Share Your Bible Knowledge

[Jamie McDaniel]

I thought I would start a thread where people can share their knowledge of the Bible. For this particular discussion, I'm not really talking about lessons learned from the Bible. What I mean is knowledge about the Bible that is helpful in studying it. In a lot of churches that I have attended, often times such things are not pointed out. After all, sermons are 20 minutes and Sunday School lessons are usually less.

Ok, I will get us started by bringing up the difference between the use of GOD and God in the Bible. Alot of folks are aware of this, but not everyone.

Here is an example showing both uses.



This is also seen in LORD and Lord. While this is a subtle difference in our translations, apparently in the original Hebrew it was a big difference. The version in all caps is referred to as the Tetragrammaton, and it is used wherever the original Hebrew had the actual Divine name of Israel's God. Scholars are almost certain the Divine name was pronounced "Yahweh."

When small letters are used in the English translations, the original Hebrew used the more general word for God, "adonai."

I have not taken a Hebrew class, so I'm still not entirely 100% clear on the distinction. But I notice it now everytime I read the Old Testament and I just wanted to present this interesting piece in our thread on knowledge about the Bible.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

This is also seen in LORD and Lord. While this is a subtle difference in our translations, apparently in the original Hebrew it was a big difference. The version in all caps is referred to as the Tetragrammaton, and it is used wherever the original Hebrew had the actual Divine name of Israel's God. Scholars are almost certain the Divine name was pronounced "Yahweh."

When small letters are used in the English translations, the original Hebrew used the more general word for God, "adonai."

I have not taken a Hebrew class, so I'm still not entirely 100% clear on the distinction. But I notice it now everytime I read the Old Testament and I just wanted to present this interesting piece in our thread on knowledge about the Bible.

Jamie,

You are correct that LORD/GOD and Lord and God represent the different names of God. Yahweh is actually the proper name of God, like Jamie is yours. The Hebrew literally is YHWH which cannot be pronounced by non-Hebrew speakers so the early translators added the "a" and the "e" so it can be pronounced.

I don’t have my Hebrew notes with me so if I am wrong someone please correct me. But Yahewh is where we also get the name Jehovah. This is from the Septuagint and later German translators.

Which is interesting that it Gods proper name was used up until the King James version where he also changed many words to suit his views... like making some passages have the word Homosexual where is was not there. Also it wasn’t until King James the Sodom and Gomorrah story actually translated to the men of the town wanting to have sex with the visitors. A little bonus trivia is the Hebrew word used there is "yada" literally meaning to know. "Yada" is only used A LOT in the Old Testament and of all the times it is used only 9 times is it potentially used to mean carnal knowledge ... so if the translation is correct it would be a unique usage for a very common word rarely used to mean anything sexual.

OK, I have pontificated enough.

-Venari

[themattperry]

Hmmm interesting ...nice thread. I hope to learn much, but I may not have 2 much to contribute!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Venari

Which is interesting that it Gods proper name was used up until the King James version where he also changed many words to suit his views... like making some passages have the word Homosexual where is was not there.-Venari

I find this thread of great interest and look forward to more. Though like Matt, I may not have a great deal to contribute. One thought comes to mind however: King James was gay. How much of his own religious homophobia was a factor in these changes? Interesting question.

A relevant link:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/histor...james_gay.html

[schoolboi]

Great thread Jamie. If you find the LORD/Lord translation interesting you may want to do some reading on the Documentary Hyposthesis. Here are two links below that are good resources. I find it very enlightening!

Documentary Hypothesis

A Summary of the Documentary Hypothesis

[zephyr013]

Are we sure that homosexual is used in the King James version? My understanding of the origin of that word is that it is much more recent than the KJV- 1800's I thought- and first used in newer translations.

But it wouldn't be the first time I missed something.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Venari

This is from the Septuagint...

Venari introduced the Septuagint, which is another good item for our thread on Knowledge of the Bible. Many readers of the Bible are already aware of the fact that the books that make up the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew and that the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Not everyone in Israel read Hebrew at the time of Jesus. Greek was the dominant language. So the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. This Greek translation is referred to as the Septuagint.

So what's the importance of this? Well, as we all know, one's view of the Bible is all about interpretation. If I could only give a fundamentalist one gift, I think I would give him or her a parallel Bible.

The Complete Parallel Bible



Why? Because seeing alternate translations side by side reminds us of the limits of human language in our quest for truth.

Anyway, the Septuagint was one of the very first translations of the Old Testament. Jesus would have been familiar with it. And our English translations today often list footnotes that reference the Septuagint. Some of the footnotes say Septuagint, others abbreviate it as GK for Greek version or LKK.

