Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220961 | ||
Keliy and Brad, 1 Corinthians 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? The Greek is diermeneou, which can also mean translation, but here is interpretation of the meaning 1 Corinthians 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. The Greek is hermeneia, interpretation of the meaning. |
||||||
2 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220963 | ||
I find the Gk. word for interpret in 1Cr 12:30 to be diermeneuo definition: 1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language Nothing about freely interpreting, but thank you for your heart in this matter. I do enjoy your presence here and hope to continue. Being somewhat new here, Rick, you are in a slight learning curve, and one thing you will find is that free interpretation is just not accepted as well as formal interpretation. I agree with the ones who think formal is better. Lord Bless |
||||||
3 | free vs formal | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220965 | ||
Please explain "free interpretation" and "formal interpretation". Not being snippy or arrogant, but I didn't see that in the TOU. Is this an administrator thing? | ||||||
4 | free vs formal | Gen 2:2 | BradK | 220967 | ||
Rick, I'd recommend you start by reading the Lockman Foundations' Doctrinal Statement and About Postings. This should clear things up. If not,there is a Yellow-outlined warning at the top of the SBF Home Page which reads: IMPORTANT: DO NOT POST TO THIS FORUM until you familiarize yourself thoroughly with its guidelines. Click on "About the Forum" and read the instructions contained therein, including the section "Terms of Use." Be very sure that you understand and agree to comply with these guidelines. Failure to do so may result in revocation of your privilege to post. Being familiar with the Forum, it's guidelines and protocol saves much frustration. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
5 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220969 | ||
I read that all. I was cautioned about free interpretation, so I asked what it was. | ||||||
6 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | BradK | 220970 | ||
Hello Rick, Might I then ask: did you understand all that you read and are you in agreement with the Terms of Use and About Forum? About Postings says: Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing the Bible's sole authority (sola Scriptura), Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Whenever possible, postings should include supporting Bible references. To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts. If I'm understanding you correctly, your understanding of "free interpretation" is at odds with the Lockmans' TOU and About Postings! Postings must be biblically based, not our own interpretations, opinions, beliefs, etc. Do you understand and/or hold to sola scriptura? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
7 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220971 | ||
That's my problem Brad. I don't know what free interpretation is. It seems to be a technical term with a set definition. I've asked what free interpretation and formal interpretation were and haven't gotten an answer. I don't know what they are and therefore don't know the differences between them. Sola scriptura is what I adhere to. That the Bible tells stories to illustrate the Truth does not negate any authority of the Bible. The parables of Jesus were stories -- I don't think anyone argues against that -- and they tell the Truth that Jesus wanted to tell us. Good folk disagree on what other passages/pericopes were and were not stories. |
||||||
8 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220972 | ||
Thank you Rick, I appreciate your comments as being forthright, and I feel that when you have given personal interpretations, you have labeled them as such. Therefore I enjoy conversations with you, because we are all here to learn and grow, and this is exactly what I am doing here. You asked about what I call a 'free' interpretation, and what this falls under is the paraphrase category. Please let me explain myself. Many people today think that a good translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, then there is a noun in the translation. If the verse has six words, they don't want to see seven words in the translation. This method of translation is referred to as literal, or "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard are found near the formal end, where a literal translation would be the very end. On the other hand is a more free translation, what is referred to as a "dynamic equivalent". This is not as concerned with the grammar of the original, as it is with the basic gist, or the essence of the original. A dynamic equivalent is more interpretive, which makes it easier to read. One major complaint with this style is that it leaves too much open to the convictions of the interpretors. The New International Version and the New English Bible fall into this category. At the far free end of the spectrum are what is often called 'paraphrased'. These throw out grammatical rules and simply convert the text on a thought-for-thought basis. These include the Good News Bible, and the like. For an instance of how this type of interpretation can be damaging, let's look at Hebrews 1:3 and see who the translation says Jesus actually is. The KJV (formal equivalent) reads, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; And the NIV (Dynamic equivalent) has it: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Now for the free end of the spectrum. The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English. GNT says, (parenthesis mine throughout) "He reflects the brightness of God's glory (!) and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. Here is the RSV, He reflects the glory of God (!) and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. And this is the New Century Version: The Son reflects the glory of God (!) and shows exactly what God is like.(!) He holds everything together with his powerful word. Now, the paraphrase versions are dangerously free, because they change the description of Christ. If Christ is a reflection of God's glory, then He has no glory of His own. This makes Christ to be to God, as the moon is to the sun. The sun is the light, and the moon gives off no light but reflects the light from the sun. Is this how we want to portray Christ to an unbeliever who is seeking answers? This will only lead to confusion. God is not an author of confusion but the enemy uses this as an arrow in his quiver. A college professor used to say, "The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded!" Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU. |
||||||
9 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220976 | ||
Thanks for the dialog, I appreciate it. "Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU." I'm right there with you on that! About the only time I'll say "God says..." or "the Bible says..." is when I use direct quotations. Otherwise, I try to make it clear that my opinions are my opinions. Usually when people speak for God, they say what they wanted Him to have said. They make Him a talking puppet. We have enough of these agenda-driven people in my church that I try to avoid forums where they prevail. I like NASB and NRSV. I don't like the free translations of the Bible such as Good News. However, in their defense, I know people who would only be comfortable in using that version when they entered into a study class. Then they graduated to a better translation. They might not have continued -- or even started -- in study had they not begun with Good News or The Message. That to me is Paul's milk and meat metaphor in action. |
||||||
10 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220978 | ||
Thanks for your response Rick. I appreciate your heart for the Word even if we disagree on the symbolism in Genesis. (-; I do not think that symbolism should be a divisive issue, it's just a personal election, such as: I happen to be against infant baptism but I know many fine Christians who do espouse that doctrine, and I believe that God is probably laughing at us for the personal investments we make into these implicit issues. Also, when I was first saved, I had a hard time with the KJV. So, I had a class where I took a GNT along with a study Bible in KJV. That is how I grew to understand the semantic shifts such as suffer means permit, and so on. So what is comfortable for one may not be for someone else who is on a different spiritual level. We will find out soon enough when it will all become obvious. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1Cr (13:12) But until then, all we have is faith, hope, and love. Lord bless you and yours. |
||||||