Question #1:
Hi Dr L,
I think I asked you something like this before, but I could not find it in the
conversation history. So I have the Greek New Testament by Alan, Metzger and the
rest. How is this different from the Novum Graece one?
And I do see at the bottom of pages it says that manuscript abc reads something
different (though not always telling you what the different thing is). So I
mean, how would you go about finding what the different thing is for that/those
manuscripts? And you seem to say that some of the differences that are major in
theology aren't there at all for you to see and go look (if I understood you).
This is incredibly frustrating. I mean it is less of a level of 'are you willing
to put forth some effort' and more of a 'if you have no family and no career and
access to lots of jewel level resources you can understand it. Anyway, I am/was
excited about the Greek but I feel, even if I get there I will only have the
manuscripts I get handed, which as you seemed to note, may miss major
theological things. And this is something only L would every be able to do, or
someone on his level.
Response #1:
First of all, there are many different versions of the Aland / Black
(and Metzger) Greek NT produced by the UBS out there, so one would have
to check for the specific edition. Second, all of these are based on the
Nestle-Aland texts of the Greek NT, but that changes with editions too.
For example, I use an older Aland/Metzger UBS, the 3rd edition. That is
based on Nestle-Aland #26, but Nestle-Aland is now in edition #28 [#29
expected in '24]. The UBS version makes a number of changes and also
presents the text differently from the Nestle-Aland version as well.
How much difference does this make? Not too much. About 99.5% of the
text is identical regardless of ms. tradition (excerpting
interpolations;
see the link). But for a person who is going to translate the Bible
into English, and especially for a Bible teacher, sometimes little
differences are important. I try to consult the important mss.
themselves where there is an important issue (especially Sinaiticus;
online at the link). In
terms of the accuracy of the editions in getting back to the original
text, the newer editions are not necessarily better. In fact, UBS also
produces a textual commentary companion by these same editors wherein
they explain some of their choices, and I have to say that the first
edition of this is better than the second: they had made some good
decisions which they "thought better of" and changed for the worse in
later editions.
Becoming adept in textual criticism is a very long journey, one that few
believers need to fret about making – so I wouldn't worry about it. As
someone who reads Greek, you know that there are textual issues with all
works coming from the ancient world. The thing about the GNT is that
instead of interpolating between only a few surviving mss., we have what
the French call "an embarrassment of riches". So it's more a question of
separating wheat from chaff. I do talk a fair bit about this at the link
in BB 7, especially
section 4.b., "The Present Form of the Bible".
The bottom line of course is that we do have THE Bible and can be
confident about that fact. As any comparison of English translations
will show, it's rare to find instances where the translators are
rendering a completely different text (and any prepared Bible teacher
will know about these).
Have a good, safe week!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Bob!
Could you tell me what this verse, James 4:5, means? Can not find a good
definition. Thanks Bob
Your Friend
Response #2:
This verse is generally misunderstood and also usually mistranslated. I'll give you the gist here and link to the detailed explanation below. In a nutshell, James is quoting Paul, with "envy", closely related to arrogance and pride and thus standing for the sin nature generally: that is what the Spirit opposes, namely, the sin nature we all possess, signified by one of its most characteristic manifestations, namely, envy/jealousy (cf. Eccl.4:4). Here is my translation:
(4) You adulteresses (i.e., immoral people of both sexes)! Do you not know that friendship with the world is inimical to God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world establishes himself as an enemy of God. (5) Or do you assume that the Scripture (i.e., Gal.5:17) says to no purpose "The Spirit" which dwells in you "sets its desire against" [such] envy [emanating from the sin nature, a situation rampant among you (as is evident from the examples given in verses 1-4)]? (6) But [God] "gives grace [which is] greater" [than all these temptations] (i.e., in the provision of the Spirit which resists the flesh). That is why it says, "God opposes the arrogant, but He gives grace to the humble".
James 4:4-6
And here is the link to the details:
The Spirit
that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy: explaining James 4:5.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Dear Sir:
Have you read this pdf on the validity of the Septuagint:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxo3o2jh88iemz0/A_Response_to_Gail_Riplinger_re_The_Art_of_Deceit....pdf
It is only 56pgs long. But what are your thoughts that the Rabbis tried
to alter the Biblical Text in order to remove references to the
Messiahship of Jesus Christ.
Yours in Christ.
Response #3:
There is a bit of that in Hebrew Masoretic text (MT), but it is easily
discerned (see
the link).