Here's an example:



The verse in question reads "He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work." Footnote B shows that the Septuagint (and another Hebrew manuscript) has "young men" instead of cattle. That footnote is for 1 Samuel 8:16 in case anyone was wondering. I didn't pick it for any particular reason.

(Sidenote: Those following this thread, did you notice how LORD is in all caps in the verse above the footnote?)

So differences like this are very interesting, but what I find most interesting about the Septuagint is that it contained the Apocrypha, which is what I want to touch on next in this thread on Knowledge of the Bible.

Disclaimer: Like many of you, I'm a student of the Bible, not a Bible Scholar. I'm merely introducing these topics so that everyone can be more familiar with them. There are complete books on each of these topics. If anyone has corrections, additional information, or more insight, please post.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Some of the footnotes say Septuagint, others abbreviate it as GK for Greek version or LKK.

Jamie,

The only correction's I would make is its the LXX not the LKK and who it was written for.

But here is a link to an online version, for my fellow New Testament Greek Speakers; Septuagint.

The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek is often credited to Ptolemy, and the word "Septuagint" is the word for seventy in Latin and the "urban legend" about the text as it took 70 scholars to translate it.

The Septuagint was written for the Hellenized Jews scattered though out the Roman world. Hellenized refers to the impact the Roman Empire had of conquering another nation, leaving it intact but imposing their language and culture on its people. Israel was an exception that many people who lived in the area were taught Hebrew because most of the teaching was done in the Synagogue. But the widely spoken language was Aramaic, a close relative to Hebrew. So the Jews living in Israel maintained much of their language and culture, this is seen in how many of the "common" people, like the disciples with the possible exception of Matthew, did not know Greek which is reflected in their later writings.

But the Jews living outside Israel had become Hellenized and with the lack Synagogues in many of the other cities teaching Hebrew to the next generation became less and less prevalent. So over time there was an entire segment of Jews who knew little or knew nothing of the Hebrew language. This is where it became important for the Septuagint to be translated. Ptolemy was a Hellenized Jew in the city of Alexandria, in present day Egypt. Seeing the eroding of the Jewish faith among the Hellenized Jews he decided to translate the scriptures into a language they could understand.

Paired with what Jamie said the different translations are really important as they do give an idea of how the original audience took these passages to mean which should, but often doesn’t, guide us in how we look at the passages. Another good bible version is the Amplified Bible parallel Bibles are good but for the Amplified Bible is "in text" so when you read a passage and there is variance in word meaning it gives it to you right there and you can read each verse with the different word.

But to answer Zephyr's question.

The word homosexual is a recent word, but the concept of homosexuality is a very ancient one. There are words in Hebrew and Greek that do refer to homosexuality as we would perceive it now but none of them appear in the scriptures. We do see homosexual acts addressed in the scriptures, as in temple/shrine prostitution and yes even the roman orgies, but the words commonly used for one male and one male relationship do not appear, sorry ladies the term only exists in the masculine as far as I have researched and trust me my Thesis is on this.

This raises a question for me; why gender inclusiveness of God. I can see value in removing a stumbling block for someone who may take issue with the Patriarchy. But when it comes down to it God is reveled to us in the masculine, so I take issues with how some churches change the texts to remove any "male terms." I guess one thing that bothered me is I was guest speaking at an MCC church and I said "kingdom” and I had a group of people get all upset that I was imposing male superiority... well in the Greek the word is "basileia" which literally means kingdom with no other possible meaning, in the context, I also pointed out and kingdoms are ruled by Queens ... no puns intended

I guess I am blinded by having my nose in the book and I cannot see value in changing a word from any of its possible meanings. But I will say there is a failure to fully understand the nature of God in our English translations, namely this is though the names God is given and many do show feminine characteristics that do not fall within masculine terms normally used.

Well, I leave with I just don’t get it.

-Venari

[schoolboi]

Originally Posted by Venari

This raises a question for me; why gender inclusiveness of God. I can see value in removing a stumbling block for someone who may take issue with the Patriarchy. But when it comes down to it God is reveled to us in the masculine, so I take issues with how some churches change the texts to remove any "male terms." I guess one thing that bothered me is I was guest speaking at an MCC church and I said "kingdom” and I had a group of people get all upset that I was imposing male superiority... well in the Greek the word is "basileia" which literally means kingdom with no other possible meaning, in the context, I also pointed out and kingdoms are ruled by Queens ... no puns intended

-Venari

Wow Venari! We have found something we can agree upon! Like you I have some trouble with some churches that require gender inclusive language to be used at all times in songs, prayers, preaching, etc. I have no problem hearing inclusive language, but I do not like to be required to use it. In interfaith settings I personally always use inclusive language, but in Christian settings I do not. Bible versions that translate using inclusive language when there is no clear gender reference in the original text is great, but I do have a problem when all reference to gender is removed when the original text suggests specific gender.

