Hellacious Hermeneutics ... or "Why're we so serious about the Bible"?

[Clare73]

The historical critical approach began in the 16th century. Calvin used it. But it was new at that point. They hadn’t had time to look at the full implications, nor did they have data on the 1st century context that was discovered starting in the 20th Cent.

Thanks. . .what kind of first century context. . .koine Greek?

 

[covid-19v1]

This seems to be more about you not understanding how translation works than anything else. Words aren't directly transferable between languages, translation is the art of looking at semantic range and finding ones that match up. So different translators may view different words as more appropriate to capture some nuance in the original language. The manuscripts don't depend on the English, but on what the available historic documents contain.


It's not about understanding Greek or Old English, the KJV is a workable translation it simply is not the baseline because the English in it is outdated. Languages change over time and 400 years of drift is a considerable amount of semantic change, and English drift has been accelerated since about the 1960s. Koine Greek can be studied because it is no longer subject to semantic drift so we can recover original meanings through tools like BDAG and other analytical language tools.


No, there is no reason to arbitrarily stick with the KJV. Modern English translations are superior to it both because of the stronger historic lines of manuscripts available and because they reflect how people use the language today.

Let's not kid ourselves here...We are not talking about languages from another planet. The English, Greek, Latin, and many common languages have the same basic language constructs where elements such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. have equivalent translations.

Both the KJV and the modern English translations relied on the Greek manuscripts available at their respective times. And this is where KJV has an advantage, because the original Greek manuscripts were all still accessible and were in better readible state at the time. Try doing that translation job today and you would end up with issues like guessing the missing lines because of torn pages, or trying to solve a problem of peeling off pages stuck together without destroying the artifact.

The common notes for the newer translation of the bible is something like "this verse so and so can't be found in the available original Greek". That's something to be expected in the passing of the times, especially when satanic elements wanted the Bible destroyed and burn owners of the copies at the stake with them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's not kid ourselves here...We are not talking about languages from another planet. The English, Greek, Latin, and many common languages have the same basic language constructs where elements such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. have equivalent translations.

Is this a personal observation you've made on your own, Covid, or is this a bit of knowledge that you learned from scholars on the matter? Personally, I've taken four semesters of Spanish and it, being Latin based, had different constructs in its grammar and syntax, differences that end up altering to some degree 'how' a person expresses a statement and thereby, at times, providing a different way (and different vocabulary denotations) in which to identify and think about the details of our world around us. This was also the case when, on a lesser scale, I studied a little Russian quite a while back.

I don't think linguistic and/or other language scholars (~professional translators) would necessarily agree with you here, Covid.

Both the KJV and the modern English translations relied on the Greek manuscripts available at their respective times. And this is where KJV has an advantage, because the original Greek manuscripts were all still accessible and were in better readible state at the time. Try doing that translation job today and you would end up with issues like guessing the missing lines because of torn pages, or trying to solve a problem of peeling off pages stuck together without destroying the artifact.

There are different historical 'families' of Greek manuscripts, some of which were only found and/or identified over the last few hundred years. So, the science of Textual Criticism has changed a bit since 1611. Moreover, the world isn't 'English,' so we can't claim the the uber position in how all of this is handled.

The common notes for the newer translation of the bible is something like "this verse so and so can't be found in the available original Greek". That's something to be expected in the passing of the times, especially when satanic elements wanted the Bible destroyed and burn owners of the copies at the stake with them.

... what satanic elements are those of which you speak, Covid?

 

[covid-19v1]

Is this a personal observation you've made on your own, Covid, or is this a bit of knowledge that you learned from scholars on the matter? Personally, I've taken four semesters of Spanish and it, being Latin based, had different constructs in its grammar and syntax, differences that end up altering to some degree 'how' a person expresses a statement and thereby, at times, providing a different way (and different vocabulary denotations) in which to identify and think about the details of our world around us. This was also the case when, on a lesser scale, I studied a little Russian quite a while back.

I don't think linguistic and/or other language scholars (~professional translators) would necessarily agree with you here, Covid.

There are different historical 'families' of Greek manuscripts, some of which were only found and/or identified over the last few hundred years. So, the science of Textual Criticism has changed a bit since 1611. Moreover, the world isn't 'English,' so we can't claim the the uber position in how all of this is handled.

... what satanic elements are those of which you speak, Covid?

I wasn't arguing about the difference in grammar and language syntax. I was pointing out the commonalities among the languages.

The forum rules does not give me freedom to answer your last question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't arguing about the difference in grammar and language syntax. I was pointing out the commonalities among the languages.

