|
|
 | | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Doctrine- Which Version - the 4th post | | Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:55:38 GMT |
|
|
 | This actually went over the original estimated 3 posts by 1.
The word "Doctrine" appears in the KJV in the following Scriptures:
Deut 32:2; Job 11:4; Proverbs 4:2; Isaiah 28:9; Isaiah 29:24; Jeremiah 10:8;
Matthew 7:28; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 22:33; Mark 1:22; Mark 1:27; Mark 4:2;
Mark 11:18; Mark 12:38; Luke 4:32; John 7:16; John 7:17; John 18:9; Acts
2:24; Acts 5:28; Acts 13:12; Acts 17:19; Romans 6:17; 1 Cor 14:6;1 Cor
14:26; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 1:10; 1 Timothy 4:6; 1
Timothy 4:13; 1 Timothy 4:16; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Timothy 6:1; 1 timothy 6:3;
2 Timothy 3:10; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 4:2; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9;
Titus 2:1; Titus 2:7; Titus 2:10; Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 6:2; 2 John 9; 2 John
10; Revelation 2:14; Revelation 2:15; Revelation 2:24
Now, check out your newer version- The NIV, NASV, etc. What do you find?
Does the same word DOCTRINE appear, or is it different words like:
instruction, teaching, discipline. These different words take the actual
meaning out of the original word, as used in the KJV, and substitute it
inconsistently for other words. Eventhough these "other words" convey part
of the meaning (found in the newer versions), they fall short by not being
consistent throughout. This is what creates misunderstanding on the part of
the new believer, or for that matter anyone reading any one of the newer
versions.
The definition of doctrine is found in the Hebrew (Old Testament) as
follows:
Strong's Number: 3948
Transliterated: leqach
Phonetic: leh'-kakh
Text: from 3947; properly, something received, i.e. (mentally) instruction
(whether on the part of the teacher or hearer); also (in an active and
sinister sense) inveiglement: -doctrine, learning, fair speech.
Strong's Number: 8052
Transliterated: shmuw`ah
Phonetic: sehm-oo-aw'
Text: feminine passive participle of 8074; something heard, i.e. an
announcement: --bruit, doctrine, fame, mentioned, news, report, rumor,
tidings.
Strong's Number: 4148
Transliterated: muwcar
Phonetic: moo-sawr'
Text: from 3256; properly, chastisement; figuratively, reproof, warning or
instruction; also restraint: --bond, chastening ([-eth]), chastisement,
check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.
The definition for Doctrine is found in the Greek (New Testament) is as
follows:
Strong's Number: 1322
Transliterated: didache
Phonetic: did-akh-ay'
Text: from 1321; instruction (the act or the matter): --doctrine, hath been
taught.
As well as:
Strong's Number: 1319
Transliterated: didaskalia
Phonetic: did-as-kal-ee'-ah
Text: from 1320; instruction (the function or the information): --doctrine,
learning, teaching.
|
|
| | From: | rmail | | Subject: | Re: Doctrine- Which Version - the 4th post | | Date: | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:41:05 GMT |
|
|
| "Steve Goltra" wrote in
news:u9Dkd.244$G36.167@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> This actually went over the original estimated 3 posts by 1.