As to the LXX, it was completed some three centuries before Christ. It's
not a great translation in most places, and it is of little probative
value for determining the text of the MT – because in very many cases it
is doubtful whether the translators understood the Hebrew all that well
(and sometimes even at all).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
What do you think of the Dead Sea scrolls compared to the Masoretic? Should the rendering in many places be preferred since it is more Christological?
Response #4:
The Qumran texts are far inferior to the MT in the main. The Isaiah scrolls on display in the "Shrine of the Book" in Jerusalem are the best of the lot, but even they are not necessary or all that helpful in interpreting Isaiah (i.e., the differences between them and what we have are small and not substantial). What the rare high quality Qumran scrolls show is that the MT is a very high quality text. The Qumran scrolls were mostly cheap knock-offs written on papyrus; whereas putting a text on parchment (most synagogue scrolls; and cf. 2Tim.4:13) is very time consuming and expensive, especially when one is taking pains to ensure that the text is correct. So that the Qumran scrolls are cheaper are more prone to error is just as one would expect from a aesthetic sect living in poverty in the desert. There are only a few times I can remember ever getting anything helpful from this source. And of course what has been found of biblical texts only cover a very small portion of the Old Testament (most of the writings are extra-biblical).
Here's a link:
Qumran texts.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello brother Robert - got a question how much of the Latin Vulgate was
used for the King James version and what other translations were used
for the King James version as well
Thank you
Response #5:
The KJV was done by three teams of scholars at Oxford, Cambridge and the
University of London (see the link:
"Who wrote the KJV?"). They all were required to work from the same text,
the so-called "Textus receptus": the text they received of the New Testament
(which was essentially Erasmus' Greek edition) and the Masoretic text of the
Hebrew Bible. The latter is about the same today as they had then; but for the
Greek, many manuscripts came to light in the 19th century which are far superior
to the composite one those scholars used (so that is one of the main issues with
the KJV, but even so it affects only maybe 1% of the NT text).
In terms of the Latin Vulgate, unless the individual scholar translating any
given passage made use of that version in deciding how to render it into
English, there would be no use of the Vulgate at all. The way these things
actually work, however, is that translators are human and they cannot
"un-remember" things they know. So if any of these men were very well-versed in
the Latin Vulgate, that would have influenced their translating decisions. The
KJV, after all, was not the first English version. We see many echoes of, e.g.,
the Wycliffe Bible in the KJV – along the lines of the fact that if you or I
decided to translate the Bible anew, it would be pretty difficult not to be
influenced by the KJV and any other version with which we were well acquainted.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
On that question about the text in the Greek, the sign doesn't show up
from my end on the email. So you know how you have what looks like the
Old English letter 'p'? It looks like an old calligraphy styled 'p.' Do
you know what I am referring to?
Okay I did try to Google what I am about to ask, but even Google could
not help me (enter shock here): So this sign: {P}
What is it called? Is it just called (sounding) 'pea' like the English
"p"? Do we need to learn about old English, or is it enough to have idea
of the Old English alphabet letter names for Biblical papyri and
parchment classification?
Response #6:
This calligraphic "P" is what is traditionally used in NT textual
contexts to refer to papyri containing Greek NT Biblical texts. So for
example {P} 46 refers to one of the so-called "Chester Beatty" papyri, a
very old witness to the text containing parts of the epistles (part of
it is Ann Arbor and I hope to get a look at it when I visit there later
this spring). [did so: link to image]
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Hello--I was wondering if you could clear up something in Greek for me.
A Protestant quotes this about "binding and loosing" from Matthew 16,
post no. 166:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/upon-this-rock-keys.9603/page-9#post-704152
Please read what pilgrim wrote in the gray box. He is a Catholic. Then
please read shnarkle's response to him. He is a Protestant. I was
wondering how accurate he is about the Greek for what is bound or loose
in heaven, especially this part:
"...binding and loosening due to the fact that the elementary Greek
grammar dictates that the past perfect preterit literally means that
what they are binding or loosening has already been bound or loosened in
heaven."
Is what he wrote here about the Greek grammar accurate?
Thank you. Take care.
Response #7:
Sorry for the delay in response. I was out of town on a family visit.
