Robert Young's "Hints and helps to Bible Interpretation"

[victoryword]

The information that Kenneth Hagin was referring to in his book, "Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Spiritual Death" is here:

Analytical concordance to the Holy Bible : containing about 311,000 references, subdivided under the Hebrew and Greek original with the literal meaning and pronunciation of each; also index lexicons to the Old and New Testaments, being a guide to par

Here's the portion from "Hints and Helps" that was always referred to indirectly by Brother Hagin and those Faith Teachers who followed his thought:


70. Active verbs frequently express only an attempt to do the action,e.g.-Deut. 28. 68 ; Eze. 22.13 Matt. 10. 39; 17. 11 ; John 1.9, 29; 12.32; Rom. 2.4; 1 CO. 10.33; Gal. 5.4; Phil 3.15; 1 John I.10; 2.26; 5.4, 10; Rev. 12.9.
(b) Active verbs frequently express a permission of it, e.g.-Exod. 4.21 ; 5.22; 2 Sa. 24.1; Jer. 4.10.; 20.7; Eze. 14.9; Matt. 6.13; 11.25; 23.32; Mark 5.12; John 13.27; Acts 13.29; Rom. 9.18; 11.7; 2 Th. 2.11.

 

[PastorMike]

Thanks for the link bro, will have some study to do...

 

[victoryword]

You're welcome Mike. To be honest, I was actually a little disappointed. All these years I was expecting to find a more detailed explanation from Dr. Young on how sickness and other incidents blamed on God should be read from a permissive perspective. But, this was the most we got from him.

However, I did find a Bible commentary by him on Google Books. Concerning this passage:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him (Ex. 10:1; Emphasis are mine)
​

Robert Young's Commentary says:

X. 1. DECLARED HARD.] See 3. 19; the causative (or Hiphil) form of the Hebrew verb is often simply permissive or declarative, as has been already repeatedly noticed, and as is universally admitted by all Biblical critics; see Ex. 23:7; 22:9; De. 25:1; 2 Sa. 15:4; Is. 2: 21; 1 K. 8:32; Job 9:20, &c.
​

Young uses a similar illustration in another passage in relation to Moses and Aaron:

Numbers 16:41
41 Ye—TE Have.] The reduplication of the pronoun shows the bitterness of the people; they thought that Moses and Aaron might have interceded with the Lord, and He would have spared even the guilty; they, not doing so, were held as having 'put them to death.' So; also, because Jeremiah (1. 10,) was commissioned to foretell the desolation of nations, he is said to do it himself; and God, because he foretold (Ex 3. 19,) the obstinacy of Pharaoh, is said (in 4. 21,) to have produced it. The Hiphil (or causative) form of the Hebrew verb found here is often only permissive.
​

So indeed Dr. Young did believe and teach that many of the things attributed to God in the OT could be read primarily as permissive in nature, even if he never got into the explicit detail about it that I was expecting to read.

 

[PastorMike]

That's what I was hoping to read too bro, I have often heard the causative versus permissive argument, I thought I might find it this document...

 

[SavedByGrace3]

A number of years ago I bought a copy of Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young handles verb tenses very accurately, and his translation offers some excellent insights. Look at something I found in line with our discussion:
Exodus 20 (YLT)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
(Note the tense in these verses. They are presented, not so much as commandments, as they are confessions of faith by God about us!
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, ...
7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing ...
13 `Thou dost not murder.
14 `Thou dost not commit adultery.
15 `Thou dost not steal.
16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
These sound very much like the creative statements of God. "let there be light... etc..) This is how God intends for the righteous spirit of Christ within you to overcome the flesh. If you find you have particular areas that bother you, speak out of your spirit to those areas and bring them into line.

 

[victoryword]

That's what I was hoping to read too bro, I have often heard the causative versus permissive argument, I thought I might find it this document...

It's still a true argument MIke. Young's expounds on it a little, but not as much as I have always been led to believe. However, I have found a number of authors before and after Dr. Young's time who expounds on this a lot more than he did. I may quote some of them later.

