Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | stjohn | 187372 | ||
Hello Asis, Could you show me please what part of Webster's definition of (repent) that you would disagree with? And why, pray tell should we not use it? 1. To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do. First she relents With pity; of that pity then repents. Dryden. 2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction. Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. Ex. xiii. 17. 3. (Theol.) To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin. (Webster Dictionary, 1913) God bless. John |
||||||
2 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | Asis | 187383 | ||
Because the word that was used by Jesus and the disciples was NACHAM. A Hebrew word, so to know what it means we need to go to a Hebrew dictionary written by Hebrews. | ||||||
3 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | stjohn | 187393 | ||
Hello Asis, That's great! Only problem is, my Bible is in english. As is every Bible that I have seen. And most of the people I speak to, speak english. Hmm. What do I do about that. Do I need to study Hebrew to understand the Bible? I'm proud to know that you have been blessed with such great knowledge, but what do the rest of us dopes do? Can I have your ph. number, so I can call when I have a question? By the way, I know what the word means in the original. I just don't think that it would be wise, to throw out Webster definition. After all, my Bible is in the english translation. How about yours? And, you didn't answer my question. Can you find something wrong with Webster definition? Other then it does not cover all of it? God bless. John |
||||||
4 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187396 | ||
Hi John, Doesn't it strike you as a sound practice to compare the English translations to a more in-depth study of the original lanuages? This is a good example, since the Webster definition of Repentance actually combines the two different Hebrew words that are translated as Repentance, "nacham", which is more the feeling of regret, and "shub", which is to change your direction. One refers to an emotional or mental state, and the other is behavioral. The Greek Metanoia is different still, refering to a change of mind. Since all of these are translated by the single word Repentance, I don't see how we are able to fully differentiate the exact statement that is being made without bringing to bear the original meanings of the original languages. Oh, not that if we read "repentance" in the KJV we'll be steered in a wrong direction, but doesn't it strike you as a sound practice to define our theology by the languages it was expressed in? It does me. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | stjohn | 187399 | ||
Amen Mark, And I think thats what the men who translated the original into english did. And, the way you put it, and the very point I was making, Webster does a pretty good job of covering all the bases. So how can we say that we should (not) use webster to define words in the Bible, when the word we are talking about is an english word? And, a word that does a good job, (in english), to get the meaning across. I think its commendable that anyone would study the original, to come to a deeper understanding of scripture, no problem there. But, like you say, and I agree, that we should balance it with a comparison of the two. Like for-instance, I believe that Esau, was looking for Isaac to change his mind, not turn from sin. Heb 12:17 "for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." If we read the story, we can see that Easu only wanted Isaac, to change his mind, and give him the blessing that Isaac his father had reserved for him, but Jacob had supplanted. God bless. John |
||||||
6 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187484 | ||
Hi John, Actually, my point was that I think sometimes an English word will actually convey more than was intended in the Hebrew or Greek word, such as this exemplifies. So while the English "repentance", as you say, covers the bases, we would have to go back to the Hebrew to actually distinguish if what is being said is a feeling or regret, or a change of behavior. The English translation of "repentance" doesn't tell us which it is, while determining which Hebrew word was used would tell us that information. So while I say the English translation doesn't "steer us wrong", we can get a little closer to the target with a little more homework. Since the Bible wasn't written in English, English words only serve well to the extent that they correctly transmit the exact meaning of the original communication. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
7 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | stjohn | 187499 | ||
Hi Mark, Amen, I would agree there are some Cases were the original may be of benefit. But if one reads the text carefully, one can usually discern the difference without the need to know how to speak or read any other language, other then the one the individual is reading in. Like for-instance, if I spoke and read in Latin I'm sure I could get what god wanted me to get by simply reading the vulgate translation. Also if you look please at the example that I used to illustrate that one can most often discern the difference by simply reading the story. i.e. Easu sought Isaac's repentance with the sobs of a spoiled brat. He obviously was not asking Isaac to turn from sin, but just to change his mind. I hope you can see my point when I take exception to a statement like "we shouldn't use Webster's dictionary," but go to the Hebrew to gain an understanding. Forgive me, but to make a statement like that is hogwash! Pure and simple! And it implies, in my opinion, that the one making it is narrow minded, and putting themselves on a pedestal. Sorry, but thats how it looks from my end of the woods. I may have a lot of trees around me but I haven't mist the forest. I agree and was never implying that I didn't think further study was necessary, on the contrary, it is always a good thing to further ones education. But as you say, " So while I say the English translation doesn't "steer us wrong", we can get a little closer to the target with a little more homework." Well, I cant really add anything to that statement, it is right on the money. A (little) closer to the target with a (little) more homework. I would like to add if I may, that I believe that God has made sure that we can get what we need from reading the Bible in whatever language we may read or speak, and there are literally hundreds of languages that the Bible has been translated in. So please lets try to keep everything in perspective. Most of us only speak one language. Thanks Mark, I always enjoy your input on the forum. You are always kind and gentlemanly, but I could take a lesson in that area from most anyone. :-) God bless. John |
||||||
8 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187512 | ||
Hi John, I agree with you that we are able to receive God's truth even from a poor translation. I think that Webster has more to say about the translator's choice than about the original expression, but I have a great deal of confidence in many who have translated the Holy Scripture, and a little more insight in how they decided to express God's Word in English is a good thing. Esau's cry for repentence is, I think, a great example of just what you say, that the context is extremely useful in showing us the nuance even though we don't know the original language. I totally believe that it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us from the Bible, and He can overcome these minor issues in translation. I do not mean to denigrate the many fine translations that have been made in obedience to Jesus' instruction, go ye into all the world . . . teaching them. I personally believe that God uses each one. But I will also say that some are better than others, and some give a more accurate or complete expression of God's Word, simply because they differentiate a little more distictly. I do not say that we shouldn't use a dictionary. I use them frequently myself, even for words I already "know", just to be sure I am actually using them correct. Sometimes I find I am not. I am saying that we need to keep in mind that Webster simply tells us about the word which a man chose to translated a different word God wrote, and Webster contributes to our knowledge to the extent that the English definition agrees with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek definition. And that's something that can't really be known until one confirms tha original definition, something that Webster can't do. Again, though, let me stress my belief that we have many very fine translations to read and study from, and read them and study them I do! As always, it is a pleasure it discuss these things with you, John, and I'm glad you found our little corner of the www. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
9 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | stjohn | 187529 | ||
Thanks Mark! And amen again, the Holy Spirit for sure! I have found that I don't know how I know that I know what I know, but, when I hear it or see it, I know it. You know? ;-) The pleasure is mine brother, and I am glad to have found this place as well. SBF has been a blessing to me, seldom am I challenged in my daily walk to study Gods word as I am here at the Forum. By the way, It looks like poor old brother Hank and brother Colin have about lost it.... That's really a shame, don't you think? And its really a shame too! Don't you think? God bless. John |
||||||