>
> The word "Doctrine" appears in the KJV in the following Scriptures:
>
> Deut 32:2; Job 11:4; Proverbs 4:2; Isaiah 28:9; Isaiah 29:24; Jeremiah
> 10:8; Matthew 7:28; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 22:33; Mark 1:22; Mark
> 1:27; Mark 4:2; Mark 11:18; Mark 12:38; Luke 4:32; John 7:16; John
> 7:17; John 18:9; Acts 2:24; Acts 5:28; Acts 13:12; Acts 17:19; Romans
> 6:17; 1 Cor 14:6;1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy
> 1:10; 1 Timothy 4:6; 1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Timothy 4:16; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1
> Timothy 6:1; 1 timothy 6:3; 2 Timothy 3:10; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy
> 4:2; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1; Titus 2:7; Titus 2:10;
> Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 6:2; 2 John 9; 2 John 10; Revelation 2:14;
> Revelation 2:15; Revelation 2:24
>
>
>
> Now, check out your newer version- The NIV, NASV, etc. What do you
> find? Does the same word DOCTRINE appear, or is it different words
> like: instruction, teaching, discipline. These different words take
> the actual meaning out of the original word, as used in the KJV, and
> substitute it inconsistently for other words. Eventhough these "other
> words" convey part of the meaning (found in the newer versions), they
> fall short by not being consistent throughout. This is what creates
> misunderstanding on the part of the new believer, or for that matter
> anyone reading any one of the newer versions.
>
> The definition of doctrine is found in the Hebrew (Old Testament) as
> follows:
>
> Strong's Number: 3948
> Transliterated: leqach
> Phonetic: leh'-kakh
>
> Text: from 3947; properly, something received, i.e. (mentally)
> instruction (whether on the part of the teacher or hearer); also (in
> an active and sinister sense) inveiglement: -doctrine, learning, fair
> speech.
>
> Strong's Number: 8052
> Transliterated: shmuw`ah
> Phonetic: sehm-oo-aw'
>
> Text: feminine passive participle of 8074; something heard, i.e. an
> announcement: --bruit, doctrine, fame, mentioned, news, report, rumor,
> tidings.
>
> Strong's Number: 4148
> Phonetic: moo-sawr'
>
> Text: from 3256; properly, chastisement; figuratively, reproof,
> warning or instruction; also restraint: --bond, chastening ([-eth]),
> chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction,
> rebuke.
>
>
Steve:
You seem to be on a mission in defense of the KJV. I for one do not agree
with the King James Only view. Perhaps we can discuss the merits and
alternatives at some point. For now I'd like to respond to the first part
of this posting.
I haven't worked out the NT section yet, but in all due respect, your
conclusion on the OT word -- even by Strong's number is not complete.
You skipped over all the Stong's number 3948 translations that did *not"
use *doctrine* in the following passages:
KJV Prov 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning <03948>;
and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
KJV Prov 7:21 With her much fair speech <03948> she caused him to yield,
with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
KJV Prov 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser:
teach a just man, and he will increase in learning <03948>.
KJV Prov 16:21 The wise in heart shall be called prudent: and the
sweetness of the lips increaseth learning <03948>.
KJV Prov 16:23 The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth
learning <03948> to his lips.
The KJV translates the 9 occurrences of 3948:
doctine= 4 times
learning= 4 times
fair speech= 1 time
Even in the KJV the weight of "learning" is equal to "doctrine".
The reference to Isa 28:9 is Strong's 8052 (she.mu.ah)
And how does the KJV translate the 27 occurrences of 8052?
rumor = 9 times
tidings = 8 times
report= 4 times
fame= 2 times
bruit= 2 times
doctrine= 1 time <<--!!
mentioned= 1 time
news= 1 time
The KJV chooses "doctrine" only once out of 27 occurrences of 8052. How
is that conveying the "correct" sense?
KJV Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to
understand doctrine <08052> them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn
from the breasts.
And the reference to Jer10:8 is 4148. (mu.sar) = discipline, chastening,
correction.
KJV Jer 10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a
doctrine <04148> of vanities.
The NASB reads:
Jer 10:8 But they are altogether stupid and foolish. In their discipline
of delusion -- their idol is wood!
Which translation is more accurate?
Note: the NASB footnotes "delusion" as literal "vanities."
How does the KJV translate the 50 occurrences of 4148?
Instruction= 30 times
correction= 8 times
chasten= 4 times
chastisement= 3 times
bond= 1
discipline= 1
doctrine= 1 <<--!!
rebuke= 1
Here is a one out of 50 translation for "doctrine".
