What is "The Word of God"?

[Ducati]

WHAT IS "THE WORD OF GOD"? Is it our KJV or the NIV , or some other translation paraphrase ? Is it the Dead Sea Scrolls and the other thousands of other manuscripts found over the centuries ? What exactly "IS" The Word of God ?
I pose this question because I'm always critical about other versions of the Bible. I love the KJV and feel why "tamper" with it , it's been fine for 400 years. My brother likes to look in other paraphrases and frankly some just butcher the KJV ..... like The Message bible he refers to frequently. Every time I criticize it he tries to tell how the KJV is also far from being an accurate translation of the original transcripts.
So please , how would YOU define or explain "what exactly is "The Word of God" ?

 

[greg64]

Not what you're looking for, but I'll say Jesus. John 1:1

As far as translations, I'm not sure there's one perfect one, but I'd avoid the paraphrases. Between word for word and thought for thought, I'd go with whatever one appeals to each individual and that they'll use.

 

[Hol]

Ducati, if you search this site, looking for Mattfive4 and translations you'll find some very solid advice. (I think Adrian's user name is Mattfive4??)

 

[Hol]

Oops, try mattfivefour

 

[Ducati]

Oops, try mattfivefour

I'm familiar with him. Have spoken via phone before. Thanks.

 

[Ducati]

Not what you're looking for, but I'll say Jesus. John 1:1

As far as translations, I'm not sure there's one perfect one, but I'd avoid the paraphrases. Between word for word and thought for thought, I'd go with whatever one appeals to each individual and that they'll use.

If the KJV is the Bible , how can the NIV also be the Bible being that there is some vast differences in wording thus changing meaning. Same could be said about the Bible the Catholics use.
Some folk are so anti-KJV that they'll pick up anything that says "Bible" on it regardless of its contextual errors.

So, am I to assume that the "original transcripts" are actually "THE" true written words of God and all our translations are just one mans flavor over another's ?

 

[mattfivefour]

I'm going to add an article here that will explain why there are variations in translations but without harming the Word of God. The content is Bible College level, but it is written very simply and I think anybody who takes the time to read it carefully will have some key questions answered and nagging concerns erased.

The full article may be found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/are-we-misreading-scripture.html

Here's a sample:

Are We Misreading Scripture?

by Brandon J. O'Brien (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). Assistant professor of Christian theology at Ouachita Baptist University and director of OBU at New Life Church in Conway, Arkansas.

and E. Randolph Richards (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Dean and professor of biblical studies in the School of Ministry at Palm Beach Atlantic University.​

An old Greek professor of Randy’s [my note: Randy is one of the two co-authors] used to comment sagely, “Language is a lot of things, but mostly it’s words.”

That is true, and it isn’t. Of course, the first order of business for a student new to any language is the arduous task of learning vocabulary. Often the very smallest words—conjunctions and prepositions and the like—are the hardest to master. The flexibility of our own prepositions, which make perfect sense to us, illustrates the challenge well. On and in mean different things, and the difference is clear: “the book is on the table” versus “the book is in the drawer.” Yet in America we ride in a car but on a bus, in a canoe but on a ship. These uses seem the opposite of the basic meanings. Americans hang on a branch, but most other people hang under or hang from a branch. (Hang on: we still haven’t discussed idioms!) After long hours spent with flashcards, you eventually learn grammar and syntax that allow you to combine words to form phrases and sentences that express meaning. But it all starts with words. Words are indeed the raw materials of language.

But language is much more than words. As we have argued in these first chapters, the most powerful cultural values are those that go without being said. Ironically, this is as true of language as of any other aspect of culture—and perhaps more so. Behind the words that make up language is a complex system of values, assumptions and habits of mind that reveal themselves in the words we use and leave unsaid. When we cross a culture, as when we read the Bible, we often assume that what goes without being said in our culture and language also goes without being said in other cultures and languages. This can lead to profound misunderstanding.

Matters become even more complex when you consider that grammar and syntax, as well as ethnicity and social class, not only reflectbut also determine the way people in a given culture think and speak. While it may seem a chicken-or-egg type of question, linguists have long pondered if our worldview shapes our language or the other way around. Ever since the pioneering work of Benjamin Whorf (1897-1941) in linguistic relativity, most scholars concede that our culture (via our language) shapes our worldview, which in turn filters what we notice and how we interpret reality.1 Our worldview tells us what to notice and what is not worth noticing. Linguists generally conclude that our heart language—the language we learn first (up to about age seven)—sets most of the parameters of our worldview. We have an “American” worldview because our parents imparted it to us, both through ideas they taught us and through our shared language. Middle-class American English, for example, prefers the active voice, direct statements and connecting words like since,because and although.2 Suffice it to say that language is a lot of things, but that many of the most important aspects of language are not words.