However, if you look at the Bible in context, as I will prove later, it is right there in front of our faces that God's bringing sickness etc. is more permissive than causative. There is no need to know Hebrew. The context right there in the King Jimmy version suffices.

One example I will give right now: Look at Exodus 12:12 and then verse 23. There is also 2 Samuel 24:1 and compare it to 1 Chron. 21:1.

 

[victoryword]

A number of years ago I bought a copy of Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young handles verb tenses very accurately, and his translation offers some excellent insights. Look at something I found in line with our discussion:
Exodus 20 (YLT)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
(Note the tense in these verses. They are presented, not so much as commandments, as they are confessions of faith by God about us!
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, ...
7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing ...
13 `Thou dost not murder.
14 `Thou dost not commit adultery.
15 `Thou dost not steal.
16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
These sound very much like the creative statements of God. "let there be light... etc..) This is how God intends for the righteous spirit of Christ within you to overcome the flesh. If you find you have particular areas that bother you, speak out of your spirit to those areas and bring them into line.

Outstanding insight Dids

 

[PastorMike]

Thanks bro...

Awesome insight dids...

 

[PastorMike]

It's still a true argument MIke. Young's expounds on it a little, but not as much as I have always been led to believe. However, I have found a number of authors before and after Dr. Young's time who expounds on this a lot more than he did. I may quote some of them later.

However, if you look at the Bible in context, as I will prove later, it is right there in front of our faces that God's bringing sickness etc. is more permissive than causative. There is no need to know Hebrew. The context right there in the King Jimmy version suffices.

One example I will give right now: Look at Exodus 12:12 and then verse 23.

Awesome examples

There is also 2 Samuel 24:1 and compare it to 1 Chron. 21:1.

This one intrigues me a little more, I understand that it says the devil provoked David to number Israel... but why do you think it says the Lord did it in 2 Sam 24?

 

[victoryword]

Awesome examples



This one intrigues me a little more, I understand that it says the devil provoked David to number Israel... but why do you think it says the Lord did it in 2 Sam 24?

You need to get my book, "The Tempter: His Tactics and How to Take Him Out" in order to get the answer to that question
Bookstore - Victorious Word Christian Fellowship, Pawtucket, Rhode Island

However, in order to hopefully boost sales, let me quote the portion of my book that answers the question for you:
=======================================

The Bible is “Progressive Revelation”
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). However, if both 2 Samuel 24:1 and James 1:13 are both inspired by God then why do we have this seemingly blatant contradiction? One reason is due to the fact that the Bible is a progressive revelation. This means that God revealed things about Himself, His nature, and other things over a period of time. All the truth about God cannot be discovered in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. There was a progressive unfolding of the truth about God and the true source of temptation.

Satan is given little mention in the Old Testament Scriptures. While he is not absent from them, revelation concerning him is developed through the centuries of Biblical writings. For example, scholars say that 2 Samuel was written somewhere between 913 B.C. and 722 B.C. Another book giving similar history, 1 Chronicles, was written several centuries later, between 450 and 425 B.C. It would seem that revelation concerning the nature of God had progressed during those centuries. In 1 Chronicles 21:1 the account in 2 Samuel 24:1 is reiterated but slightly different: “And the devil stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”

Why the difference? One Biblical historian offers this insight concerning the two passages:

The Jews before the Babylonish Captivity were accustomed to speak of God as the immediate author of all things good and bad; but after that, they believed that the world was governed by the intervention of angels, and especially that evil angels exerted their powers to the destruction of men. It is therefore no wonder that the author of the book of Chronicles (Ezra, as most think) should change the form of speech before used, into that which prevailed in his time, and ascribe to the instigation of the devil or of an evil genius an event so hurtful to the Israelites.1
​

So we see that all of the revelation concerning God and Satan progressed throughout the centuries. Does this make one book less “divine” than the other? Concerning the historical analysis above, Richard Twopeny writes:

This hypothesis does not however at all impeach the divine authority of either book. For when the Deity has condescended to speak by the mouth of men, he has always left them to use the modes of expression current and intelligible in the age in which they lived.2
​

Until further light was given concerning Satan and his malignant desire to tempt men, the Hebrews spoke in an idiomatic way that, when interpreted into the Western languages, would make God appear to be the One performing these acts.

Notes

1. Dathe, translation of the Historical Books, Hals, 1784, 8vo. As quoted in Twopeny, Richard Dissertations on Some Parts of the Old and New Testaments which have been Supposed Unsuitable to the Divine Attributes (London: C & J Riverton, 1824), p. 83
2. Ibid, p. 84

 

[PastorMike]

I understand the progressive relation of God in the Old Testament, (actually I have been preaching on it...)

Thanks for the explanation as to the rest, very informative... is it possible to get your book as an ebook or pdf?

 

[victoryword]

I understand the progressive relation of God in the Old Testament, (actually I have been preaching on it...)

Thanks for the explanation as to the rest, very informative... is it possible to get your book as an ebook or pdf?

Mike, E-mail me at victoriousword@gmail.com

I'll tell you how.

 

[victoryword]

When I was discussing this on another forum, someone named PeterR found a more detailed version of this concordance on Google books. Check out note 8 where Young explains Job's controversial statement.:

 

[victoryword]

For those whose eyes are like mine, and don't want to squint at small print here is Young's interpretation of Job 1:21 and other passages from the referenced page above:

Job 1. ai, the Lord hath (permitted to be) taken away.—Ps. 119. 31, put me not to shame, i.e. permit it not.—Isa. 63. 17, why hast thou made (i.e. suffered) us to err.—Jer. 4. 10, thou hast greatly deceived thia people, i.e. permitted them to be deceived.—15.15, take me not away, i.e. suffer it not.—Matt. 6.13, lead us not (i.e. suffer us not to be led) into temptation,
​

So Kenneth Hagin was definitely on point when he referenced Young's work in the "permissive/causative thing.

 

[victoryword]

Some of you might appreciate the blog in the link below concerning this ongoing book controversy.

The Spiritual Quest for the Rev. Kenneth E. Hagin’s Robert Young Book, “Hints and helps to Bible Interpretation”

http://cvbibleteachingcenter.blogspot.ru/2016/05/the-spiritual-quest-for-rev-kenneth-e.html

 

[Si_monfaith]

A number of years ago I bought a copy of Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young handles verb tenses very accurately, and his translation offers some excellent insights. Look at something I found in line with our discussion:
Exodus 20 (YLT)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
(Note the tense in these verses. They are presented, not so much as commandments, as they are confessions of faith by God about us!
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, ...
7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing ...
13 `Thou dost not murder.
14 `Thou dost not commit adultery.
15 `Thou dost not steal.
16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
These sound very much like the creative statements of God. "let there be light... etc..) This is how God intends for the righteous spirit of Christ within you to overcome the flesh. If you find you have particular areas that bother you, speak out of your spirit to those areas and bring them into line.

But it does not diminish the fact that lust is not sin (rom7:7).

 

[Si_monfaith]

The information that Kenneth Hagin was referring to in his book, "Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Spiritual Death" is here:

Analytical concordance to the Holy Bible : containing about 311,000 references, subdivided under the Hebrew and Greek original with the literal meaning and pronunciation of each; also index lexicons to the Old and New Testaments, being a guide to par

Here's the portion from "Hints and Helps" that was always referred to indirectly by Brother Hagin and those Faith Teachers who followed his thought:


70. Active verbs frequently express only an attempt to do the action,e.g.-Deut. 28. 68 ; Eze. 22.13 Matt. 10. 39; 17. 11 ; John 1.9, 29; 12.32; Rom. 2.4; 1 CO. 10.33; Gal. 5.4; Phil 3.15; 1 John I.10; 2.26; 5.4, 10; Rev. 12.9.
(b) Active verbs frequently express a permission of it, e.g.-Exod. 4.21 ; 5.22; 2 Sa. 24.1; Jer. 4.10.; 20.7; Eze. 14.9; Matt. 6.13; 11.25; 23.32; Mark 5.12; John 13.27; Acts 13.29; Rom. 9.18; 11.7; 2 Th. 2.11.

But what about the covenants of law & grace?

Under law is not a person repaid according to his faith in his works?

And under grace a person is repaid by the works of Jesus on the cross?

 

[now faith]

A number of years ago I bought a copy of Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young handles verb tenses very accurately, and his translation offers some excellent insights. Look at something I found in line with our discussion:
Exodus 20 (YLT)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
(Note the tense in these verses. They are presented, not so much as commandments, as they are confessions of faith by God about us!
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, ...
7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing ...
13 `Thou dost not murder.
14 `Thou dost not commit adultery.
15 `Thou dost not steal.
16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
These sound very much like the creative statements of God. "let there be light... etc..) This is how God intends for the righteous spirit of Christ within you to overcome the flesh. If you find you have particular areas that bother you, speak out of your spirit to those areas and bring them into line.

It seems as if this translation,is a exortation for the Children of Isreal.
It leans toward God saying the reverse of the Commandments, on this premises ,what Moses brought from God was not Commandments at all.
It convolutes the entire Pentateuch to another meaning.
Or am I misunderstanding what young is saying,can you give me what young thought God was stating ?
In many ways a literal translation would parallel systematic interpretation.
Does young in translation of Idiom's use figurative interpretation ?
To my thinking the interpretation young presented on the Commandments was figurative interpretation rather than literal translation.

 

[now faith]

For those whose eyes are like mine, and don't want to squint at small print here is Young's interpretation of Job 1:21 and other passages from the referenced page above:

Job 1. ai, the Lord hath (permitted to be) taken away.—Ps. 119. 31, put me not to shame, i.e. permit it not.—Isa. 63. 17, why hast thou made (i.e. suffered) us to err.—Jer. 4. 10, thou hast greatly deceived thia people, i.e. permitted them to be deceived.—15.15, take me not away, i.e. suffer it not.—Matt. 6.13, lead us not (i.e. suffer us not to be led) into temptation,
​

So Kenneth Hagin was definitely on point when he referenced Young's work in the "permissive/causative thing.

For those whose eyes are like mine, and don't want to squint at small print here is Young's interpretation of Job 1:21 and other passages from the referenced page above:

Job 1. ai, the Lord hath (permitted to be) taken away.—Ps. 119. 31, put me not to shame, i.e. permit it not.—Isa. 63. 17, why hast thou made (i.e. suffered) us to err.—Jer. 4. 10, thou hast greatly deceived thia people, i.e. permitted them to be deceived.—15.15, take me not away, i.e. suffer it not.—Matt. 6.13, lead us not (i.e. suffer us not to be led) into temptation,
​

So Kenneth Hagin was definitely on point when he referenced Young's work in the "permissive/causative thing.

The translation places Job to blame God.
The point was for Job to blame God curse him and die.
This translation completely rewrites Gods Word.

Here is the passage in King James:

KJV:Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,
21
KJV:And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.
22
KJV:In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God

For what I see it is confirmation of what Satan said Job would do,and you could end the story in chapter 1
Using Young's interpretation.

 

[victoryword]

I am not here to argue with anyone. Those days are over for me. I am here to provide information for those who, like myself, respect the teaching of the CLASSIC FAITH TEACHERS/FOUNDERS such as Kenneth E. Hagin. Hagin believed that the "permissive sense" of the Hebrew alleviated the issues concerning how God's character is portrayed in certain portions of Scripture. I have found plenty of evidence to affirm this truth, If you accept it then praise Jesus. If not, be blessed anyway.

For those interested, in a blog that I have written, the Lord has led me to more evidence of this truth. Actually an overwhelming amount of evidence. I present a small portion of it in the blog:

Interpreting Hebrew Causative Verbs Permissively:
http://cvbibleteachingcenter.blogspot.ru/2016/07/interpreting-hebrew-causative-verbs.html