Archive for November, 2013

Matters of Creation and Science and Bible translation

November 24, 2013

My response on matters of Creation and Science and Bible translation in another forum:

You listed several examples of men who were biblical authors who translated the scriptures e.g. from Hebraistic (Aramaic) to Koine Greek. That does not mean that we can claim inspiration for our modern translations nor does it mean that God dictated their translations.


You were the one who demanded evidence that God inspires translations. You got it. He DOES inspire translations. With Psalm 12:6-7, we see that God also promised to preserve his word:

Ps 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

There is no original. Not only that, Jesus made a stronger promise:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.–Matthew 5:18

Now, unless you are “literal” literalist, you know that God means every little bit of meaning, every “unit of meaning”, and every nuance of meaning.

So: (1) God promised to preserve his Word, “from this generation for ever”.

(2) Jesus said this meant every “jot and tittle” of the word (“the law”, which also said to obey the prophets and Jesus Christ) would be preserved, by which we understand in context (“till all be fulfilled”) means until every detail, to the slightest nuance of meaning of the meaning.

(3) There are no “original autographs” extant, of any of the parts of the Bible, of any piece of the Bible, so God did not mean “ink on paper”, obviously.

(4) Therefore, nobody has an indisputable “original” of either Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic, available with which to say with authority whether this or that part of it is “authoritative”.

(5) Therefore, it is -inescapably– something other than any “original language” copy that we will have to look to. Especially since there is such a confusion among “scholars” about which one is which. God commands “righteous judgment”, and his ways are above ours, so therefore we have to look for something that can be understood today and without ambiguity because Jesus promised that understand would be to the detail of jot and title.

(6) For all that, and because Second Peter 1:20 promises that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”, the meaning will not have ambiguity.

(7) So therefore the Word has to be in a language that does not depend on a special priestly class of scholars, any more than it did in Biblical times, or in the times when Rome dictated that only the priests could understand it and in Latin only.

Why should God have us dependent on a new self-appointed priestly class that says the only people who can really tell us the final word is about what the Word means, is what a few scribes, lawyers and neo-Pharisees and neo-Saducees tell us?

We see what Jesus said about the scribes, lawyers, Pharisees of the day, and we know that God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. We see this phenomenon with the rejection of the “wisdom” of the world, which we know is not as wise as the “foolishness” of God.

(8) The conclusion from all the above points –inescapable and by deductive logic– is that we only have remaining to determine which candidate of the “Word” to settle on by those criteria.

(9) We know from other passages that this candidate must have certain other attributes: consistency within itself (no contradictions at all), clarity, lack of ambiguity, widely understood, meaning discernible outside the confines of a special privileged class.

(Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.)
(Luke 1:52-53)52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

There is one place in the book of Matthew, which church fathers claimed was originally written in Aramaic, where we find a probable error in the Greek text, the only version that survived past ~ AD 400 AD. (In Greek a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle instead of the Aramaic large rope going through the eye of a needle). This does not change the essential meaning – that it is very difficult for the rich to be saved)


Knowledge puffeth up. You cannot say you know better than God, who promised he would preserve his word, with an example from your own knowledge.

As I understand the Day of Pentecost, God gave each of these Galilean apostles an ability to speak in different languages. This could mean that one apostle temporarily spoke Latin, another temporarily spoke Phrygian and another the Libyan dialect because Jews who spoke those languages were present. God’s purpose was that the news about Jesus’ forgiving sins should spread to the whole world. I see no reason to imagine that God translated the sound waves en route.


God gave gifts of interpretation even following that example that meets your demand for proof that God inspires translations. God also promised these gifts, many of them specifically, namely tongues, as a sign to unbelievers too. I personally worked with a missionary who once witnessed to some sailors from Brazil (or Portugal?) who were on leave in California while in port. When he realized they did not speak English, he began speaking in tongues by faith and began a witness. They responded: “Where did you learn to speak Portuguese?” But he heard them in English. God is the Creator of the Universe, worker of miracles, “Command thou me” he said.

