New here! My story and a question: What Bibles do you use the most?

[WhiteWings]

James, sounds like Luther strongly believed the NT wasn't originally written in Greek.
A view that's still  controversial.

[jabcat]

Luther also wanted to throw out Revelation and another NT book, can't remember which one   

I've been quite doubtful that the NT was written in Hebrew, but I'm just not sure anymore.   

As you know, the translators of the Christian Bible say Koine (common) Greek was the language of the people at the time, but as you say, it's controversial.  More informed minds than mine are debating it.

[jabcat]

I was kind'a fired up about a Hebrew New Testament.  Then I saw a translation that had "hell" in it, and seemed to translate/interpret eternal torment.  So that sort of took the wind out of my sails on that, and I still don't understand it.  If a Hebrew translation is supposed to be more accurate, how can that be?

Ron, WW, anyone else that's delved into the Hebrew at all;  comments/insight on that?     I'm sure there can still be bias, pre-conceived ideas in how one translates even from the Hebrew?....

[WhiteWings]

Luther also wanted to throw out Revelation and another NT book, can't remember which one   

There is a Revelation by John and Peter.

I've been quite doubtful that the NT was written in Hebrew, but I'm just not sure anymore.   

Almost all Church fathers wrote that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

As you know, the translators of the Christian Bible say Koine (common) Greek was the language of the people at the time, but as you say, it's controversial.  More informed minds than mine are debating it.

The constitution was written in English while many spoke Spanish....

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/what_exactly_is_koine_greek_9798.msg124439.html#msg124439
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/christian_life/the_new_testament_was_written_hebrew_not_greek_9072.msg112662.html#msg112662

[WhiteWings]

I was kind'a fired up about a Hebrew New Testament.  Then I saw a translation that had "hell" in it, and seemed to translate/interpret eternal torment.  So that sort of took the wind out of my sails on that, and I still don't understand it.  If a Hebrew translation is supposed to be more accurate, how can that be?

Politics perhaps.....?
As I wrote the Church fathers speak a lot about Hebrew NT.
After 70AD teh Romans had a huge dislike of Jews. For the Romans there wasn't much difference between Jew and Christian. So, it's said, Christians sought for ways to differentiate from Jews. Another language was one way of that.
In their fury at 70AD Romans plundered whole Jerusalem and destroyed most Jewish writings. Meaning anything that was written in the Hebrew language. That included the Christian writings. But they could diffrenciate between Greek and Hebrew.
I think Hebrew stayed local because Jews where local. The Greek probably was already spreading througout the world.

Ron, WW, anyone else that's delved into the Hebrew at all;  comments/insight on that?     I'm sure there can still be bias, pre-conceived ideas in how one translates even from the Hebrew?....

I think we can never know because there is no Hebrew NT left. Besides perhaps a few snippets....?

[redhotmagma]

Great stuff Gregory, I just watched all those videos.  Any beginners resources for this stuff you could recommend.  I'd like to understand the basics, not ready for phd stuff (yet). 

[gregoryfl]

I was kind'a fired up about a Hebrew New Testament.  Then I saw a translation that had "hell" in it, and seemed to translate/interpret eternal torment.  So that sort of took the wind out of my sails on that, and I still don't understand it.  If a Hebrew translation is supposed to be more accurate, how can that be?

Ron, WW, anyone else that's delved into the Hebrew at all;  comments/insight on that?     I'm sure there can still be bias, pre-conceived ideas in how one translates even from the Hebrew?....

When I hear the term 'Hebrew New Testament' I think of those writings being written in Hebrew. But you say you saw the word 'hell' so you must be speaking of an English translation? Do you remember what it was?

Yes, there can still be preconceived ideas no matter what language you translate from. Sh'owl (Sheol) and especially Ga Hinum (Gehenna) are translated as hell, not because of what the word actually means etymologically, but because of a preconceived idea when one reads the text that causes them to choose that word, thinking it most accurately describes those words. It is not the Hebrew that is inaccurate, but the translation.

Sheol, in my translation, is 'asked for [place]'. This is based on the 2 letter marriage root Shin (teeth) and Lamed (staff). It conveys the action of pressing out (teeth) toward (staff).

It is related to several other words, one of which is Sha'al. This is the word which means 'ask', such as in making a request for something. To ask is a pressing out forwardly of something currently unknown, but which the one asking seeks to know. The answer would then be that which is pressed forward to be seen. Hope you can visualize that.

Forgetting what Sheol has come to mean over time, originally it was considered an unknown, or hidden place, to the Hebrew people. It is an asked for place for that reason, for a question is only asked with relation to the unknown, the only exception being when a question is used to teach, where the answer is already known by the asker. I am referring though, to the normal use of the word.