Alright. I understand what you're saying, but it's just that similarities don't necessarily indicate sameness in the overall meaning(s) that can be found between languages.

Anyway, I'm not trying to drag this into a debate. I'd rather just research it all further.

The forum rules does not give me freedom to answer your last question.

Oh. Ok.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks. . .what kind of first century context. . .koine Greek?

No. Knowledge of what 1st Cent Jews believed.

 

[misput]

Not trying to derail the thread but just trying to see what all this learning about hermeneuitcs has enabled anyone in understanding the scripture. Can anyone tell me what the mark God gave Cain was? If this one is too easy, could you give me your take on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Any answer on this thread or privately would be appreciated. The two special trees and the snake in Genesis would be a good one also.

 

[Der Alte]

Not trying to derail the thread but just trying to see what all this learning about hermeneuitcs has enabled anyone in understanding the scripture. Can anyone tell me what the mark God gave Cain was? If this one is too easy, could you give me your take on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Any answer on this thread or privately would be appreciated. The two special trees and the snake in Genesis would be a good one also.

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.​

First neither hades nor the grave are ever called "prison" and "prison" is never called hades or the grave anywhere in the NT.
Jesus' earthly ministry is given in Luke

Luke 4:17-19
17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives* and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."​

This mission did not include preaching to the dead either in the grave or hades. The word translated" captives" means "prisoners of war."
If the proclaiming 1 Peter 3:19 was to redeem those in prison then it was a failure only 8 were saved and they were alive when they were saved not dead.

 

[misput]

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.​

First neither hades nor the grave are ever called "prison" and "prison" is never called hades or the grave anywhere in the NT.
Jesus' earthly ministry is given in Luke

Luke 4:17-19
17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives* and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."​

This mission did not include preaching to the dead either in the grave or hades. The word translated" captives" means "prisoners of war."
If the proclaiming 1 Peter 3:19 was to redeem those in prison then it was a failure only 8 were saved and they were alive when they were saved not dead.

Thanks Der Alte

 

[Fervent]

Let's not kid ourselves here...We are not talking about languages from another planet. The English, Greek, Latin, and many common languages have the same basic language constructs where elements such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. have equivalent translations.

Again you are showing your ignorance here. Basic grammatical functions vary drastically across languages, especially things like articles and various verbs. Case, gender, position, voice, aspect, and a variety of other functions that are fundamental to drawing meaning are completely different in English than they are in Greek, and even more different in a contextual language like Hebrew. There is no direct transfer between languages, simply approximations using semantic ranges. A basic word, like "theos" in Greek has significant differences from the closest equivalent

Both the KJV and the modern English translations relied on the Greek manuscripts available at their respective times. And this is where KJV has an advantage, because the original Greek manuscripts were all still accessible and were in better readible state at the time. Try doing that translation job today and you would end up with issues like guessing the missing lines because of torn pages, or trying to solve a problem of peeling off pages stuck together without destroying the artifact.

The manuscripts the KJV used were more recent than the ones modern Bible's use because many of the manuscripts used today come from archeological sites, whereas most of the manuscripts used for the KJV were from around the turn of the first millenium, with the oldest manuscripts available to the KJV translators dating to around the 6th century. Modern Bibles benefit from manuscripts that are more complete and more ancient than the KJV translators had access to.

The common notes for the newer translation of the bible is something like "this verse so and so can't be found in the available original Greek". That's something to be expected in the passing of the times, especially when satanic elements wanted the Bible destroyed and burn owners of the copies at the stake with them.

Those notes come from having manuscripts that are older than the ones the KJV translators had available to them, as well as having a more diverse body of lines of transmission. It has nothing to do with the passing of time other than that along the lines the KJV translators used interpolations and scribal errors had crept in. The manuscripts that the KJV translators used are still available for the most part, and just as complete, it's simply that we have older manuscript lines in which things that were common in the later manuscripts are absent(or in different places, as the narrative relayed in John 8).

 

[Der Alte]

There is also this.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® (TLG®) is a research program at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. Its goal is to create a comprehensive digital library of Greek literature from antiquity to the present era.
TLG - Home​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not trying to derail the thread but just trying to see what all this learning about hermeneuitcs has enabled anyone in understanding the scripture. Can anyone tell me what the mark God gave Cain was? If this one is too easy, could you give me your take on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Any answer on this thread or privately would be appreciated. The two special trees and the snake in Genesis would be a good one also.

Well, the overall point of this thread is to help us be more humble by realizing that the Bible isn't the easiest book in the world to read and understand and that we all (~all~) need to be very careful in how we read it and then attempt to apply it.