Exactly HOW does "instruction, teaching and discipline take the actual
meaning out of the original word"?
And on what basis do you conclude that "...substitute inconsistently for
other words"? I count 19 different combinations from the KJV:
3 different translations for 3948
8 different translations for 8052
8 different translations for 4148
In Hebrew, context has a great deal to do with the meaning of the words
-- as the KJV translators and the NIV and NASB translators knew -- and
know.
R. Greene
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: Doctrine- Which Version - the 4th post | | Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:00:00 GMT |
|
|
| Dear R. Greene:
Hosea 4:6 tells us: " My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no
priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also
forget thy children."
The problem is that you are relying on today's dictionary to define a word
that was used hundreds of years ago. The English language is a "living
language", that changes over time
Microsoft Encarta 2000 Dictionary gives this definition of DOCTRINE:
Doctrine- 1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory,
or policy
2. A body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful
or correct. 4. Something taught to people.
The definition of "DOCTRINE", as found in the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's
American Dictionary of the English language is:
1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in
any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The
DOCTRINES of the gospel are the principles or thruths taught by Christ and
his apostles. The DOCTRINES of Plato are principles which he taught. Hence
DOCTRINE may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion.
2. The act of teaching
He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His
DOCTRINE. Mark iv.
3. Learning; knowledge
Whom shall he make to understand DOCTRINE? Isaiah xxviii
4. The truths of the gospel in general.
That they may adorn the DOCTRINE of God our Savior in all
things. Titus ii
5. Instruction and confirmation in the truths of the Gospel. Timothy iii
Do you see the different meaning that the word DOCTRINE had in 1828? Use the
1828 definition of doctrine, then go back into God's word, and you will see
that Erasmus and the Translators applied the correct word DOCTRINE each time
it's meaning was picked up by the context of the verse that it appeared in.
By understanding the true definition of Doctrine in 1828, we can see that
all of the references in the King James that choose the word Doctrine was
FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THE WORD HAS OTHER MEANINGS, BUT IN EACH CASE
Doctrine WAS CHOSEN, IT WAS THE REQUIRED WORD TO MAKE SENSE OF THE BIBLE
VERSE- the "correct meaning" for that word at that time, and also the
correct meaning for us today if we really want to understand it. It can also
be seen that the Westcott & Hort's team paid no attention to the definitions
and understanding of what Doctrine had referred to for thousands of years,
that was in common usage at the time of their "translation".
Do you see children memorizing Bible verses today, as they have in the past?
When everyone relied on one version, everyone was on the "same page", so to
speak. Today, when believers are in Church, and the pastor asks the
congregation to read aloud, the sound is a cacophony of sounds. Everyone is
reading from a different version. Can you imagine a Chemistry or mathmatics
or an English Literature class where all of the students are allowed to pick
text books of their own choosing? The Tower of Babel is what we have today.
There is no memorization of Scripture- HOW CAN THERE BE?
God bless,
Steve goltra
====Long quote snipped in order to post message -- Mod.
|
|
| | From: | rmail | | Subject: | Re: Doctrine- Which Version - the 4th post | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:39:51 GMT |
|
|
| "admin" wrote in
news:AlAod.1750$NU3.1052@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Dear R. Greene:
>
> Hosea 4:6 tells us: " My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
> because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that
> thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of
> thy God, I will also forget thy children."
>
This is truly a great passage. Hosea's vision was of the leadership of
Israel leading the people away from God and turning toward Baal and
alliances with other nations.
Isaiah warns Israel to not align with Babylon for Babylon would fall
against Assyria. And, like a great boat anchor, Israel would be carried
along in Babylon's defeat.
What a horrific picture it is of Hosea instructed to marry a prostitute;
and Gomer's children: Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah (no-mercy), Lo-Ammi (not-my-
people). Sad.
KJV Hos 1:9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my
people, and I will not be your God.