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16:19 KJV
The tense in both cases here is technically future perfect (see below). So it
refers to a future action that is chronologically dependent upon the equally as
yet unfulfilled protasis. In other words, "IF you do XYZ", "THEN ABC will have
happened first". I don't think it's possible to make too much of this. As far as
I can find out, no one has written very much about the use of the future perfect
in Greek because it is a relatively rare occurrence, even in Classical Greek,
and because in the NT it only occurs as a periphrasis as it does here (i.e.,
perfect passive participle linked with the future of the verb "to be"); as such,
most of the grammars see it is an emphatic (or maybe just colloquial, easier to
form) substitute for the future passive.
In any case, theologically, the Future More Vivid "IF / THEN" is same, as far as
I can see regardless of this usage in context or if we had a future instead. So
I don't think we can argue much from the tense here (n.b., only the participle
is perfect, and it is a participle, not a conjugated perfect).
Or, in layman's terms, there is no real difference between saying "If you bind
something on earth, it will be bound in heaven" and "If you bind something on
earth, it will have been bound in heaven" – except that perhaps the second one
is a bit more emphatic. It's difficult to explain this to English readers
because, as you can see, the literal translation doesn't seem to make much sense
– which is why no version renders it this way.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
No problem. Thanks. So what my friend wrote about the tense about what has been
bound/not bound in heaven is not really correct? Also, what do you think the
correct translation is in this verse?
Thank you again.
Response #8:
The tense is technically future perfect; only the participle is perfect but it
is not to be construed without the future of the verb "to be" here. This is a
periphrastic future perfect. As mentioned, this is very rare in Greek and seems
to me to be used here either for emphasis or to avoid using the future perfect.
As to translations, NKJV's alternative translation in their footnote for the
second half of the equations is the most literal : "whatever you bind will have
been bound / whatever you lose will have been loosed"; but the difference
between that in English and "whatever will be bound / will be loosed", is about
the same difference as in Greek – not much I can discern. In other words, one
might say that there is a certain emphatic twist to it, but nothing which could
be the basis of a complete change of meaning.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Thank you so much for the update.
I have ordered The New American Standard Bible¸ and on Sunday, I will
pour through St. Mark’s Bibles to see what they might have. We are
reading Jesus’ parables right now in Bible class. (And the priest gave a
really good, full, textured definition of parable. It’s not just an
aphoristic or allegorical narrative!) My understanding of the definition
doesn’t mean I understand the parables, however. My priest is helping.
My very best always,
Response #9:
Hope you enjoy the NASB. There are actually two of them now (the '95 and the
'20) – both very "clunky" translations IMHO, but it was/is the Bible my seminary
used/uses (some of our people were on their translation committee).
In terms of parables, the important thing to know is that they are not
"stories"; they are teaching devices which allowed our Lord to tell people the
truth who were not interested in the truth without causing outright rebellion by
"hiding the truth in plain sight" from those who resisted the Spirit's
illumination of that truth:
And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’ ”
Matthew 13:10-15 NKJV
Parables thus allowed our Lord to present the truth to a largely negative
audience in a way so as not to provoke direct antagonism and yet still present
the truth (here's a link on that: in
BB 4A: "The
Teaching Ministry of Jesus Christ").
In terms of their interpretation, the two biggest mistakes people generally make
are on the opposite extremes; either 1) trying to make everything in a parable
significant (so as to miss the main point); or 2) failing to distinguish between
a "true parable" and Christ's relating of an actual event (such as Lazarus and
the rich man in Luke) so as to wrongly consider details included "not real".
Thanks for those prayers, my friend.
Bob
Question #10:
[question about reading fiction]
Response #10:
"I suppose maybe it is real-but only rarely."
Fiction is fiction. Reading is always better than passive watching, but the
disconnect between fiction and reality is often very great indeed. And there is
already enough we don't "get" about real life – because we only see part of what
is going on and, being human, we are apt to misinterpret a good deal of what we
do see/hear – so that counting on fiction to inform us is in my humble opinion a
big mistake (entertain, yes; inform . . . take care). Personal note: when I was
not quite a teenager I saw the movie "Patton", and in that movie the general is
reading a book called "The Tank in the Attack" by Erwin Rommel. There was no
internet in those days and finding older books was difficult. I took the
initiative of contacting University Microfilms in Ann Arbor . . . and they
assured me that there was no such book (movies are fiction too); [n.b., Rommel
did write a book but it was about infantry, not tank tactics, something
that didn't fit the movie so they changed it – just like fiction authors change
things all the time to make "good stories": entertainment not information].
So I've never been a fan of using fiction as a model for reality. Personally, I
think that's a mistake. I remember getting into a big argument about that with
some of my friends in the USMC who were reading all the latest novels about
Vietnam and criticizing non-fiction memoirs as not as "helpful" in terms of
preparation for what we might face. To me, since it was fiction, it was
dangerous to put any weight on it at all – because it actually didn't happen in
the first place so that counting on whatever you were reading to "happen that
way" in reality was a questionable lift.
I do understand that people with real life experience might be able to produce
something fictional that "rings true" but whenever I've read or seen fictional
accounts dealing with areas I personally knew something about there were always
glaring inconsistencies with reality. That's OK for entertainment purposes, but,
boy, could a person get into a great deal of trouble by assuming that there was
anything like a one to one relationship between the fiction and some situation
that might actually be encountered. In fact, the seeming correlation makes
things even more dangerous because it may seem like "it" ought to work, but "it"
will in fact not work "like that" at all (whatever "it" may be).
Blessedly, the Bible is the ultimate non-fiction, pure in every way (if rightly
translated and interpreted).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Are parables strictly true? Meaning both ones of His and also of us lesser
mortals? Not just parables but other such stories that do similar things. And I
don't think I buy the 'well it was okay for Him but not us' thing (if you go for
that), no offense.
I do value what you said. I do like that fiction makes you think of things
differently and can be used to help explore and understand concepts. I also,
don't mean to brag here, and there are cons to thinking like this (what I am
about to say), but I think I am rather good at debate/arguments and taking apart
ideas, and I do use little fictions to do that (and not just me).
Response #11:
I assure you that the Lord was given the Spirit "without measure" so
that everything He said was absolutely true and not wrong in any way
(Jn.3:34); if He were not sinless, He couldn't have died for us all.
We, on the other hand, are not inspired to write scripture so that any
parable we might say would suffer from 1) us being imperfect and 2) us
not being inspired. Quite a set of differences, I would say (see the
link:
"Parables and their Interpretation").
The Bible doesn't call our Lord's parables myths or fiction because they
are not. Can anyone say that there wasn't an actual event behind every
single parable He spoke, e.g.?
So while someone might write a work of fiction that "rings true", that
is a subjective assessment on the part of those reading. What we can say
for certain is that no matter how much we might enjoy it, it is in fact
not true in that it did not happen – by definition. Therefore, any
conclusions about life, e.g., we might draw from said fictional work are
apt to be misguided, a little or a lot. And if we make big decisions
based upon such perspectives, we stand to get ourselves into a good deal
more trouble than if we were basing our approach on the truth of the
Word of God.
Entertainment is one thing. Engaging with it "as if there some truth to
it" is what I have an issue with.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
I just don't agree that learning (when not taking this in the wrong way
or to an extreme) from fiction is bad.
I don't mean to be rude but maybe I did not clearly communicate what I
was trying to say or maybe you misunderstood because what you wrote
feels like an insulting straw man. I am sorry, I just don't know what to
say. I'll just let it go.
I feel like you missed the main thing I was asking, but I won't push.
[poem & etc. omitted]
Response #12:
Re: "I feel like you missed the main thing I was asking . . ."
LOL, lots of my correspondents share that experience apparently.
I really don't mean to irritate you. I certainly don't have any problems
with you or anyone else reading fiction. Reading is great. There are a
lot worse things!
What is fiction if not art? And what is art but imitation (mimesis;
see
the link)? And what gives art its engaging qualities – NOT its being
identical to reality but precisely the fact that it is close but yet NOT
real. It's the "not real" part wherein I am counseling caution.
So in terms of "learning" from fiction, however, it depends what it is
you "learn". Since whatever is being related didn't actually happen,
then there is a good chance that what you "learn" is not the truth, and
that has consequences – if you believe what you "learn".
In the cited poem, here is a case of what I would call the "hymn
phenomenon". Positive believers who have learned a good deal about the
truth may be "blessed" to hear a hymn which reminds them of truths they
know and believe, and at the same time not be put off or sent on a bad
trail by things in that hymn which are "off" . . . because they are
already versed in the truth and understand that a hymn is just a hymn.
Similarly, this poem may remind you of truths you understand. But for a
child who knows nothing of God, telling them that God is watching out
for them doesn't explain who God is and also is a false reed if we don't
respond to God in Jesus Christ. It's fine for you and me – believers who
know the truth; but this poem is meaningless and potentially misleading
for someone who hasn't yet been led to the truth. After all, lots of
people, lots of groups, lots of religions speak of "God" – Islam, for
example. But it's not our God the Father who saved us through Jesus
Christ.