I hope this discussion on gender inclusive language does not over take this thread. If that begins to happen we may need to create a new thread.

On another not just. Just a matter of clarification, hellenization most accurately refers to Greek domination and infusion of Greek culture rather then Roman. Although the Roman Empire did continue the hellenization process. See additional info at www.thehistoryguide.org

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Venari

I don’t have my Hebrew notes with me so if I am wrong someone please correct me. But Yahewh is where we also get the name Jehovah. This is from the Septuagint and later German translators.

What they did was take the YHWH and interpose the word adonai. Since the "Y" and the "W" are letters that can represent different sounds, it turned into JaHoVaH, which was later transliterated into Jehovah. It was never meant to be a guess as to the pronunciation, but just a way in which we could say the name without having to dance around it. Most Jews believe the name was too sacred to be pronounced, which is why the corect pronunciation was lost. Hebrew is an interesting language, because it was actually resurrected from the dead. It was just like Latin (read in scriptures but never spoken) until Eleazar Ben Yehuda came home one day and told his family they were going to speak Hebrew from now on. The problem was that the pronunciations were all mixed up and new words had to be invented. Ben Yehuda literally reinvented the Hebrew language. When pronunciations were not definite he mixed a lot of Arabic in with it. Today's Hebrew is a far cry from Biblical, and the only way we know what the words mean in the Bible is by looking at other instances when it appears and comparing the contexts and then guess. It's a very subjective procedure, as anyone who translates can attest.

Originally Posted by Venari

Which is interesting that it Gods proper name was used up until the King James version where he also changed many words to suit his views... like making some passages have the word Homosexual where is was not there. Also it wasn’t until King James the Sodom and Gomorrah story actually translated to the men of the town wanting to have sex with the visitors. A little bonus trivia is the Hebrew word used there is "yada" literally meaning to know. "Yada" is only used A LOT in the Old Testament and of all the times it is used only 9 times is it potentially used to mean carnal knowledge ... so if the translation is correct it would be a unique usage for a very common word rarely used to mean anything sexual.

The infinitive is l'da'at, which is "to know" (yode'a - 1st p.s.m.), but just like many other languages, to know a person has a different verb altogether. To be acquainted with a person in Hebrew is l'kihr (m'kihr - 1st p.s.m.). In Spanish to know a fact is saber, but to know a person is conocer. In Hebrew if you yode'a a person it can only mean carnal knowledge.

[cris]

Very interesting thread, and I think profitable to readers. Thanks Jamie.

Originally Posted by maklelan

What they did was take the YHWH and interpose the word adonai. Since the "Y" and the "W" are letters that can represent different sounds, it turned into JaHoVaH, which was later transliterated into Jehovah. It was never meant to be a guess as to the pronunciation, but just a way in which we could say the name without having to dance around it. Most Jews believe the name was too sacred to be pronounced, which is why the corect pronunciation was lost. Hebrew is an interesting language, because it was actually resurrected from the dead. It was just like Latin (read in scriptures but never spoken) until Eleazar Ben Yehuda came home one day and told his family they were going to speak Hebrew from now on. The problem was that the pronunciations were all mixed up and new words had to be invented. Ben Yehuda literally reinvented the Hebrew language. When pronunciations were not definite he mixed a lot of Arabic in with it. Today's Hebrew is a far cry from Biblical, and the only way we know what the words mean in the Bible is by looking at other instances when it appears and comparing the contexts and then guess. It's a very subjective procedure, as anyone who translates can attest.

Perhaps you, maklelan, or other Bible students in here can help me to understand what I read in Daniel Helminiak's book What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. He refers to the absence of vowels in Hebrew (p. 125) as possible support to interpretive theories regarding David's and Jonathan's intimate relationship, David's seductive behavior towards Saul and his response to it, as well as Samuel's reference to Saul's lover (David). Is this quite plausible? How do we accurately determine Old Testament (or NT for that matter) interpretation and translation? Does this bring into question every aspect of the parts of the Bible that were originally written in Hebrew? Do I ask too many questions? (I have loads more.)
I hope you can help me out, and perhaps some others will benefit too.

[maklelan]

The lack of vowels often leads to mistranscriptions and mistranslations, like the large numbers in the OT. One letter can multiply a number by ten or a thousand. The idea that homosexual behavior was a part of so many OT stories is a bit of a forced interpretation, though. If you want it to say that you can certainly make a case, but I've never read a purely objective treatise to that effect, and I've never come across any texts to that effect while reading. The thing with interpretation is that the person doing it cannot help but leave the scent of his or her agenda on the translation, and pretty much everyone engaged in Bible translation has some kind of agenda. A purely objective translation is an impossibility.