NIV Hos 1:9 Then the LORD said, "Call him Lo-Ammi, for you are not my
people, and I am not your God.
The KJV reads "I will not be your God.", but there is no future tense in
the last clause. The NIV has the tenses agreeing, but it could read:
"for you are not my people, and I am not 'I am' to you." -- the picture
of Moses at the burning bush.
What an indictment!
Then there is chapter 11, quoted in Matthew as a type of Christ (Matt
2:15)
Hos 11:1-3 KJV When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my
son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they
sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. I taught
Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I
healed them.
The Lord was as a Father to Israel, teaching them to walk, holding their
arms so they would not fall -- healing the scrapes that every child has
in the process of growing up.
Hos 11:8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee,
Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim?
mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.
Torn between justice and mercy, (mine heart is turned within me)... you
can almost hear His voice, "Don't go there! Don't do that! It will hurt
you!"
And then resolve:
Hos 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not
return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the
midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
For I am God, and not man! Mercy triumphs in hope. Israel will one day
return to Him! "They shall walk after the LORD..." (10)
A great passage.
I am not quite sure why you quoted it here in this discussion. Are you
implying that a disagreement of your position is an indication of the
lack of knowledge? Or that a person who speaks against your position will
be destroyed? Or that a different view is the same as forgetting the law
of God? Or that as a consequence of a differing view, the children of one
holding a differing view will be forgotten by God?
I guess I am just not understanding what you meant.
>
> The problem is that you are relying on today's dictionary to define a
> word that was used hundreds of years ago. The English language is a
> "living language", that changes over time.
>
> Microsoft Encarta 2000 Dictionary gives this definition of DOCTRINE:
>
> Doctrine- 1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief,
> theory, or policy
>
> 2. A body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as
> truthful or correct. 4. Something taught to people.
>
> The definition of "DOCTRINE", as found in the 1828 edition of Noah
> Webster's American Dictionary of the English language is:
>
> 1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or
> position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an
> instructor or master. The DOCTRINES of the gospel are the principles
> or thruths taught by Christ and his apostles. The DOCTRINES of Plato
> are principles which he taught. Hence DOCTRINE may be true or false;
> it may be a mere tenet or opinion.
>
> 2. The act of teaching
>
> He taught them many things by parables, and said to them
> in His DOCTRINE. Mark iv.
>> 3. Learning; knowledge
> Whom shall he make to understand DOCTRINE? Isaiah xxviii
> 4. The truths of the gospel in general.
> That they may adorn the DOCTRINE of God our Savior in all
> things. Titus ii
> 5. Instruction and confirmation in the truths of the Gospel. Timothy
> iii
>
> Do you see the different meaning that the word DOCTRINE had in 1828?
> Use the 1828 definition of doctrine, then go back into God's word, and
> you will see that Erasmus and the Translators applied the correct word
> DOCTRINE each time it's meaning was picked up by the context of the
> verse that it appeared in.
Are you are saying that the meaning that we apply to an English word
today is not reliable in understanding the Scripture? That we have to
have an 1828 dictionary alongside of the Bible to figure out what it
means?
Again, I must have misunderstood. That can't be what you mean.
But, let's accept your premise. If *Doctrine* means *teaching* or
*learning* in the 1828 dictionary, what is your objection to the modern
translators using *teaching* or *learning* in place of *doctrine*?
This replacement would be precisely because the term had changed in
meaning. To leave it as it was would be to misrepresent the meaning.
Isn't that so?
And isn't that exactly why you object to the change? It would seem that
you want to use the current sense of *doctrine* as a completed body of
thought, in place of the 1828 meaning which was *teaching* or *learning*
in a general sense.
Isn't that a possibility?
In other words, are you not doing exactly what you think others are doing
-- using a 2004 definition of a word that has changed from 1611?
You could go a step further in your study. Where in the KJV do you find
the term *teaching* as a noun? Except for maybe Rom 12:7, you won't find
it at all.