The application of this to fiction is the same. If we know something
about auto-racing, and read a novel about it, we will, if it's a good
one, enjoy and probably not be put off by things we know are exaggerated
and would never really work. But if we know nothing about the subject,
trying some of the things we've read about on the freeway could lead to
disaster.
In terms of expectations about other people, bosses or whomever, it is
usually the case that people are going to fall short. Those who don't
are very rare and to be treasured. Fiction suggests that relationships
"work" . . . in ways they never actually do. So, again, actually
believing romantic fiction is likely to leave us very disappointed or
worse. To quote a famous movie line, "This ain't the movies!"
(even though it was in a movie).
Most men will proclaim each his own goodness,
But who can find a faithful man?
Proverbs 20:6 NKJV
Who can find a virtuous wife?
For her worth is far above rubies.
Proverbs 31:10 NKJV
I have no worries about you being able to separate the wheat from the
chaff. But that's not the case with a lot of people, even believers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Happy 4th of July, Bob!
I hope you have planned a bit of celebration on this holiday. Last year
I was in the hospital recovering from pneumonia, but was able to get out
of bed and watch fireworks from my room’s window. Whatever happens this
year, it will be better! When I think of where I was last year at this
time, I can only be thankful for my health and family.
My Bible Study discussion group met yesterday after the church service,
and we were reading a chapter (taken from passages in Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John), describing the events leading up to Christ’s
crucifixion—and the crucifixion itself. As the priest said, “It’s very
odd reading about Christ’s crucifixion in July, rather than at Easter
time.” She’s right, but as she suggested, she (and those of us in the
group) all saw these events in a slightly different light. I had lots of
questions about the parable of the wicked tenants—some them had to do
with ‘faulty pronoun reference.’ Only such questions could come from a
former English teacher! I wanted to know to whom the vague pronouns
referred. I kept asking, “Who’s speaking here?” My priest gave a really
good explanation of the vagueness of the pronouns—and the fact that
these ‘stories’ were originally delivered in story-telling fashion with
lots of people present. I had another looming question about the verse
which immediately follows Jesus’ death: “And the curtain of the temple
was torn in two, from top to bottom.”
I approach these texts very cerebrally (it’s my training), but I can see
that it’s not only ‘mind’ understanding that is involved, but feeling
and emotion weigh in very heavily.
If you have anything you’d like to pass on about the torn curtain of the
temple, I’m open to hearing it.
Have a good day,
Response #13:
Good to hear you've got a celebration on. I'm also very pleased with
your "better situation" this year! Mine is a bit better too. The old
chassis is in somewhat better fettle as well than was the case last
independence day.
As to the parable of the tenants, aka "the wicked husbandmen", that
parable occurs in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matt.21:33-41;
Mk.12:1-9; Lk.20:9-16), so if it's a question of pronouns in a
particular verse, I'd need the specific reference. As to who is being
discussed, scripture leaves us in no doubt about that: the ruling
religious class in Jerusalem – as I wrote in one of my seminary papers
forty years ago (here's
a link to where I discuss the name of the parable at Ichthys)!
And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people—for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.
Luke 20:19 NKJV
As to the supernatural splitting of the veil in the temple, the veil represented separation between the world of saved human beings (in the holy place) and God (in the holy of holies); but Christ's atonement for sin opened up an entrance for us into the presence of the Father (here's a link to where this is discussed at Ichthys).
But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings – external regulations applying until the time of the new order. When Christ came as High Priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:7-12 NIV(19) Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence in this entrance of ours into the [heavenly] holy of holies by the blood of Jesus, (20) an entryway through the [heavenly] veil [of separation] which is new (lit., “newly slain”) and alive and which He has consecrated for us, that is, [through the sacrifice] of His flesh (cf. Heb.10:10; 10:18) . . .
Hebrews 10:19-20
Happy 4th to you too, my friend!
Bob
Question #14:
Hi--I have a question about the Greek tense in the verb for "finished" when
Jesus cried from the cross "It is finished!" I saw this online and wanted to
double check with you that what is written is true about the tense. If you
answered this for me already, I apologize. I couldn't find it in my archived
notes.