Language is the most obvious cultural difference that separates us from the Bible. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek (with a few Aramaic words). Because language differences are so obvious, so visible, you might wonder why we didn’t discuss them first. Are they not the very tip of the iceberg? Yes and no. While it is easy to tell that you are hearing or reading a foreign language, what is not at all obvious is how our language, and our understanding of how language works, affects everything else we think and do. Few of us ever reflect on the mechanics of our native languages or the values and patterns that lie beneath them. These things reside further down the iceberg, under the water. So we are unlikely to recognize what it is about our own language that goes without being said.

You begin to pick up on these things when you learn another language. So some of the things we’ll discuss in this chapter are things you will discover if you study Greek and Hebrew—or any second language, for that matter. It is important for us to remember that when we read the Bible in our native language, mostly what has been changed is the words. Behind the words, now in a language we understand, remains that complex structure of cultural values, assumptions and habits of mind that does not translate easily, if at all. If we fail to recognize this—and we very often do—we risk misreading the Bible by reading foreign assumptions into it. Like Procrustes of Greek mythology, who shortened or stretched his guests to fit his bed, our unconscious assumptions about language encourage us to reshape the biblical narrative to fit our framework.

In this chapter we will identify a few instinctive Western language habits. There is more we could say, but for now, we’ll look at three assumptions regarding the way we view language: sufficiency, equivalency and clarity.

Sufficiency: Our Language Adequately Describes Reality

To state our first point simply: Western readers typically believe that if something is important, then we’ll have a word for it. And the more important something is in our culture, the more likely we are to develop specialized language to describe it. Take the automobile, for example. The automobile is an important aspect of Western—especially American—life. On the whole, the word car is a useful catchall for all vehicle types. But we can be more specific. You might drive a compact, subcompact, economy, sedan, wagon, coupe, convertible, SUV, pickup, crossover or hybrid.

Here is where cultural differences begin to show. Many Americans eat rice. But rice isn’t particularly important to the majority of Americans. So we just have one word for it. When it’s in the field, we call it rice. When the grains are harvested, we have trucks of rice. When the grains are milled and packaged to sell in stores, we buy bags of rice. When we cook it, we serve plates of rice. But rice is very important in Indonesia, as in most of Asia, and so Indonesians have specialized vocabulary to describe it. In Indonesia there are fields of padi, bags of beras and plates of nasi. These distinctions may seem unnecessary to us, but we make distinctions that seem equally unnecessary to Indonesians. Because Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation, pigs are not important in Indonesian culture. So the language has one word for them: pigs. We, by contrast, see pigs when they are in a barn. Slaughtered, we have pork. On the plate we have chops, loin, ribs, roast, bacon and sausage.

This is not merely a matter of vocabulary but of values. The words we use are a good indication of what we consider important. As our values change, so does our language. When we really need a word, we invent one. Think of all the new vocabulary we’ve developed in the digital age—words like Internet, software and mp3. What we don’t see as important, we don’t bother to invent words for. In other words, the frequency and number of words we have for a given thing or experience and its value in our worldview are connected.

What does this have to do with the Bible? Problems arise for interpretation when another language has several words for something and ours has only one. Greek has four words for love: agape, philia, eros and storge. Or perhaps the better way to say it is that English has only one word for four different kinds of love. This may explain why Americans often confuse them in their relationships. While we recognize that philia, the friendship kind of love, is wonderful, it may be hard (culturally) for two American male friends to say they love each other. To do so, they must use the same English word they use to describe their relationships with their parents, wives or children. Since American culture is pushing guys to express true friendship-love, we are searching for a good expression. At the moment, “Love you, man” seems to be winning.