On the issue of creation. You claim that the Bible supports Young Earth in the literal text. There is not a single verse in the Bible that directly states the Earth is young. That does not mean the Bible support Old Earth creation claims of a gap or a big bang. There are many verses that mention the earth’s antiquity. You are interpreting the Bible with western ideas about linear time that did not even exist when the Bible was written. We must accept the Bible as a contemporary would understand it, not tailor it to fit western grammars.


There is the genealogy.

Genesis One clearly and without ambiguity says that God made the world in six days. The Hebrew word is used for our 24-hour period. This is repeated in Exodus 20:11, 23:12, 31:17. It is repeated as the example of why man should work six days on the seventh day rest. Jesus referred to Genesis when he said God made male and female.

Before Genesis One, the earth was “without form and void”, and God created light. There was no earth at all before that, because God had to separate it out. Then he had to put some structure in the heavens. And so on. And there were no females until God made her from his rib.

ALSO there is the ordinal type of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh day therein. One after the other, in other words, NOT one day, then another as if later, and so on. JOT and TITTLE.

ALSO there is specifically listed what was created on which day. Those groupings would be nonsensical if they took millions of years. Whether you call them “long years” to get around the JOT and TITLE meaning or not, it is what it is, preserved in its meaning.

You quoted from the King James of Genesis 1. Yet the King James and other modern translations follow the TRADITIONAL Latin version rather than the Hebrew text. In the Latin version, most verbs are perfect – indicating one time commands and short duration actions. In contrast to the Latin inspired traditions, the Hebrew text uses mostly imperfect verbs – showing repeated actions and continuing commands. For example, God continues to command lights in the heavens, continues to form them and continues to place them in the raqiya. Raqiya is the noun form of the verb to spread out. Repeatedly, the literal Hebrew says God continues to spread out the plural heavens and the Earth.


Now saying that the King James follows the “traditional Latin version rather than the Hebrew text” shows that you do not know your subject. So here we have your scholars, whether they are you or not, giving you a major fail here. I am even ignorant in these languages but I’ve seen enough banter from both sides by guys who know their stuff than most people. I’ve been studying this for nearing twenty years and I would not even dare put ANY 20th or 21st century Biblical language expert in a place higher in understanding than the men of God that worked on the King James translation.

That was the generation that sired Isaac Newton and taught him. Oh that’s right, you know “first principles” better than the guy who proved white light was full of colors and acted like a wave and the colors were different frequencies, and who invented calculus? And said he did science as a witness to young men to the Creation?

God finishes the creation of the heavens and earth on day six. In the Hebrew text, the verb for finishing is imperfect. God finished the intensity of creating the heavens and earth, but the finishing continues. This makes little sense in western grammars based on the Catholic inspired notions of time and Latin inspired verb tenses. Catholic philosophers are very proud of the way Friar Thomas laid the foundation for modern science (and the western system) with his metaphysics.


This is laughable in view of the fact that the Roman authorities did everything they could to stop the King James translation, including the Jesuit-organized and financed Gunpowder Plot.

…The western notion of time is visibly false. How could that be? Western time ideas are based on the first law of the last days – that all things remain the same. Yet we can see the past. Not a single constant is visible – because we observe how the properties of matter continue to change relationally.


Properties change. Western and Eastern notions of time are irrelevant, as the ultimate authority is what God’s Word says. And it says almost all the ancient nations, tribes, peoples, outside of Israel, had ungodly and evil notions of almost everything. Looking to “Eastern” notions of anything is so misguided as to make an invitation to the devil to sit down and start talking, like Eve entertaining the Serpent.

Sure his word are slick and seductive and speak of special knowledge you’ll have, like Eve, but it is a bitter road to trek.

Please understand that Changing Earth Creation is incompatible with Young or Old Earth creation. It is incompatible because it rejects the first law of the last days, the assumption upon which western science was historically contrived. That is why we expect God to get great glory when he reduces science to foolishness and causes his literal creation (which we confirm in the visible history of the universe) to triumph. Why would he make such a universe. So that no one can come to know him personally by means of science.


These notions contradict the Bible, or they are nonsensical, or maybe they are just tautology.

