|
|
 | | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Doctrine- Which Version - Post 3 of 3 | | Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:55:20 GMT |
|
|
 | In the New Testament, the word" doctrine" occurs forty-four times in the
singular in the KJV. The Greek word for" doctor" in the Received Text is
didaskalos. The Greek word for" doctrine" is didaskalia. There is no
excuse for translating didaskalia as teaching, beliefs, message, or
instruction. Your doctor may instruct you to take prescribed medicine, or he
may try to teach you how to take care of your health. But teaching or
instructing are not the doctor, any more than teaching or instruction is
doctrine. Discipleship, or teaching and instruction, come from doctrine.
We read in the four Gospels that the masses were amazed at the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, and" doctrine" is found in the singular twelve times in the
Gospels. Now we might think that in at least one place the NIV, NASV, or
the HCSB would translate from the Westcott and Hort text the word
"doctrine." Think again-it isn't there. In all twelve places, all three
versions substitute "teaching" for doctrine. Coincidence? No!
In the book of Acts "doctrine" is mentioned four times. Again, the NIV,
NASV, and the HCSB say "teaching" -not "doctrine."
In the general epistles, "doctrine" is mentioned nine times in the KJV. In
the other versions referenced, the Greek is translated
"teaching,""instruction," or "message." Finally, the NASV in Ephesians 4:
14 translated the Greek to mean" doctrine." In the Pastoral Epistles, the
KJV references "doctrine" sixteen times, and finally the new Westcott and
Hort versions do relent somewhat, possibly to avoid conservative criticism
of the heavily doctrinal epistles. In the Pastoral Epistles, of the sixteen
times" doctrine" is mentioned, the NIV translates the word "doctrine" seven
times, and "teaching" nine times; the NASV, "doctrine" eight times,
"teaching" eight times; the HCSB, "doctrine"only three times, "teaching"
thirteen times. The NIV claims dynamic equivalency. The HCSB claims
optimal equivalency-some option! In the three scriptures in Revelation where
the word "doctrine" appears, "teaching" has taken its place in all three
versions, as in all Westcott and Hort newer versions.
Is it any wonder that the entire body of Christ is getting fuzzy on
Doctrine? What else should we expect when all newer versions rely on the
corrupted text? The Church of Laodicea- the Apostate Church- is unfolding
before our eyes. The
Apostate Church is being fueled by the newer versions. At least, that is my
humble, personal
view.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
|
|
| | From: | rmail | | Subject: | Re: Doctrine- Which Version - Post 3 of 3 | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:45:32 GMT |
|
|
| "Steve Goltra" wrote in
news:c9Dkd.243$G36.182@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> In the New Testament, the word" doctrine" occurs forty-four times in
> the singular in the KJV. The Greek word for" doctor" in the Received
> Text is didaskalos. The Greek word for" doctrine" is didaskalia.
> There is no excuse for translating didaskalia as teaching, beliefs,
> message, or instruction. Your doctor may instruct you to take
> prescribed medicine, or he may try to teach you how to take care of
> your health. But teaching or instructing are not the doctor, any more
> than teaching or instruction is doctrine. Discipleship, or teaching
> and instruction, come from doctrine.
Steve:
I seem to be getting these articles out of order. Sorry about that. I
recently responded to your post responding on the definition of
*doctrine*. This present article seems to clarify your position and
affirms what I thought.
You charge that others are using a current implication of the definition
of *doctrine* instead of the 1628 definition. In that definition,
*doctrine* was used for general teaching. Only in the modern sense is
*doctrine* a complete body of thought, a finished and closed package.
It seems to me that you are doing what you charge others. You are using
the modern sense of the word and applying it on top of the 1611
definition.
That aside, didaskalos is not *doctor* in the Greek. It means *teacher*.
It occurs 58 times in the Stephanas Greek NT (and 58 times in Westcott).
The only time it is translated *doctor* is in Acts5:34 in the KJV.
49 times didaskalos is translated *master* in the KJV -- all in the
Gospels; virtually every time referring to Jesus. It is certainly in
keeping with the sense of one with authority.
