Translation & More

[testallthings]

“In this message we shall consider further the builder of the pillars, the skillful Hiram (1 Kings 7:13-14; 2 Chron. 2:13-14).
It is not easy to know the Bible.”

We all agree on this point. So we try our best the search for the best tools we can find.

“Sometimes when translators have difficulty with a particular passage, they assume that the manuscripts are in error.”

It is possible. Sometimes scribes and copist did surely make mistakes.

“However, when we probe into the depths of the revelation of the Bible, we must worship God.”

Surely this is the experience of all who have proved that the revelation of the Bible is from a divine source and it is perfect.

“Often what at first glance appears to be a mistake in the manuscripts turns out to be a mysterious truth hidden in the Scriptures.”

Maybe. I would not deny that it is possible.

“This is true with respect to 1 Kings 7:14. The King James Version renders the verse as, "He [Hiram] was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali." According to this rendering and the understanding of most translators, the modifier, "of the tribe of Naphtali," goes with the word "widow."

That's really so. They translated this verse in the correct way.

“This would mean that this verse says that the widow was of the tribe of Naphtali. But 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that Hiram was "the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan." How could a daughter of Dan also be of the tribe of Naphtali? Some translators, neglecting the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 7:14, tried their best to reconcile this discrepancy, but they failed.”

They failed. Oh, poor translators. How come you failed so miserably? So please can you tell us how to translate this verse. We really have no clue.

“By studying the Hebrew text we have learned that this verse should be translated as follows: "The son of a widowed woman; and he was of the tribe of Naphtali." Thus, Hiram, the son, was of the tribe of Naphtali. This solves the problem.” (Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 86, Section 1) [The words without quotation marks are mine, of course]

Wow! This solves the problem! It was really so simple! Just add the word and!

Let's be serious. In the RcV the verse is translated differently, “He was the son of a widow and he was of the tribe of Naphtali. (RcV)
The job of a translator is to translate not to reconcile discrepancies. Able commentators have solved this problem without tampering with the text.
Here a some examples.



“He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was צֹרִי אִישׁ, i.e., a Tyrian by birth. According to 2Ch_2:13, his mother was “of the daughters of Dan,” i.e., of the tribe of Dan. Both statements may easily be united thus: she was a Danite by birth, and married into the tribe of Naphtali. When her husband died, she was married again as the widow of a Naphtalite, and became the wife of a Tyrian, to whom she bore a son, Hiram. This explanation is also adopted by Bertheau (on the Chronicles); and the conjecture of Lundius, Thenius, and others, that the mother was an Israelitish widow of the city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali, which was quite close to Tyre, is less in harmony with the expression “of the daughters of Dan.”

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

“Hiram was a born master builder. The influence of heredity needs no more signal illustration. He combines his mother's heart and his father's mind. Strange, that in a correspondence between Eastern kings of antiquity, with whom woman's fame was of less than cypher value, Hiram's mother should be mentioned at all; stranger still, that the premier place is given to her, implying that, while both parents were eminent, the mother was pre-eminent. Who was she? “A woman of the daughters of Dan” (2Ch_2:13-14). The Danites bore the brunt of all the Sidonian incursions, until, driven from hearth and home for refuge to the hills, privation and isolation but varied the form of the disasters that dogged them. Finally, submitting to capture or surrender, they were taken across the border into Tyre to suffer further ignominy amid alien surroundings. But never did the sons and daughters of Dan forget their tribal ancestry or affinities. Their traditions and Pride became a splendid inheritance, and their faith sustained them under the sharpest persecution. Even their oppressors grew to respect them, and permitted them to thrive in their midst. Hiram”s mother had the tribal grit, the unswerving courage of her people, so that when named at the Tyrian Court, it is as “a woman of the daughters of Dan.” And, in his letter to Solomon, Hiram the King lets drop this bit of feminine biography that is a tribute to her fine fidelity to conscience. Do not think that this passes in the record as of no account. You can prophesy with tolerable certainty as to Hiram's future when you read his mother's story, and you can as surely anticipate as much for every child of promise whose mother is true to the form of faith that holds her to the people of God.”
The Biblical Illustrator

[Ohio]

testallthings, to help clarify quotes and references, several facilities are available to help the reader.

• colors
• fonts
• indents
• quote button

then for emphasis, bold, italics, and underline can be used.



Just trying to help out some of us old folks, like me.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

testallthings, to help clarify quotes and references, several facilities are available to help the reader.

• colors
• fonts
• indents
• quote button

then for emphasis, bold, italics, and underline can be used.



Just trying to help out some of us old folks, like me.

Thanks brother.

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Thanks brother.

Nice writing, testallthings. I appreciate your doing some reading on the aftermath of the Danites and Sidonians. I was unaware, as probably were many of us. Thanks for sharing.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by aron

Nice writing, testallthings. I appreciate your doing some reading on the aftermath of the Danites and Sidonians. I was unaware, as probably were many of us. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks. Hope to post more as soon as possible.