Man’s wisdom (his “science”) is already foolishness. His Creation just is, and the Truth is. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament SHEWETH his handiwork. True science yells out a triumphant praise to the glory of God, and men of God like Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Roger Bacon, Mendel, Henry Morris, they repeated this truth.

You also said this, and I’ll tell you why it’s so wrong, wrong, wrong: “No one can come to know him personally by means of science”.

Science was the witness to me that there was more than the materialists among them were saying. True science, not the one “falsely so-called”, points straight to God.

True science lets that heavens and the earth speak for God, in a sense, because they show the evidence of a Young Earth, a worldwide flood that covered the Earth, and they show that God knew science in the mouths of prophets before the Greeks. Bones of giants and bones of dinosaurs with meat on them that still stink an overwhelming stench, these are bones that cry out “Young Earth”. The Ica stones in Peru, and the temple carvings in Cambodia, and the detailed descriptions of flying dinosaurs in Venezuela and in the Lewis and Clark journals, and mokele-mbembe, and many other proofs, show that men and dinosaurs were contemporary.

Yet he accepts every one who comes as a sinner, looking in faith to the atonement only available through Jesus. THey can only come in such a manner when He choses them.


Jesus himself said, “Whosoever will, come.” “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”.

Paul spoke of “proofs” of Jesus resurrection:
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:–Acts 1:3

In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul listed eyewitnesses as evidence for the resurrection. Malachi said “Try me” and see if God keeps his promises. Christianity is an evidence-based faith, it is not some religion somebody got contemplating navels under a tree or in the midst of seizures.. It’s just truth, historically proven, scientifically demonstrable and easily so to open minds that want the truth…

PS one verse you mentioned, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not even have a verb, in the original. In Greek it is adjective noun adjective clause. Every inspired scripture is profitable, but we do not know exactly how or when God does this, only that his word is true and profitable.


So what if it doesn’t have a verb? Russian doesn’t either for many places where we use the verb “to be”, but the only way to get the jot and tittle of meaning “War and Peace” into English is to use the mandatory verbs that are the equivalent of the implied verb of Russian.

There is at least one standard you can count on for J-T meaning levels from the Word of God today in English.

Advertisements

CreationTalk Translating creation

November 20, 2013

Q: Where in the Bible can we find the notion that God inspires translators?

A: If you believe God inspired the men of God that put pen to paper, you already believe this. If you believe the Word of God, period, you already believe this. There are at least a dozen places in the Bible that translate from the original speaker to the Bible’s language. Joseph speaking Egyptian, conversations of the girl servant in Syria with Naaman the leper, the words “KIng of the Jews” in three languages above the cross, and plenty more. The original writers in the Biblical languages had to translate, therefore they were translators.

Q. What evidence do you have that the traditional translation of creation was inspired?

A. For one thing, I’ve seen plenty of evidence from the Biblical Hebrew explained by those who understand it a LOT better than you, for sure. For starters that includes the King James translators, who knew their languages so well that they could hold conversations over dinner in them. Can you do that? Can your self-aggrandizing scholar mentor do that? The inventor of CEC, whatever it is?

For a second thing, the testimony of the Creation itself:
Psalm 19:1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

The Creation bears witness that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is absolutely correct and the Creation makes fools out of those who don’t believe it.

It’s something that somebody can quote Isaiah 28:9-10 and then forget to justify getting around the plain language of the Bible by invoking the “original language” that they do not understand, and neither do the ones they learned from, starting with the devils Westcott and Hort, of the Ghostly Guild, who knew they were concocting a witches’ brew of semantical poison:

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

And the KJB translators were the furthest from “medieval Catholic” traditions. That idea shows an ignorance of history. The Gunpowder Plot was a plan cooked up by Jesuits to stop the KJB translation to the vernacular, they hated the very idea, by overthrowing the king and Parliament and royals to bring the nation back to subjection to Rome.

FOR THE RECORD, all the translators of the modern versions that try to escape the plain Creation language of the KJB –AND THE HEBREW– these modern versions all include Catholic scholars on their committees.