Because it is unknown there is a seeking, an asking, a pressing out and forward to find the answer to its unknowableness. That is one of the things people have demonstrated throughout history, a seeking to understand what happens after death. Thus the God given definition, defined by the letters themselves, give the definition, and shows how it relates to other words which share the same root, such as the simple word 'ask.'

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Great stuff Gregory, I just watched all those videos.  Any beginners resources for this stuff you could recommend.  I'd like to understand the basics, not ready for phd stuff (yet).

Definitely. One of the best sources for learning about Ancient Hebrew is from Jeff Benner, who is one of the ones who has inspired me into what I am doing today. Here is his main site.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

Ron

[Nathan]

Hey Sammy . . . it appears that these previous responses have thoroughly given you much to look into and use at your will.  There are many variations as you can see.  The trick is, in all of those variations of translations is, being able to hear what the Spirit is writing in "you".  "You" are God's translation of his nature.  "You" are his hand-picked creative being that he's chosen to manifest his presence, love, grace, mercy . . .the endlist list of his virtues flows through us all the time.  The only thing I'd like to add would be as you read, read from the perspectve of Rob Bell's book you've read . . .read from the fact that love wins.  The end isn't about the destruction of earth, it's about the restoration of the Father with man through Christ.  It will redefine what you read and what you thought you knew about what you read. 

[jabcat]

I was kind'a fired up about a Hebrew New Testament.  Then I saw a translation that had "hell" in it, and seemed to translate/interpret eternal torment.  So that sort of took the wind out of my sails on that, and I still don't understand it.  If a Hebrew translation is supposed to be more accurate, how can that be?

Ron, WW, anyone else that's delved into the Hebrew at all;  comments/insight on that?     I'm sure there can still be bias, pre-conceived ideas in how one translates even from the Hebrew?....

When I hear the term 'Hebrew New Testament' I think of those writings being written in Hebrew. But you say you saw the word 'hell' so you must be speaking of an English translation? Do you remember what it was?

Yes, there can still be preconceived ideas no matter what language you translate from. Sh'owl (Sheol) and especially Ga Hinum (Gehenna) are translated as hell, not because of what the word actually means etymologically, but because of a preconceived idea when one reads the text that causes them to choose that word, thinking it most accurately describes those words. It is not the Hebrew that is inaccurate, but the translation.

Sheol, in my translation, is 'asked for [place]'. This is based on the 2 letter marriage root Shin (teeth) and Lamed (staff). It conveys the action of pressing out (teeth) toward (staff).

It is related to several other words, one of which is Sha'al. This is the word which means 'ask', such as in making a request for something. To ask is a pressing out forwardly of something currently unknown, but which the one asking seeks to know. The answer would then be that which is pressed forward to be seen. Hope you can visualize that.

Forgetting what Sheol has come to mean over time, originally it was considered an unknown, or hidden place, to the Hebrew people. It is an asked for place for that reason, for a question is only asked with relation to the unknown, the only exception being when a question is used to teach, where the answer is already known by the asker. I am referring though, to the normal use of the word.

Because it is unknown there is a seeking, an asking, a pressing out and forward to find the answer to its unknowableness. That is one of the things people have demonstrated throughout history, a seeking to understand what happens after death. Thus the God given definition, defined by the letters themselves, give the definition, and shows how it relates to other words which share the same root, such as the simple word 'ask.'

Ron

I agree.  Almost anything can be either misunderstood, misinterpreted (mistranslated), etc.

I'll have to look and see if I can which translation I was looking at.  It was supposed to be one of the "dandies" from the Hebrew (yes, it was English translation) and the "hell" stuff turned me off.  I'll check more later tonight, thanks.  James.

[gregoryfl]

"You" are God's translation of his nature.  "You" are his hand-picked creative being that he's chosen to manifest his presence, love, grace, mercy . . .the endlist list of his virtues flows through us all the time.  The only thing I'd like to add would be as you read, read from the perspectve of Rob Bell's book you've read . . .read from the fact that love wins.  The end isn't about the destruction of earth, it's about the restoration of the Father with man through Christ.  It will redefine what you read and what you thought you knew about what you read.

Very spritually filled words brother! So true it is about one's perspective when reading from the scripture, for it is a book of death, which it must be to the flesh, yet also of life, which it is to the spirit.

Ron

[Beloved Servant]

Perfect!

[WhiteWings]

Good discussion, guys.   


"Martin Luther once said, "If I were younger, I would want to learn this language [Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture... For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, the Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, the Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"We can only wonder how Luther would characterize those of us who read the Scriptures in modern English.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/martin_luther_universalist.html