It is Finished! (A Look at the Greek) | Columbia International University (ciu.edu)
It is Finished! (A Look at the Greek)
Thanks! A simple yes or no will suffice. I know Catholics who think Jesus'
sacrifice of Himself only covered those who were alive at that time; hence, why
they view Communion as a "sacrifice" instead of just a sacrament, to cover sins
of the people now, in this lifetime.
Take care.
Response #14:
The tense is definitely perfect: "It has been accomplished" or "It
stands accomplished". "It is completed" is not bad. "It is finished" may
be misleading.
I don't see how the tense or the translation here can support the RC
position you mention here. This is a statement of the victory of
salvation through Christ's propitiation of all human sin, past present
and future (see
the link):
(25) God made Him a means of atonement [achieved] by His blood [and claimed] through faith, to give proof of His justice in leaving unpunished in divine forbearance [all] previously committed sins, (26) so as to prove His justice in the present, namely, so that He would be [shown to be] just [in this] and [justified] in justifying the one who has faith in Jesus [for all time to come].
Romans 3:25-26
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hello Bob,
I hope you’re continuing to manage to get some running into your
work-out day despite this awful heat.
In Bible discussion yesterday, I described Peter’s clothes as you
described them, and the priest added a bit more about clothing in
Peter’s time. We had a really good session yesterday, and I asked about
a passage in Acts when the high priests, elders, rulers, and scribes
question Peter, and after he responds, my text read “Now when they saw
the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated
and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of
Jesus.” The word boldness really stuck out to me, and I thought, “It has
to mean more than typical boldness—it must mean something greater.” I
looked in my NRS Bible, and the word was confidence. And when I looked
up ordinary, it said untrained. I asked if the word meant something more
in the ‘original’ than in the English language version, and she gave a
really good explanation of the different levels of education of young
Jewish boys—and how Peter and John were recipients of probably the least
Hebrew education of young men.
But I wondered if you had any more to offer about what boldness means in
this passage. Is there some aspect of the Holy Spirit implied?
Response #15:
The Greek word is parrhesia and means "freedom of or in speech". So this is a particular type of "boldness", not of action but of confidence, ability and forthrightness in speaking. As Paul asks the Ephesian believers for prayers on his behalf to pray . . .
. . . also for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly (en parrhesiai) to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly (parrhesiasomai), as I ought to speak.
Ephesians 6:19-20
Confidence in speaking the truth comes from knowing and believing the truth . . . and also from the Holy Spirit. We won't have to worry about this if called out during the Tribulation:
(12) But, [what is] even more [grievous] than these things (i.e., the events of vv.8-11), they will lay hands upon them, betraying them into [the hands of] their [religious] assemblies and prisons, haling them before kings and governors for the sake of my Name. (13) For this will result for you in an act of witnessing [for Me]. (14) So set it [firmly] in your hearts not to prepare ahead of time to make a defense. (15) For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which none of your enemies will be able to oppose or refute. (16) And you will be betrayed even by parents and siblings and friends. And they will put some of you to death, (17) and you will be hated by everyone because of my Name. (18) But not even a hair on your head will perish. (19) Through the perseverance [of your faith] you will preserve your [eternal] lives.
Luke 21:12-19 (cf. Matt.24:13; Mk.13:13)
Do be careful in Chicago! It's not just the bugs you have to be concerned about up
there.
Bob
Question #16:
Hi Bob,
In 2 Chronicles 34:6, I read "mattock" in the KJV but in the NIV, I read
"ruins." I checked Strong's and their explanation was a cutting
instrument or cutting. Either translation makes only marginal sense to
me. What is the correct translation? Was the original an idiomatic
expression?
I assume that after the Assyrian invasion, both would make a certain
amount of sense particularly in Ephraim and Manasseh which I understand
to have been in the Northern part of of the promised land.
I hope all is well up there in the far north and classes are going
smoothly.
In Jesus,
Response #16:
There is a textual problem here, as I'm sure you've guessed. NIV is
probably correct. The Assyrians had destroyed many of the previous towns
and villages when they conquered the northern kingdom. The Targum has
"desolations" and the LXX "places" (being confused about the word). In
terms of the orthography, it's essentially a question of a HETH
being read as a HE (nearly identical looking letters in the
Hebrew block script).
"We" don't see ourselves here as "the far north", but Louisville did
side with the union – then joined the confederacy after the war was well
over.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the explanation. I stumbled on that as I read it. I use a
mattock here on occasion. It doesn't seem like a very efficient assault
weapon. Ruins or destruction makes the most sense. It doesn't seem like
there were very many people left if Josiah could go up and destroy the
idols.