[testallthings]

Verse 25 [Mat. 11:25] opens with the words, “At that time.” This refers to the time the Lord was rebuking the cities. Verse 25 says, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I praise You, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth.” When the Lord was rebuking those leading cities, He answered and said, “I praise You, Father.” The word “answered” is very meaningful. Whom did the Lord answer? He answered the Father. While the Lord was rebuking the cities, He fellowshipped with the Father. At that time, answering the Father, He spoke praise to Him. (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 31, Section 5)
“Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word...The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes.” (A brief explanation, NT RcV Revised Edition 1991)


Translating the Bible requires more than adequate comprehension of the original language. Interpreting the Word requires more than a proper understanding of the original languages and their usage plus a more than proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word. Without these things the translation and the interpretation could be just the mere exercise of the translator or preacher fantasy.
The sad thing is that this fantasy is passed on to followers who never bother to “examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Act. 17:11, ASV

viii. Idiomatic Phrases
1. "Answered and said" was used by Hebrew idiom of whatever kind of speech is in question
It should therefore not be rendered literally, "Answered and said," but translated so as to express whatever may be the particular kind of speech referred to in the verb "said"; e.g.:
Matthew 11:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father," etc.
This should be, "At that time Jesus prayed and said," etc.
Mark 12:25.-"At that time Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ, etc."
Here it should be "Asked and said." So Mark 13:2, etc.
Mark 11:14.-"And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever."
It is clear that this cannot be literally meant, for the tree had said nothing. It should be "Jesus addressed the tree, and said to it."
Bullinger, E.W. - Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated, page 837


Answered and said, “an Hebrew way of speaking, used when nothing goes before, to which what is said can be an answer; see Job_3:2.”
John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible

Redundant use of the verb apokrinomai. The expression “he answered and said” (apokritheis eipen) closely resembles a common Hebrew idiom. The use of the verb apokrinomai “I answer” in this sense is often purely redundant (see Matthew 11:25, 12:38, 17:4, 28:5, Mark 9:5, 11:14, 12:35). In cases in which no question has been asked, it may be misleading to translate the expression “he answered” (Compare Matthew 11:25 in KJV “Jesus answered and said” with NIV “Jesus said”). This idiom is extremely common in the synoptic Gospels, where the writers appear to have modelled themselves after the familiar language of the Septuagint.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

When the Lord was rebuking those leading cities, He answered and said, “I praise You, Father.” The word “answered” is very meaningful... (Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 31, Section 5)

Idiomatic Phrases
1. "Answered and said" was used by Hebrew idiom of whatever kind of speech is in question. It should therefore not be rendered literally

I remember having a Bible which used that phraseology, "answered and said", and used it frequently enough so that I instinctively understood it as not being literal. Funny that Lee never picked up on it. I wonder what translation he was running off of, there; Chinese or English. Certainly he wasn't familiar with Greek, or its idiomatic usage.

Also funny that anyone would let someone so unaware present them with a supposedly definitive presentation of scripture. Mea culpa.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Also funny that anyone would let someone so unaware present them with a supposedly definitive presentation of scripture. Mea culpa.

I am always surprised to learn about all these little nuances in language and phrases that I had never considered before.

With respect to translation and understanding things like idioms from ancient languages, that is a never-ending process. There is always more to learn. It is simply absurd that any person or group would proclaim that they have reached a consummation of Biblical interpretation and understanding.

[HERn]

Thanks testallthings, that was a very subtle point that I never would have found on my own. Thanks!

[testallthings]

LOSING THE LEADERSHIP

"Even one who had so much fellowship with the Gentiles believers was carriesd away in Peter's hypocrisy. What a negative influence Peter exerted on others! Surely he deserved to lose his leadership." (Galatian 2:14, footnote 13.3, RcV)

If Peter lost or not his leadership it was up to the Lord Jesus, the Head, the one Who sent Peter. Just because he was rebuked by Paul it doesn't imply he lost his leadership. Peter made many mistakes, and this is another added to the list, but the Lord Jesus restored him (in the Gospels).

But if we assume that the footnote is correct, which is not!, and that he deserved to lose his leadership, we would like to ask,

When br. W.L. lost his leadership, due to his negative influence by words and works?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

But if we assume that the footnote is correct, which is not!, and that he deserved to lose his leadership, we would like to ask,

When Witness Lee lost his leadership, due to his negative influence by words and works?

Very interesting question!

It was so characteristic of WL to highlight the failures of others, especially other ministers. He spared no one, except of course, himself and Nee.

The laws of the Bible and of our land have always placed higher culpability on pre-planned or premeditated crimes. Peter's "crimes" were always in response to his impulsive nature. He had no intention to deny His Lord on the night He was betrayed, nor did he give that meal in Antioch much thought. Peter simply reacted wrongly. Yes, what he did was wrong, but easily repented of, which he obviously did. Imagine how much grace was bestowed upon Peter during his repentance following both these failures! Especially when the entire church of God got to read about them. Today Peter is rewarded with the martyr's crown.