To use another example, most cultures have a traditional form of dancing. Where I (Randy) grew up, it was line dancing or square dancing. There was also modern dancing, which was basically a young couple making out while shuffling their feet to music. My parents believed the second form of dancing was not conducive to healthy Christian courtship; thus, they concluded, dancing is sin. Because we have only one word for dancing, all manner of dancing was regarded as sin, leading to lots of generational Christian squabbling. Indonesian Christians don’t have this problem. They celebrate traditional dance, called tarian. They also recognize the inappropriate form, which they call dancing (merely borrowing the English word). Having the vocabulary to distinguish between forms of dancing makes it possible for them to make more nuanced decisions about appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

We also perceive a corollary point to be true: if we don’t have a word for something, then it is likely not very important to us. Maybe pigs and rice aren’t that important in every culture, but biblical values should be. Old Testament scholars will be quick to point out the challenge of translating chesed (pronounced KHEH-sed). In the NASB, we see it translated lots of ways: lovingkindness (Genesis 24:27), loyalty (Hosea 6:4), loveliness (Isaiah 40:6) and mercy (2 Samuel 15:20). Chesed doesn’t mean lots of things. But we need lots of English words to circle around a concept for which we don’t have a word. Chesed is “a kindly-loyal-merciful-faithful-(the-sort-that-shows-up-in-actions) kind of love.” Certainly chesed is important—even if English doesn’t have a word for it—both for understanding the Bible and living the Christian life. This isn’t merely an English problem. Paul struggles for a Greek word to describe the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. He describes it as a “love-joy-peace-patience-kindness-goodness-faithfulness-gentleness-self-control kind of fruit” (Galatians 5:22). Paul is not giving us a list of various fruits, from which we may pick a few. Rather, he gives us a list of words that circle around the one character of a Spirit-filled life he is trying to describe.

This seemingly simple matter of vocabulary has serious implications for the Christian life. Sociologists suggest that people have a difficult time describing or even identifying something that they don’t have the vocabulary for. Some even suggest that one can have a hard time experiencing something for which one has no corresponding word.3 The Greeks had a word for the feeling one has when one is happy: makarios. It is a feeling of contentment, when one knows one’s place in the world and is satisfied with that place. If your life has been fortunate, you should feel makarios. We use idioms in English to try to approximate this experience. We’ll say, “My life has really come together,” or “I’m in a happy place,” or “Life has been good to me.” We are not really discussing the details of our life; we are trying to describe a feeling we have. Happy sounds trite, so we avoid it. Actually, we are makarios.

In Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that if you are a peacemaker, then you are makarios. Since English doesn’t have a word for this feeling, translators have struggled to find one. What do you call it when you feel happy, content, balanced, harmonious and fortunate? Well, translators have concluded, you are blessed. Thus our English translations say, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9). Unfortunately, this introduces another problem. The English language prefers clear subjects for its verbs. So the missing puzzle piece in the Beatitudes is, How is one blessed? What goes without saying in our culture is that God blesses people. Consequently, we often interpret this verse to mean, “If you are a peacemaker, then God will bless you.” But this isn’t what Jesus meant. Jesus meant, “If you are a peacemaker, then you are in your happy place.” It just doesn’t work well in English. Alas, here is the bigger problem: maybe the reason we North Americans struggle to find makarios in our personal lives is because we don’t have a word in our native language to denote it.

Equivalency: Reality Can be Expressed in Our Language

Viewed from one perspective, the Protestant Reformation began as an effort to correct a mistaken assumption about equivalency in language. Over time, the Roman Catholic church had developed a doctrine of confession that included works of penance, such as reciting a certain number of prayers (think “Hail Marys” or “Our Fathers”) and, most disturbing, the purchase of indulgences to assure forgiveness of sins. By the late Middle Ages, church leaders insisted this system is what Jesus had in mind when he called sinners to repent—that do penance was equivalent to (meant the same thing as) repent. Martin Luther’s history-changing ninety-five theses addressed this issue head-on. “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said ‘Repent,’ willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance,” Luther argued in the opening sentences of his disputation. “This word cannot be understood to mean the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.”4 The medieval church had superimposed certain presuppositions onto Scripture by mistakenly assuming that the Latin term for do penance was equivalent to the Greek term for repent. Because repentance is necessary for salvation (Isaiah 30:15; 2 Corinthians 7:10), their mistake undermined Christian faith and identity at its core. Is it possible that we risk equally dangerous misreadings by assuming equivalency between languages?

People who speak only one language, which is most Americans, often assume that there is a one-to-one relationship between languages. This derives from how we understand reality. We assume that everyone interprets reality like we do. So when we run across a concept in a foreign language that describes an experience that’s familiar to us, we assume they mean what we mean. Well, they don’t.