And *learning* is found 3 times in the KJV (Acts 26:24; Rom 15:4; 2 Tim
3:7), and by the way, these three occurrences are three different Greek
words.
That brings me to the core issue, interpretation.
I do not rely on the 1828 dictionary OR the 2000 Encarta dictionary. The
meaning of the words in the Scriptures is from a study of the languages
that they were written in. That means principally Greek, Hebrew and
Aramaic.
But, even in these languages, there is interpretation. We have to rely on
those who have studied the usage of words in historical usage, other
writings, etc. HALOT, BDB, Liddell and Scott and other works are like the
1828 dictionary or the 2000 Encarta. They attempt to show how the words
were used.
By comparing a Greek word and its usage to the various English
renderings, we get a picture of what the translators were thinking --
kind of a sort of triangulation.
Take *doctrine* for example.
The principle Greek word is didaskw (verb) or didaska (noun). It means
*to teach* in the verb and *teaching* in the noun. This one root in all
its forms occurs 144 times in the NT.
In the KJV the verbal form is always translated *teach* or *taught* (97
times). But when it comes to the noun form, the KJV always translates
*teaching* as *doctrine* -- every single time (30 times).
The remaining occurrences of *doctrine* in the KJV are a translation of
the Greek word didaskalia which has a definite leaning toward the body of
knowledge taught, i.e. *doctrine* (16 times)
Eph 4:14
1 tim 1:3,10; 4:6,13,16,17; 6:1,3;
2 tim 3:10,16; 4:3;
tit 1:9, 2:1,7,10
Interesting that the last occurrence of note is in Hebrews 6:1-2
KJV Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ,
let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of
repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
KJV Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and
of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
In Hebrews 6:1, the word for *doctrine* is logos !!! (in both Hort and
Stephanus 1550) and in 6:2 it is didaska.
>
> By understanding the true definition of Doctrine in 1828, we can see
> that all of the references in the King James that choose the word
> Doctrine was FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THE WORD HAS OTHER MEANINGS,
> BUT IN EACH CASE Doctrine WAS CHOSEN, IT WAS THE REQUIRED WORD TO MAKE
> SENSE OF THE BIBLE VERSE- the "correct meaning" for that word at that
> time, and also the correct meaning for us today if we really want to
> understand it.
From what I have shown, it should be clear that the KJV editors were
making an interpretation. Further, they made no distinction between the
terms in the Greek that would have made a distinction between *teaching*
and *doctrine*.
They made an interpretation. That is, unless you believe that the
inspiration of Scripture extends to the 1611 translators.
> It can also be seen that the Westcott & Hort's team
> paid no attention to the definitions and understanding of what
> Doctrine had referred to for thousands of years, that was in common
> usage at the time of their "translation".
Westcott and Hort did not translate the Scriptures into English. I think
you are mixing things up a bit here. The occurrences of the Greek terms
translated *doctrine* by the KJV translators are in both the Westcott &
Hort and the 1550 Stephanus Greek NT.
Further, you cannot believe that all of the Biblical scholars in the past
150 years "paid no attention to the definitions and understanding had
referred to..."
and "thousands of years???" Have you tried to read any English documents
of the 14th century? That's not even ONE thousand years.
>
> Do you see children memorizing Bible verses today, as they have in the
> past? When everyone relied on one version, everyone was on the "same
> page", so to speak. Today, when believers are in Church, and the
> pastor asks the congregation to read aloud, the sound is a cacophony
> of sounds. Everyone is reading from a different version. Can you
> imagine a Chemistry or mathmatics or an English Literature class where
> all of the students are allowed to pick text books of their own
> choosing? The Tower of Babel is what we have today. There is no
Do you believe that the KJV translators were inspired? That would make
them on an equal footing as the authors of the Scripture.
I trust that you will leave at least a bit of my response in future
posts. Thanks. Rog.
|
|
|