So, 'Hermeneutics' in general is about becoming a good "reader" of the texts of the world, including of the Bible. Whereas 'Biblical Hermeneutics' is about how we can all become more mindful about the complexities of the human language that exists within the Bible; and this becomes doubly so since the Biblical books are inspired by God. Biblical Hermeneutics then colors our practice of reading the Bible and our Exegesis of it, with exegesis being our responsible effort to understand the text as the writers (and God) intended it to be understood.

Obviously, hermeneutics and exegesis are badly needed since so many Christians claim to be "led by the Holy Spirit" but are at odds with each other in their readings and understanding of the Bible.

 

[misput]

Well, the overall point of this thread is to help us be more humble by realizing that the Bible isn't the easiest book in the world to read and understand and that we all (~all~) need to be very careful in how we read it and then attempt to apply it.

So, 'Hermeneutics' in general is about becoming a good "reader" of the texts of the world, including of the Bible. Whereas 'Biblical Hermeneutics' is about how we can all become more mindful about the complexities of the human language that exists within the Bible; and this becomes doubly so since the Biblical books are inspired by God. Biblical Hermeneutics then colors our practice of reading the Bible and our Exegesis of it, with exegesis being our responsible effort to understand the text as the writers (and God) intended it to be understood.

Obviously, hermeneutics and exegesis are badly needed since so many Christians claim to be "led by the Holy Spirit" but are at odds with each other in their readings and understanding of the Bible.

Thanks PhiloVoid but could you be so humble as to try to answer the bible questions I have asked? It would mean a lot to me. Not looking for a debate, just answers.

 

[covid-19v1]

Again you are showing your ignorance here. Basic grammatical functions vary drastically across languages

Do we really have to go in circles discussing this point? I'm aware of the differences in grammatical structures of these languages. But that doesn't prevent a person from comparing the nouns used across all translations. You could try to deceive other people on this, but not me.

The manuscripts the KJV used were more recent than the ones modern Bible's use because many of the manuscripts used today come from archeological sites, whereas most of the manuscripts used for the KJV were from around the turn of the first millenium, with the oldest manuscripts available to the KJV translators dating to around the 6th century. Modern Bibles benefit from manuscripts that are more complete and more ancient than the KJV translators had access to.

Interesting how your narrative has changed drastically. Your initial excuse was the KJV use outdated English. Now you are trying to imply the Greek manuscripts used in making the translation were inferior to the ones used for the recent ones.

I don't have the resources right now to go deeper on this particular point. But if my God provides and allows me to share the information, I'll get back to you on this for the sake of the ones honestly seeking the truth who may come across this thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks PhiloVoid but could you be so humble as to try to answer the bible questions I have asked? It would mean a lot to me. Not looking for a debate, just answers.

Sure. This will be a good little discussion to have, Misput. But are you asking this because you don't know what the mark of Cain is and are wanting others to offer their best suggestion as to what it is? Or is this a kind of 'test question,' to see if we can get what you think the correct answer already is?

For the moment, I'll just ignore both possible motives above. So, in being hermeneutically mindful, the first exegetical step in understanding what the 'mark of Cain' is (as far as we can-------?) is to identify the entirety of the passage/narrative in which the mark of Cain is referred to. We know that Cain is first referred to in the O.T., and in opening the O.T., we find the passage involving his mark in Genesis chapter 4.

Are we together on this so far before we go on to the second exegetical step?

 

[misput]

So, in being hermeneutically mindful, the first exegetical step in understanding what the 'mark of Cain' is (as far as we can-------?) is to identify the entirety of the passage/narrative in which the mark of Cain is referred to. We know that Cain is first referred to in the O.T., and in opening the O.T., we find the passage involving his mark in Genesis chapter 4.

Are we together on this so far before we go on to the second exegetical step?

Great, keep going.I am only interested in bible answers and how hermeneutics helps arrive at them.

 

[Fervent]

Do we really have to go in circles discussing this point? I'm aware of the differences in grammatical structures of these languages. But that doesn't prevent a person from comparing the nouns used across all translations. You could try to deceive other people on this, but not me.

Compare, yes. Transfer 1:1, no. It's a matter of establishing semantic ranges, because the individual words don't mean exactly the same thing as one another. Which is why simply replacing words along a line isn't the best translation method and an understanding of the grammar and contextual relationships is required.

Interesting how your narrative has changed drastically. Your initial excuse was the KJV use outdated English. Now you are trying to imply the Greek manuscripts used in making the translation were inferior to the ones used for the recent ones.

