υμιν ελπιδος
15  but sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every one that asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you; but with meekness and fear;  (www.codex-sinaiticus.net/)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer: I dunno. P72, an extant manuscript that contains a copy of 1 Peter, dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century CE (depending, of course, on who you ask). Because of the time elapsed between Peter's death and P72, this manucript is likely a copy of a copy. And, because NT autographs/originals are nonextant, we'll never know what the correct reading is of those first four words of 1 Peter 3:15, and many other NT verses and passages.

Jul 30, 2009 -- 2:50PM, peterthesplitfish wrote:

I hope you picked up on the seeking aspect of this particular passage. It is not about going and seeking converts, but those who are seeking the spiritual, give to them as they ask on the level to which they understand. Milk (spiritual milk) to the babes in spirit, herbs (deeper meaning spiritual) to the next level, and finally meat (not real meat because the Essenes, Ebionites, and Nazirenes were all vegetarians) to those who can handle it. 

The aspect of Kephas or Kepha (Peter) or rather Shi'mon Kephas in the gospel was not the historical Peter for in the gospels, Peter takes on the vibration of the orthodox church in its 'hardness' and shallow spiritual awareness. Kephas does not mean 'rock' (masculine) but stone (feminine) and the church was just WRONG about that period. Again, if you read this one passage very carefully, it negates the very existence of the church itself. Peter M.

The Chaldaic form of the Hebrew word is translated "mountain"  from which the stone is cut and signifies the divine origin of Christ. The mountain is Zion, where the foundation is laid.
Joh 1:42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Κephas[SD 2:341n], which is by interpretation, A stone.
Isa 28:16  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Anointed himself, being a corner–foundation of it ;

Mk 12:10 This writing have you not even read? 'A stone which those building condemned, this was made into a head of the *corner;
  11 This was done by the Lord, and is wonderful in our eyes! *Ps 118:22-23.

Jul 30, 2009 -- 11:43PM, God_Is_A_Tarradiddle wrote:

Jul 30, 2009 -- 11:20AM, he-man wrote:

15 κν  δε τον χν  .... but sanctify the Lord Christ .... (www.codex-sinaiticus.net/)

Close, but no cigar for you!

Re 1 Peter 3:15 -- the substitution of τον χριστον by W&H 1885 (or ὁ χριστον, depending on whose GNT your looking at), and τον χριστον by T 1869 (or ὁ χριστος), is based on P72, ca. 200-300CE. Contextually,  theoretically, these readings might be more correct than the 1550 TR's ὁ Θεὸν (or τὸν Θεὸν).

Nevertheless, there's still the problem of not having the autograph/original by which to confirm one of these wordings. As I alluded earlier, we'll never know if the original wording was KURIONDETONXRISTON or KURIONDETONQΕΟΝ. Without objective evaluation of that evidence, all else is conjectural predilection. (Cf. Canons 1 & 7 for textual criticism.)

Not loooking for cigars, simply the truth:

15 κν  δε τον χν  αγιασατε εν ταισ καρδιαισ υμω  ετοιμοι αει προς απολογιαν παντι τω αιτουντι  ϋμας λογον περι της εν υμιν ελπιδος
15  but sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every one that asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you; but with meekness and fear;  (www.codex-sinaiticus.net/) Codex Vaticanus  κν  δε τον χν (Both with the Nomina Sacra); Codex Alexandrinus  κυριον  δε τον χριστον;  W&H κυριον  δε τον χριστον

NLT, NIV, NKJV * NU-Text reads Christ as Lord, ESV, NASB, ASV, DBY, mGNT

{A} τον χριστον papyri P72 III/IV Cologny: Citta del Vaticano; Unicals 01 eacpr IV London: Sinaiticus; A02 eacpr V London: Alexandrinus,  B03 eacp IV, Citta del Vaticano: Vaticanus,  C04 eacpr V Paris: Ephraemi Resciptus;  Ψ 044 eacp Athos IX/X, Miniscules 33, eacp IX; 945, ac XI; 1175, acp X; 1243, ec XI; 1611, cr XII; 1739, acp X; 1852, cp XIII; 1881, cp XIV; 2138, c 1072; 2464, acp IX;  it superscript: ar X, t acpr XI, w a XIV/IX, z cpr VIII; vg syr superscript p h; cop  superscript  sa bo;  arm (geo) Clement: (Jerome) // τον Θεον 81, acp 1044; 322, c XV; 323, c XII; 346, e XII; 1067, c XIV; 1241, ecp XII; 1292, ec XIII; 1409, ac XIV; 1505, ec XII; 1735, c X; 2298, c XII; 2344, acr XII; Byz* [K P L] Lect (1593 τον Θεον αυτον, I; 1441 XIII τον Θεον ημων) slav Didymus

* [K P L] Catholic Epistles of earlier manuscripts not characterized by complete uniformity

(Source: The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition)