Do the words in the bible have the same meaning......

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

today they did when the books were written?

We had this horribly long discussion on "submit" and "submission".....i'm wondering if the definition/useage has changed in close to 1900+ years?

obviously, there are equivalents across languages to the common verbs that allow a society to function.  Unless we’re talking about country in complete anarchy, the concept of submission to authority exists for every language. 

Even for the unbeliever,  what is the reason, exactly, to doubt the translation of the simply verb “submit”?

---

For the believer, this is really a dumb question, for Jesus commanded:

“Mat 28:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

So, Jesus expected every nation (regardless of the language) to be able to follow his commands (verbs).  Meaning his commands are basic enough to be translatable in every language!!!

I really really don’t intend to chastise, but come on, people, this should be extremely obvious!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Isa 1:3 "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand."

seriously, you all have really picked the wrong verb to make an issue out of, for the concept of submission is known even to dumb animals.  Koine Greek, the  international language throughout the Roman world and the language that has the most surviving interlinear translations of all sorts of documents, is NOT going to have the concept of “obey” lost  in translation across languages, UNLESS, of course, you fall into the category of the people Isaiah was describing!

If this were the only instance where that particular Greek word is used, then I could empathize with your argument.  But since it is used over 40 times within the New Testament and since the CONTEXT makes mention of other subordinates obeying their masters…you don’t have much of a case, for EVERY translation translates it the same way.  But, apparently, you know more than the sum total of those translators.

But, the only reason you make a case out of it is to attempt to pry meaning away from the bible because you don’t want to follow it, so instead you attempt to rob it of meaning.  Go and argue with the translators.

---

To believers:

The following was revealed to me the hard way the first year I was saved, but it is not a new concept, but it is an instructive concept, and I share it with you now:  The word of God is spread by communication – hence it is called the “word”.  And language is the CURRENCY by which the ideas within the word of God are exchanged.  The devil knows this and attempts to drain the word of its meaning (value) so that it can not save.  This is what is meant by Jesus’ statement in Mat 7:6:  

Mat 7:6 “"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces”

Notice that two items are mentioned: 1) what is sacred, and 2) pearls.  The two items are both figurate and literal for they represent both the word of God and the currency (language) by which the word is exchanged.  So Jesus is saying that you will run across certain people who will not only disregard the sacredness of the word, but also attempt to destroy the currency by which it is exchanged…In other words, not only will they reject the word, but they will attempt to destroy the meaning of words.  It’s the original deception used on Eve in the garden – “God didn’t really mean what his words appear to mean”.

Obviously, the commands of the new covenant are translatable into every language, otherwise Jesus gave an impossible commission when he said, “Go into all nations and teach them to obey everything I commanded you.”

Also, notice in Acts 2:4 that God proved the gospel was translatable across languages:

Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.  5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

So, obviously, the gospel is translatable into every language, for as Jesus himself said:

Mat 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

So let it be.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, just a sampling of the CONTEXT:

Gen 3:16  16 To the woman he said,
       "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you."

Gen 18:12 “So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?"

Romans 13:1”Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Eph 5:22, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church issubject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."…. 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right….5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Col 3:  18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.  19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.  20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.  21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.  22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you

1Pet 3: 1”Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”

So, as you can see, it is NOT a simple matter of mistranslating a single word, rather entire paragraphs would have to be mistranslated in both the Old and New Testaments.  Aside from the meaning of the Greek word, the context itself is definitive to the nth degree.  Case closed.  I’ll leave you doubters to wallow aimlessly about in your own mental fog.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The logic in using the Bible to prove the Bible accurate. Gotta love it.

I was using CONTEXT (ever heard of the concept?) of what was written to prove the intention of what was written.  It had nothing to do with proving the bible correct.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

Yes, I now what you mean and I studied french for two years.

But are you willing to argue that Koine Greek doesn't have the concept of obeying authority?!  I've already provided the link to the greek lexicon in the other thread.  AND, I have provided the context so that we are NOT reliant upon a single word.  And the context is OVERWHELMING.

So, provided you believe the meaning Koine Greek has not been lost to history, tell me again, exactly, what I am doing wrong? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

Now, I don’t know Greek, that is why I read translations.  But if the translation is in question, here is a link to a parallel bible that shows many translations (both literal and non-literal for a given verse:

http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-1.htm

You can also look up any of the verses, along with the surrounding verses providing context, I posted and see how the different translations render it.
So, we have:

1)   many different passages across several writers of the bible from both Old and New Testaments….being translated the same way by many different translations including both literal and non-literal translations.
2)   Deeply embedded context that is in agreement with the translations
3)   Many examples of the same concept adjacent to the passage in question

And for the lexicon link, you can check the other thread.

So, again I ask, what exactly am I doing wrong.  I already went over the lexicon, translation, similar passages, and the contexts in the other thread.  And not a single objection has been raised, rather Gramps attempted to make submission and commitment synonyms, which the context did NOT support (which shouldn’t come as a surprise since the two words are not synonyms).

I don’t mind questions about translation, but in this case it is a meritless objection and the attempt to worm out of it was extremely weak.  The simple fact is that removing meaning from the word of God is something the bible has warned about since Genesis ch 3.  It’s the original deception and Satan’s bread and butter play, but it only works on those who allow themselves to be deceived by it.  To new Christians who respect the word of God, the first encounter with someone attempting to rob language of its meaning can be pretty shocking due to the feeling of having the meaning of your language raped in front of your eyes.  And it is confusing at first because you want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  But the truth is that MALICE is very much involved, which is why malice is described in Mat 7:6, for they have already rejected the truth and now are simply trying to destroy the medium through which the truth is transmitted in order to shut the speaker up:

Do not give what is holy [the word of God] to dogs, and do not throw pearls [what you barter with – i.e. language] before swine, lest they trample [both the word and the language] under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces [in a malicious attack].

There are those who reject the word and then there are those who maliciously seek to undermine the word.  The latter is a different breed altogether.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

NO!

Well your list is certainly helpful.  Let’s see what to make of it:


“red sea- sea of reeds”
I don’t understand the point here as many languages have different names for the same geographical spot.  The point of the story was that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea into the Sinai.  The theological point is that they passed through water (symbolizing baptism) in order to get to the Promised Land (symbolizing the Kingdom of God)….and that theological point is NOT lost regardless of the name of the body of water.


“ word for virgin- young woman in Greek and Hebrew”
again, the point is moot since the theological point was that she was NOT impregnated by a man (as the narrative of the Gospels show that Mary had never known a man sexually), rather the Messiah would ultimately be from the seed of the woman.  So it doesn’t matter that “young woman” could mean a virgin, the historical account means that she was indeed a virgin.

---

“feet- genitals (in the Old Testament)”

The fact that feet is used as a euphemism for genitals is trivial and does not impact doctrine.

“companion- wife or spouse”

Don’t know how this differs from English as spouses are referred to as lifelong companions.  Again, this is a trivial point that does not impact doctrine.

---

“Hell- nothingness, Hinnam Valley is where the Canaanites actually practiced child sacrifice by fire”

Again, there is no doctrine impact in this, nor does it impact the question of whether one is in torment while awaiting judgment and the final descent into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is eternal torment so it really doesn’t matter in the long run whether or not the unsaved dead are conscience while awaiting judgment.

---
“Satan- the accuser”
Why is this even on your list? For the scripture already defines Satan as “the accuser of our brothers” (Rev 12:10).  So even if one doesn’t know that the name “Satan” means accuser, the point is NOT lost.

---
“eye of a needle- NOT A SEWING NEEDLE! but places where camels walked through daily”
Again, this is NOT a translational error, for the Hebrews had sewing needles and used the analogy of a sewing needle to name the hole in the city wall where camel were unpacked and made to crawl through on their knees.

But, regardless what the analogy actually referred to, the point was that it was IMPOSSIBLE for man to save himself.

Mat 19: 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"  26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

So, the INTERPRETATION of what Jesus said is NOT based on what the “eye of a needle” alluded to, that is simply an supporting detail, rather Jesus’ theological point is found in Mat 19:25-26 – only God can save a man, it is impossible for a man to save himself.

To make an issue out of the meaning of “the eye of needle” is to miss the forest for the trees!

---

“Behtlehem- there were 2, one was 70 miles and another was 10. The Bible never specifies.”

The fact that the bible never specifies has NOTHING to do with translation, for it is unspecified in any language.

---
“day- time period in Hebrew (Genesis)”

Actually, “day” can also mean a time period in English – “he was a great man in his day”.  And the fact that the sun was not put into place until “day” four shows that it doesn’t refer to a solar day.  Also, the 7th “day” was eternal, again not a 24 hour period.

---
“3 days between death and resurrection- days started at night and ended the next night in ancient Hebrew culture so Jesus was actually crucified on a Thursday and if you want proof read the Bible.”

The fact that the Jewish day started at sunset is well explained within scripture, so it is in NO WAY lost in translation.  Also, it has NOTHING to do with dating the crucifixion since the prophecy was that Jesus would be in the tomb for 3 day and 3 nights (Mat 12:40).

The reason for the Good Friday error has to do with most Gentiles not understanding that there can be back to back Sabbaths depending on which  day of the week Passover falls.  But, that AGAIN is NOT lost in translation because the Old Testament clearly spells out when Sabbaths were to occur.  Christ being killed on Thursday afternoon, with Friday (beginning on sundown Thursday evening) being the High Sabbath of the Passover Feast (Feast of Unleavened Bread), followed by the normal Sabbath on Saturday (beginning on sundown Friday night), and a resurrection at dawn on Sunday morning….perfectly fits the narrative of the Gospels and also fulfills the prophecy to spend three days and three nights in the tomb provided the time he spent in the tomb on Thursday evening before sunset is counted as one of the daylight periods.

---

The historical account of the New Testament demonstrates that the Apostles made no big deal out of translating the Gospel into other languages.  It was simply accepted as a part of life and necessary to spread the Word.

So, in closing, nothing on your list changes a one iota of doctrine.  And I would like to point out that if a single word can change a person’s doctrine, then that person has serious issues with their theology, for the Gospel is suppose to mesh with the landscape of scripture – which is the exact opposite of basing a doctrine on the translation of a single verse or a single word, which  1Tim 6:4 warns us against.  The Apostles did NOT quarrel over individual words because their individual teachings could be confirmed by multiple passages and meshed with the overall landscape of scripture, so that there was no need to quarrel over individual words  It would be like disputing over a single tree (word or point) when there is suppose to be a whole forest of trees (passages) to choose from.  

This entire discussion completely misses that point!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

“red sea- sea of reeds”
I don’t understand the point here as many languages have different names for the same geographical spot.  The point of the story was that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea into the Sinai.  The theological point is that they passed through water (symbolizing baptism) in order to get to the Promised Land (symbolizing the Kingdom of God)….and that theological point is NOT lost regardless of the name of the body of water.

Just FYI many believe that it does not refer to the same geographical body of water. It's something of debate among Biblical scholars. The point of the story may or may not change, but it is a change to the story nonetheless.

The point being there is ZERO impact on doctrine whether or not the original text meant the Red Sea, or the Mediterranean, or Indian Ocean, or BodyOfWaterX. In other words, there is no theological point pivoting (based) off of the identification of the body of water they passed through.

So, the requirements of God remain the same, because the requirements of God are redundantly repeated in multiple places and do not hinge off of a single word being translated.  Which is why in the “submission” discussion I went through not only the Greek word, but also the multiple occurrences and the context of each occurrence and walked the doctrine back through scripture all the way back to the Hebrew language of Genesis, demonstrating the whole forest of scriptural witnesses.  Yet it is still being argued by those who simply reject the commands of God they don’t like, but they have ZERO philosophical points to make.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

 

The way I interpret the question it is rather inspired by the discussion on submission than focused on that specific issue. And I don't think the question is neither idiotic or meritless in that context.

Gustaf, I agree the general question is not idiotic, obviously words change meaning over time, that even happens within English itself.  But to throw out the premise that the art of translation hasn’t sufficiently kept tract of these changes to the entent that first century Greek has become meaningless IS idiotic.  Even in the case of the Greek bible, we have tens of thousands of examples dating all the way back to the first century of not only Greek but parallel translations into other languages, and apart from the bible, there are literally hundreds of thousands of examples of how the style and word definitions of the Greek language have changed throughout time.

 ---

You're right, Gustaf.  The "submission" thread simply got me thinking about translations in general.  It was actually Dibble, I think, who mentioned it in that thread.   It wasn't an attempt to revive the old thread.

Gramps,

In regard to the meaning of the “submission” passages, you were presented with a mountain of irrefutable evidence based on language, context, multiple passages, agreement between every single translation of the New Testament into English, and multiple books of the bible spanning multiple testaments all the way back to Gen ch 3, yet YOU TOTALLY IGNORED IT ALL and instead attempted to create a synonym between two words that are NOT synonyms in either Greek or English nor do any of the passages or contexts support the idea that they are synonyms.  You were neither objective nor honest in that thread, rather you were simply a hack.

And, now, you’re attempting to present this thread as an intellectually honest discussion of the changing of the meaning of words throughout time?!  PLEASE, go sell it to Gustaf.  He may be fooled but I am not.  For this thread is nothing but an excuse for you to justify not obeying scripture off the false premise that it has lost its meaning, though you claim to be a Christian.

You’re a fraud.  And I don’t care if I get banned for saying so.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You’re a fraud.  And I don’t care if I get banned for saying so.

I hope nothing happens for you saying so.  I'm not offended in the slightest.

regardless if anything happens to me for saying so, you still will not address the points I made in the other thread, for you have no answer for them.  You will continue to duck the mountain of evidence presented.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

Gustaf,

You have missed the whole point.  I’m not calling Gramps out on a single issue, I couldn’t care less what he thinks about submission, rather I am saying he is a FRAUD because his whole APPROACH is fraudulent. 

He refuses to take into account any and all witnesses regarding: context, translation, multitude of parallel passages, similar opinions of different writers, similar doctrines across the covenants, etc, etc, etc.  If anyone cared about arriving at a unbiased interpretation, then they would automatically consider these things, not duck and hide and ignore them

Now, you yourself may find such approaches legit, but I find them to be a load of trash.  . If I attempted such deception, I would immediately be crucified on this forum, but I happen to care about honesty and integrity.  So I am not going to consider separate threads created about the “meaning of words” in a religious context to be intended to be an honest discussion when the poster’s whole “interpretational” approach is the antithesis of honesty and impartiality.

If he honestly cared at all about the “meaning of words”, he would change his approach.  But, since he hasn’t changed his approach or shown any remorse for ignoring all evidence that would lead to a proper interpretation of the meaning of words, I can only conclude this whole thread is simply a search for an excuse for him to continue to practice the trade of deception.

Now, please tell me where I am being unfair and unjustified in my remarks.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

I understand as a moderator you have to unplug your brain and simply make sure the conversation is kept cordial, but sometimes your best friend is the one who is willing to hold a mirror up to your face, and the veracity of my critique is not to be compared with vindictive and slanderous name calling that happens on a regular basis on this forum. 

Obviously, I can’t force him to take an inventory of his integrity, but my objections are not beyond the norm as any reasonable person understands you can’t ignore all the surrounding evidence and come to an honest and reasonable interpretation since we are all taught from early age to interpret based on the surrounding evidence.  And we practice it every single time we observe anything and especially when we read even if we are just reading the sports page.  It is simply part of our cognitive skillset.