Sometimes there is no equivalent. Several Eastern languages have no word for privacy. How could that be? To begin with, people in these cultures rarely experience it. As a missionary, I (Randy) “slept late,” often not arising until 6 a.m. When I staggered out of the bedroom, I commonly found an Indonesian pastor sitting politely in my living room, awaiting the (lazy) missionary. While bedrooms were for family, the rest of the house was viewed much more like we would view a college dorm lobby. People walked in and out of my house. Many times I came home for lunch to find some stranger helping out in the kitchen or washing clothes on my back porch. Early in my career, I would ask, “Who are you?” The person would stop, go out back and bathe, change clothes and then sit in my living room to explain. After tea (and a lot of what seemed to me to be beating around the bush), he or she would explain what problem had brought them to the city. Their problem was now my problem—after all, I did ask who they were. (I learned not to ask.) “My personal business” was a nonsensical expression. Everybody knew what everybody was doing. I could stop a student on our campus and ask what my wife was cooking for lunch, and they would know. They would likely add that she had paid too much for the chicken.

You see why there is no Indonesian equivalent to our word private. Of course, someone could find himself in a private location. In that case, an Indonesian would say he is in “a place where he feels lonely.” But it doesn’t happen as often as we might think. I had an Indonesian friend who owned three miles of beachfront property on a remote island. His neighbor also owned three miles of adjacent beachfront. When I stayed in my friend’s house, I could reach out the window and actually touch the wall of his neighbor’s house. On the other side of each house stretched miles of deserted sandy beaches. I was flabbergasted and one time blurted, “Why didn’t you build your house two miles that way?”

He looked at me and said, “We would be lonely.”

For most North Americans, space is to be guarded, protected and preserved. “Stay out of my personal space!” is a common sentiment. But for the ancient world (and most of the non-Western world), space is to be used. That’s why they drive on the shoulders of the road. Why waste usable space? In other words, while Westerners crave privacy, privacy is a situation that Indonesians, for example, seek to avoid. They even have a word for “going on an errand with a friend so that your friend doesn’t have to go alone.” That may be surprising enough, but the real shock for me came when my Indonesian colleagues explained that this was an excused absence for the accompanying student. Surely I couldn’t expect a student to go somewhere alone!

These different cultural associations with privacy affect the way Westerners and non-Westerners read Scripture. We Westerners commonly think that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, went to a private place in the garden of Gethsemane to pray (Matthew 26:36-39). Actually, none of the Gospels say the place he prayed was private or solitary: “Sit here while I go over there” (Matthew 26:36); “withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them” (Luke 22:41); “he took Peter, James and John along with him,” and then “going a little farther” (Mark 14:33-35). It is clear only that he separated from the disciples. At Passover, the garden was likely packed with people; it was not a good place to find privacy. When my Indonesian students heard the traditional Western view—that Jesus was alone—they responded, “How dreadful Jesus must have felt.” We Americans assume that “Jesus needed a little alone time” to get ready to face his dreadful trial. We read our preferences into the story. We like to pray in solitary places, so we assume Jesus did too.

Interpretation leads to practice. Indonesian ministers have a great word for “quiet time”: saat teduh. Interestingly, teduh means “quiet” and “calm,” but it has no connotation of individual or private space. Indeed, Indonesians almost always have their quiet times with others. As an American Christian, my best “devotional time” is alone. In fact, many of us wonder whether a Christian can grow without private time. Even if we could be with others, wouldn’t it be better to spend time alone with the Lord? Yet verses that we think support this idea, such as “Be still, and know that I am God,” do not require a private time of stillness (Psalms 46:10). Indonesians also love that verse. They like to remind me that God said that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). In fact, the Bible frequently uses “alone” as a negative term. Jacob was left alone (Genesis 32:24); Moses was critiqued for working alone (Exodus 18:14). Indonesians would say, “Even if we could be alone, wouldn’t it be better to spend time together with the Lord?” Our cultural value for privacy is strictly a Western value; it is not derived from the Bible. This is not to say that privacy is wrong, just that it is a neutral value. But when we impose it on the text, we can come away with unbiblical interpretations.

What it says is not always what it means. The translator repeatedly has to decide between translating what a word or phrase says and what it means.
​

Continue this fascinating article at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/are-we-misreading-scripture.html

 

[Andrew]

If the KJV is the Bible , how can the NIV also be the Bible being that there is some vast differences in wording thus changing meaning. Same could be said about the Bible the Catholics use.
Some folk are so anti-KJV that they'll pick up anything that says "Bible" on it regardless of its contextual errors.

So, am I to assume that the "original transcripts" are actually "THE" true written words of God and all our translations are just one mans flavor over another's ?

There have been many threads started on these forums related to this subject. If you are genuinely interested in getting an answer to your question then a short search will provide you with a lot of good information to consider.

 

[LibertyBelle]

....