Please don't take offense at the "far north" comment. For me anymore,
Dallas is the far north. I was born in Ohio. about 90 miles North of
Cincinnati, so I'm still considered a yankee. You should see people's
jaw drop when they find out. True Yankees from New England take offense
at the misuse of the word to describe anyone in fly-over country. Such
is life.
In our Lord,
Response #17:
No worries. This is from Yankee magazine (originally):
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To easterners, a Yankee is an New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.
If memory serves, according to my mother (who hailed from those parts), it's
actually APPLE pie with cheddar cheese on top for breakfast that qualifies you
as a genuine "Yankee".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
Thank you for the clarification. My wife and family were from Connecticut and I
never clearly understood the distinction. I will say, the apples in New England
were about the best I've had. We lived in a place in Massachusetts that had an
abandoned apple orchard in the back. It was overgrown and didn't produce many
apples, but those that it did, were excellent. I didn't try the pie, though, in
nearly 10 years up there.
I admit, on the rare occasions I have pie, I enjoy it for breakfast. I wonder
what that makes me? A redneck Yankee?:) Life is too complicated.
As a minor update, I may have to pay more attention to your preparations for the
ministry posts. I never quite understood why I was led to this particular
property or understood how I was to minister, but it seems the neighbor I told
you about is having some serious angst over current conditions and the people
she sees dying off. I hope I've said the right things and eased her anxiety.
They have two kids off to college and she (and maybe he) is going through the
throes of empty nest syndrome. I've suggested she unload on me instead of her
husband since I have only "what to have for dinner" as a concern – not earning a
living and no hour's commute.
All that said, I find I enjoy helping others. Bob, I think I'm doomed.
I pray all is well with you and yours.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #18:
"I wonder what that makes me?" . . . not necessarily a Yankee, without
the cheddar cheese, that is.
Good to hear that you are ministering, my friend! Even a cup of cold water given
in the Name of Christ earns a reward (Matt.10:42), so we rejoice in the
opportunities the Lord gives us.
Thanks so much for your continuing prayer support too, my friend! It is helpful
and needful always.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hello--I hope you are well. Once again, I have a question for you about
the Greek. You know Matthew 1:25, that says that Joseph did not "know"
Mary as his wife until she bore her first-born son...I know Catholics
who think "until" means "before" in this verse and that this doesn't
prove she had children after she gave birth to Jesus Christ. But the
words are not interchangeable; else, Jesus could have said "Until
Abraham was, I AM" which makes no sense.
Anyway, I was wondering if there are two different Greek words for
"until" and "before" and if so, what are they? Or are they the same
word? We are in the process of getting ready to move and my Strong's is
packed and at our new place, that we are supposed to be moving into next
Monday, so I cannot check it.
Thank you and have a pleasant Labor Day, what is left of it! God bless!
Response #19:
The conjunction heos means "until", NOT "before" in the sense suggested.
As intuited, this would be a meaningless thing to say unless it is meant to
signify no relations until after the birth of Christ. That is what it clearly
means in Greek.
Have a good move! I personally dread the "M" word.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Thanks for your help. Is there a different word in Greek for "before"
and if so, what is it?
And thanks for your good wishes for our move; we haven't moved in almost
15 years so it is a real challenge now, especially at our age.
Response #20:
There are plenty of ways to say "before" in Greek, e.g., πρὶν, προ, προσθεν,
ἔμπροσθεν, παρος, πρωτερον, depending on the specific meaning in the context and
whether we need a preposition, adverb or conjunction – but ἕως (heos)
is NOT one of them.
LOL, the next time I move I'm thinking daisies will be involved . . . if the
Lord doesn't return first.
In Jesus,
Question #21:
Hi Bob,
Another translation question. Strong's was no help. It was a "might could/might
not" explanation.
In the KJV I read: "...bring the firstfruits of our dough..." I thought that
might solve a long standing curiosity. But checking against the NIV, I read:
"...the first of our ground meal..." Two different things in English. Should I
understand this as a dough or a course flour? Also two different words for
"dough/ground meal" vs. "fine flour."
A dough would have been reasonable. Particularly mixed with oil as our
contemporary tortillas. There are sourdough starters that have been alive for
years. Ground meal wouldn't store as long and would go rancid quickly.