In the remaining 9 times, the translation is *teacher* in all but James
3:1.
There is no difference between the TR and Westcott in the occurrences of
didaskalos
>
> We read in the four Gospels that the masses were amazed at the
> doctrine of Jesus Christ, and" doctrine" is found in the singular
> twelve times in the Gospels. Now we might think that in at least one
> place the NIV, NASV, or the HCSB would translate from the Westcott and
> Hort text the word "doctrine." Think again-it isn't there. In all
> twelve places, all three versions substitute "teaching" for doctrine.
> Coincidence? No!
Here I think your argument really breaks down. I would agree with you
that didaskalia leans toward *doctrine*. It is so translated in the
pastoral epistles.
The problem is that didaskalia only occurs TWO times in the four Gospels!
(Matt 15:9; and the parallel in Mark 7:7)
KJV Matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.
BOTH of which are a quotation of Isa 29:13
KJV Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near
me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed
their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the
precept of men:
The Greek word for *teaching* or *instruction* is didaska. And like the
1828 dictionary definition, it is the general term for teaching.
>
> In the book of Acts "doctrine" is mentioned four times. Again, the
> NIV, NASV, and the HCSB say "teaching" -not "doctrine."
>
> In the general epistles, "doctrine" is mentioned nine times in the
> KJV. In the other versions referenced, the Greek is translated
> "teaching,""instruction," or "message."
didaskalia does not occur at all in Acts.
> Finally, the NASV in
> Ephesians 4: 14 translated the Greek to mean" doctrine."
didaskalia !!
> In the
> Pastoral Epistles, the KJV references "doctrine" sixteen times, and
> finally the new Westcott and Hort versions do relent somewhat,
> possibly to avoid conservative criticism of the heavily doctrinal
> epistles. In the Pastoral Epistles, of the sixteen times" doctrine"
> is mentioned, the NIV translates the word "doctrine" seven times, and
> "teaching" nine times;
didaskalia 10 times
translated teaching = 1 tim 4:13; 5:17 6:1
> the NASV, "doctrine" eight times, "teaching"
> eight times; the HCSB, "doctrine"only three times, "teaching" thirteen
> times. The NIV claims dynamic equivalency. The HCSB claims optimal
> equivalency-some option! In the three scriptures in Revelation where
> the word "doctrine" appears, "teaching" has taken its place in all
> three versions, as in all Westcott and Hort newer versions.
didaskalia does not occur after 1 Timothy; no occurrence in Revelation.
And this doesn't have anything to do with Westcott. It isn't in TR
either. From 1 Timothy on, all of the KJV occurrences of *doctrine* is
didaska except for Heb 6:1 where it is logos.
>
> Is it any wonder that the entire body of Christ is getting fuzzy on
> Doctrine? What else should we expect when all newer versions rely on
> the corrupted text? The Church of Laodicea- the Apostate Church- is
> unfolding before our eyes. The
> Apostate Church is being fueled by the newer versions. At least, that
> is my humble, personal
> view.
It is only fuzzy when you try to apply a 2000 Encarta definition of
*doctrine* to an 1828 dictionary definition.
And nothing in this entire issue has anything to do with the Greek text
-- TR or Westcott. They BOTH agree in every reference that I checked.
It is the KJV that introduces *doctrine* instead of *teaching* not the
Greek text. The KJV translators may have been using the common term for
teaching in their day when they used *doctrine*. But they made no
distinction between didaska and didaskalia. There IS a distinction in the
Greek which they (apparently) ignored.
As an interpretive note... If you think about it, the teaching of Jesus
-- at the time of the Gospels -- was new and fresh and different from the
views of the religious establishment. They marveled at his teaching.
Never heard anything like it before.
By the time of Paul's pastoral letters, that teaching had become more
formalized into a body of didaskalia, *doctrine*.
Nothing in the use of *teaching* takes away from the authority or majesty
of Jesus' words and the incredible magnificant message of the Gospel of
grace.
Amen?
R. Greene
>
> God bless,
>
>
>
> Steve Goltra
|
|
|