 

[LibertyBelle]

Are you familiar with this, and if so, what is your opinion of it?:

* No commercial links allowed on the forums*

The written word of God is only the original manuscripts in Hebrew then in Greek. Everything else depends upon translators' best choices for interpretations. The King James Version was translated by men who held to Reformed Doctrine/Calvinism. So you will find some choices which trend in that direction. It makes it hard, I know. As far as the Old Testament goes, you might be interested in this article from my husband, Barry Setterfield.

We also deal with the question of texts briefly in our introduction to Genesis 1-11.

Two very important points, though: the Word of God is Christ. That is the most essential thing. And, secondly, NONE of the standard translations deviate from that point. ALL point to the Trinity, the creation of the cosmos by God in six real days, the advent of sin through Adam, the reality of the Flood, the history of the Jewish people (Israelites), the prophecies and coming of the Messiah, identified as Jesus of Nazareth, His virgin birth, the miracles, His claim to be God, the arrest, trial crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, and the promise of a return of Jesus as Judge and Ruler of the earth.

NOW, if you are serious about in-depth Bible study, you need to get several concordances, some interlinears, and a decent amount of time to look up words and meanings and to make sure you are reading in context and also allowing Bible to explain Bible.

I was a deaf interpreter when my fingers were still relatively arthritis-free, and had a deaf women's Bible study. They asked the simplest of questions, and because I took the time to look up the responses via Concordances and interlinears, I learned in incredible amount. Here is one example. One of the women asked (signed) "Why salt? Why Jesus say we salt?" Instead of giving her the standard answer of "Because salt flavors and preserves things and that is what we Christians do on earth" (which is the answer I had been taught as well), I told her "I'll look it up." I spent the following week checking EVERY time 'salt' and its derivatives were used in the entire Bible. I got no surprises. I thought I was done, then I thought, "Well, there's one more thing I can check: 'lose saltiness.'" That is from the Sermon on the Mount -- if the salt loses its saltiness, how shall it become salty again? I had already looked up saltiness and salty, but I wanted to be absolutely thorough. So I check the phrase "lose saltiness." And that is when I got a shock. That phrase is used four times in the New Testament, but only twice is it translated 'lose saltiness.' The other two times it is 'become fools' or 'become foolish.' Those are in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1. That is when I realized that there were no notes anywhere that mentioned that, but the Israelites knew what Jesus was talking about: salt was a picture of wisdom. And if you lose your wisdom, how will you become wise again? Some things cannot be reversed. This tied in with so many other pictures, as in Hebrews 6, and other places. Solomon reminds us that wisdom is from God. (Knowledge is facts and learning -- wisdom is what to do with them)

That is the sort of thing real Bible study does -- you learn a lot and you learn to love and respect God more. And that does not depend on any particular translation, but on your willingness to dig.

 

[LibertyBelle]

Just ordered it. It looks good. We often refer to this short article as well to help readers of our website understand a bit more: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html

Edit -- as a side note, I just finished reading Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi, and learned a ton about the Muslim faith that I didn't know before. This also shows a lot of the eastern/western dichotomy. Anyway, thank you for your reference.

Nabeel is awesome.

He's currently undergoing treatment for cancer. Please pray for him.

His friend (David Wood) has a great ministry about islam (in case you didn't know already) https://www.***********/user/Acts17Apologetics/videos

 

[LibertyBelle]

It is now about an hour and a half after the last post by LibertyBelle. You sure got me started on the videos! I already knew about Qureshi and Dave Wood, but there were a lot of the videos by Wood I had not seen yet. An amazing hour and a half and thank you. NOW I really do have to get back to my world here. We have snow coming tomorrow and I want to get the roses pruned first! We have over a hundred roses bushes here, so if you will excuse me....LOL

Yay! I'm glad you enjoyed them!

I beeeeeg you - post photos of your rose bushes!

 

[LibertyBelle]

WOW!!!! Your yard is just glorious!!! You did beautiful, beautiful work!!!!

We have a 'forever baby', too. (⑅◠ ◡ ◠)♡

 

[jonshaff]

 

[Chris]

I don't know how to put up pictures that don't have URLs and the pictures we have on our website are about 8 years old. Barry has taken recent pictures, though and if you would like to see them I can email them to you. Our email is [email protected]

Oh, I had seen those pictures before, but it was a pleasure to see them again. You've done a great job with the flowers and landscaping. You obviously have a "green thumb" for plants.

Since we never get snow here, the one with snow and the mountains in the background looks very nice. You've got a nice place to live.