Thanks
In our Lord,
Response #21:
The word occurs only here and in Numbers 15:20-21. It means either
kneading trough or ground meal or dough. Since dough comes from ground
meal which is then kneaded in a trough, any of these three fits the
context, and it may be that this word means all three (broader semantic
range than the corresponding English words). So "a cake which is
composed of the first fruits of your grain, ground and kneaded into
dough in a kneading trough" is the idea, whichever part of that "cake"
making process one would want to emphasize.
The point is that our sustenance comes from the Lord alone and this
offering memorializes that truth; and the deeper point is that Christ is
that "one loaf" of which we have all partaken so as to be saved
(1Cor.10:16-17).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the explanation. (I think.) It was not the explanation for
which I hoped, but that's the nature of languages. I wonder how that
passage was understood at the time.
I also must thank you for the cites you sent me in our last email
exchange. Micah 7:5-6 and related references hit the nail on the head.
I've been brooding on that since. It brought me comfort that the Spirit
guided me correctly and it wasn't just my bad attitude -- and pointed
out my need to sharpen my faith and listen more carefully. I'm quite
happy living alone. Neighbors mind their own business and tend to their
knitting, Works well for me. I trust the Spirit will guide me to
something else if and when needed, but, for the time being. I'm happy
where I am.
I've read those verses you cited before but understood them as narrative
and never before applied them to my life. That explains much of why I
have trouble connecting dots. I need to slow down and consider Biblical
truths as they apply to me today. You may not have realized it, but you
gave me a lesson in Bible reading, too.
All four of your cites apply today -- in spades.
To reiterate what I think I've said before vis a vis Hotmail and
commercial "free" email services. They all filter mail based not only on
the Subject line but content as well. As far as I know, it's all done
programmatically based on company policy. Note also that Hotmail is now
and has been for a quite awhile owned by Google. Hotmail shares all the
"features" of gmail. Sadly, for many of your correspondents, they don't
have much choice.
Thank you for all you've done for me and all the Ichthys subscribers.
Congregants in the new paradigm?
Yours in our Lord,
Response #22:
You make a good argument for "dough" being the most likely practical
interpretation of the passage. Just explaining on my end what the
language will bear.
On the soon-to-come unpleasantness, this aspect, namely, of loved ones
being caught up in the beast's religion and betraying other believers,
will be one of the most difficult and most challenging. We can only hope
that the people we personally care most about will not fall into that
category. We can trust the Lord that He is not going to place on our
shoulders more than we can actually bear (1Cor.10:13), but we also have
to be realistic in light of these warnings of scripture in regard to the
troubles ahead: there will almost surely be some acquaintances and
possibly even those with closer ties who not only disappoint us but also
prove dangerous to us once the world as a whole runs off to embrace the
beast.
I'm no longer being blocked. This is something Hotmail UK has done
several times before in the past to my ISP. My ISP is one of the bigger
services in the US and I'm sure that host a lot of "bad actors" which is
inevitable. I think this one email subdivision probably has some
administrators who crack down broadly when things get to a certain point
and force the ISP to clean house. Unfortunately that means all suffering
for the sins of a few (not an uncommon thing).
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #23:
Hi Bob,
"...all suffering for the sins of a few..." Isn't that the way it always
works? I expect the coming difficulty will be a watershed. What we
thought would be true will turn out to be way off the mark. I sincerely
hope those I have cared about, and care about now, will be well
received.
My assumption on ancient Israelite practices was just that, an
assumption. Priests and Levites most likely also knew how to preserve
grains and food of different sorts. I just wish I knew more.
I'm glad your email issues seem to be resolved. I think communications,
in the future,, and maybe now, will be unreliable. How far in the future
is a question. I say "seems to be" because I've worked with those
people. I don't have too many illusions, I still think our greatest
threat will be from our neighbors and the anonymous peons, like system
administrators, who make the real day to day decisions.
Thanks. And thank you again for those cites and your prayers. You and
yours are always in my prayers.
In our Lord,
Response #23:
Indeed. All one needs to do is look at North Korea today or East Germany of the past terrorized by the Stasi or the Soviet Union – or to some large degree Russia still today. Or the US – if you have the "wrong" political opinion and the nerve to express it publicly. Saw in the news yesterday about a woman dragged out of bed by the FBI because an anonymous tip claimed she had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. In her case, she had to "prove" she wasn't in D.C. In our case, we will freely admit that we serve Jesus Christ and not the beast. So we may well never even know the names of our accusers, let alone be allowed to face them. And we have to be ready for that too.
"Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Matthew 24:12-13 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