The language is outdated, but you tried to make an argument about the manuscripts so I was pointing out that your argument isn't true. Modern translations benefit from both a more diverse and more ancient manuscript base and being put into the language as people use it today.

I don't have the resources right now to go deeper on this particular point. But if my God provides and allows me to share the information, I'll get back to you on this for the sake of the ones honestly seeking the truth who may come across this thread.

Sounds fair enough. Though if you were ignorant to the matter why did you begin by posturing as if you had knowledge?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great, keep going.I am only interested in bible answers and how hermeneutics helps arrive at them.

Alright. So, far so good. But before we proceed, we need to be clear that Hermeneuticists are implying that everyone is 'doing' hermeneutics of some sort when they're reading and trying to understand the bible. There is no reading of the Bible without hermeneutics since hermeneutics pertains to how, and well how well, we read and understand. ... I just wanted to be clear on this point so we understand what hermeneuticists are saying. They're saying that we either read and understand well or we do it not so well.

ok. The second step in the exegetical process is to identify the general literary boundaries of the passage as it pertains to Cain. And when we look, we can readily see the basic fact that Cain and his actions are described in Genesis Chapter 4, verses 1 through 25. We then ask questions about the text:

* Who is Cain? What are his relationships? What are his actions? Are there any implied or fully stated moral qualifications about Cain's actions? And is there any indication or description about the full nature of the judgement God has made on Cain's actions?

* We may also inquire into 'who' wrote this passage and why that fact is significant.

* We can also be aware that the text wasn't written in English, so it might be a possibility that we'll need to attempt to understand the original text as far as possible (if it sheds any additional clarification upon the meaning of the text--sometimes it does). We may want to consult various scholarly resources at this point to help us find clarity in what is being communicated.​

Still with me so far, misput? I figure you are. Of course, there's still more to this as we figure out what the mark of Cain is, but this is what we're doing with our 'exegesis' within our hermeneutical awareness as a beginning point, and of course, we'll next be consulting the writing we have in the New Testament ...

On to step three!

 

[misput]

Alright. So, far so good. But before we proceed, we need to be clear that Hermeneuticists are implying that everyone is 'doing' hermeneutics of some sort when they're reading and trying to understand the bible. There is no reading of the Bible without hermeneutics since hermeneutics pertains to how, and well how well, we read and understand. ... I just wanted to be clear on this point so we understand what hermeneuticists are saying. They're saying that we either read and understand well or we do it not so well.

ok. The second step in the exegetical process is to identify the general literary boundaries of the passage as it pertains to Cain. And when we look, we can readily see the basic fact that Cain and his actions are described in Genesis Chapter 4, verses 1 through 25. We then ask questions about the text:

* Who is Cain? What are his relationships? What are his actions? Are there any implied or fully stated moral qualifications about Cain's actions? And is there any indication or description about the full nature of the judgement God has made on Cain's actions?

* We may also inquire into 'who' wrote this passage and why that fact is significant.

* We can also be aware that the text wasn't written in English, so it might be a possibility that we'll need to attempt to understand the original text as far as possible (if it sheds any additional clarification upon the meaning of the text--sometimes it does). We may want to consult various scholarly resources at this point to help us find clarity in what is being communicated.​

Still with me so far, misput? I figure you are. Of course, there's still more to this as we figure out what the mark of Cain is, but this is what we're doing with our 'exegesis' within our hermeneutical awareness as a beginning point, and of course, we'll next be consulting the writing we have in the New Testament ...

On to step three!

Who, what, where, why, when and how, yes I am familiar with that process.

 

[Fervent]

* We can also be aware that the text wasn't written in English, so it might be a possibility that we'll need to attempt to understand the original text as far as possible (if it sheds any additional clarification upon the meaning of the text--sometimes it does). We may want to consult various scholarly resources at this point to help us find clarity in what is being communicated.​

This is one of the points at which a lot of decisions are often made, and hermeneutics is about making these decisions explicit. In any text there are norms and expectations, things that can be omitted because the author/audience relationship assumes it is already known. When it comes to Biblical texts, the various implied elements often have significant disconnect because we infer information that the author may have never intended, or we fail to fill gaps that the author would have expected. (I speak in these areas of the human authors, rather than the Divine author.) Understanding the literary tropes, the archetypes, the allusions, the symbolism, the manner in which pacing is managed, the way points are stressed, and all sorts of other issues create discrpancy between author and audience. To an ancient Hebrew, these issues would be resolved subconsciously and seemlessly, just as we resolve these issues when watching movies or reading books from our own culture. In part, the hermeneutical task is to determine which of these issues are critical and addressing them as well as we can based on available evidence.