Witness Lee was different, however. In the late 1980's, Lee orchestrated a massive coverup to protect his son Philip, which included the public slander and libel (Fermentation ...) of scores of godly men including John Ingalls. Lee carefully planned this course of action for months on end, during which he had ample time to change his mind (think: repent). He assembled a team of accomplices to carry out his criminal operation. He never repented for any of this. He even went so far as to expedite the restoration of his profligate and absentee son to the good graces of the church in Anaheim, as if that will ensure his salvation in the after life.

[testallthings]

ARE THERE TWO STEPS IN THE WORK OF RECONCILIATION?

18 But 1all things are out from God, who has areconciled us to Himself through Christ and has given to us the bministry of reconciliation;
19 Namely, that God ain Christ was reconciling the bworld to Himself, cnot accounting their offenses to them, and has put in us the 1word of reconciliation.
20 On behalf of Christ then we are 1a ambassadors, as God bentreats you through us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be 2reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20, RcV)


Footnote 20.2 says, “In the preceding verse it was the world that was reconciled to God; in this verse it is the believers, who have already been reconciled to God and are to be reconciled further to God. This clearly indicates that two steps are required for men to be fully reconciled to God. The first step is to reconcile sinners to God from sin. For this purpose Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) that they might be forgiven by God. This is the objective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He bore our sins on the cross that they might be judged by God upon Him for us. The second step is to reconcile believers living in the natural life to God from the flesh. For this purpose Christ died for us — the persons — that we might live to Him in the resurrection life (vv. 14-15). This is the subjective aspect of Christ's death. In this aspect He was made sin for us to be judged and done away with by God that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. By the two aspects of His death He has fully reconciled God's chosen people to God. These two steps of reconciliation are clearly portrayed by the two veils of the tabernacle. The first veil is called "the screen" (Exo. 26:37, lit.). A sinner who was brought to God through the reconciliation of the propitiating blood entered into the Holy Place by passing this screen. This typifies the first step of reconciliation. The second veil (Exo. 26:31-35; Heb. 9:3) still separated him from God, who was in the Holy of Holies. This veil needed to be rent that the sinner might be brought to God in the Holy of Holies. This is the second step of reconciliation. The Corinthian believers had been reconciled to God, having passed through the first veil and having entered into the Holy Place. Yet they still lived in the flesh. They needed to pass the second veil, which had been rent already (Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:20), to enter into the Holy of Holies to live with God in their spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). The goal of this Epistle was to bring them there that they might be persons in the spirit (1 Cor. 2:15), in the Holy of Holies. This was what the apostle meant by saying, "Be reconciled to God." This was to present them full-grown in Christ (Col. 1:28).”

This footnotes claims that there are two steps required for a full reconciliation:
1. Sinners must be reconciled to God, so Christ died for our sins.
2. Believers must be further reconciled with God, so Christ died for our persons.
Furthermore, to support this teaching, there is a reference to the two veils in the Tabernacle.

Although everything seems very clear, and strong, if we shake this “building” a little bit, we discover that it has a very weak foundation.

1. This teaching is based only on a couple of verses in 2 Cor. 5 and nowhere else in the N.T. we have the faint allusion to the two steps of reconciliation.
2. It is based on a wrong understanding of verse 19.
3. It is based on a translation of verse 20 were the word you has been supplied in italics.
4. It is based on the wrong application of Hebrews 9.

Concerning the first point, it is clear that this teaching is not to be found in other Epistles of Paul, or of any other Apostles. Consider the great Epistle to the Romans for examples. In it it is unfolded the Gospel of God in the clearest possible way. Can we see in it the two steps of reconciliation? Verse 19 speaks of what God did in Christ to remove all possible barriers between God and man. He was reconciling, He didn't actually reconciled the entire world! God made the first step, then He sent his messengers to proclaim the word of reconciliation. To this agree what is stated in the Gospel of John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Now, let's consider the third point, the translation of verse 20. Here I quote Dr. E.W. Bullinger, “Here the word “you” is incorrectly supplied. Paul was not beseeching the saints in Corinth to be reconciled to God. They were reconciled as verse 18 declares... Then in verse 19 he goes on to speak of “men”; and in verse 20 he says that he beseeches them , as though God did beseech them by us; we pray them in Christ's stead, and say: – “Be ye reconciled to God.” This was the tenor of his Gospel to the unconverted.” (Figures of Speech used in the Bible, pages 13-14).
Let's come to the last point. The writer to the Hebrews is saying that an ordinary priest (notice that it is not a common sinner as the footnote claims) entered only the first veil, “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (Heb. 9:7, KJV). It was through the blood that the high priest entered the second veil, and that blood was offered for his sins and for the sins of his people. “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. 9:8-12, KJV). In this passage we see that Christ, with His own blood, obtain eternal redemption for us, something that the high priest in the O.T. could not obtain. It seems clear that this passage has nothing to do with a second step of reconciliation.


As always....