• No se han encontrado resultados

/ Isabel II

In document Vista de Siglos XIX-XX (página 35-88)

The Spirit vs. “The Desires of the Flesh and of the Mind”

Eph. 2:3 Eph. 2:3

 Stained-Glass Words or Sin-Stained WordsStained-Glass Words or Sin-Stained Words

 Mulple Meanings Make SenseMulple Meanings Make Sense

 Only the Only the Bible’Bible’s Context Holds Meaningss Context Holds Meanings KJB ABC’s =

KJB ABC’s = AAlwaysBBased onCContext

F

OR IT IS WRITTEN,I will destroy the wisdom of the wiseI will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not Godmade foolish the wisdom of this worldmade foolish the wisdom of this world? For aer that in the wisdom of Godthe world by wisdomthe world by wisdom knew not God

knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, andthe Greeks seek aer wisdomthe Greeks seek aer wisdom:: ButBut we preach Christ crucied, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, andunto the Greeks foolishnessunto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God iswiser thanwiser than men

men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that notnot many wise men

many wise men aer the esh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world toconfound the wiseconfound the wise;…” (1 Cor. 1:19-27).

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world…” (1 Cor.

2:6).

J

ESUS said, “thewordswords that I speak unto you, theyareare spiritspirit” John 6:63.

“…even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received,not thenot the spirit of the world

spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak,not in not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheththe words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Butthe natural manthe natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they arefoolishnessfoolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things…For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” 1 Cor. 2:11-16.

“…walknot aer the eshnot aer the esh, but aer the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1).

“For theesh lusteth against the Spiritesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the esh: and these are contrary the one to the other” (Gal. 5:17).

The Greek Vocabulary of the New Testament The Greek Vocabulary of the New Testament

T

T

he ancient pagan Greeks never wrote a Greek-English diconary. What they would have said in English is anyone’s guess. Any English-speaking person who gives an English denion of an ancient Greek word is simply guessing. Denions are ‘guessed’ by looking at the word in context, examining ten words before and ten words aer. The context must be the one in which the word is used, not that of another author. A discussion about ‘love’ byPlayboy founder, Hugh Hefner, or even the Inquisitor Pope Innocent III, will not elicit the denion of ‘love’ used by Jesus Christ in the Holy Bible. Even within the work of one author, a word may have several dierent meanings depending upon each individual context. Yet, in their drive to secularize the Bible, lexicographers and new version editors toss their own rules to the wind and refuse to dene Bible words using only the context of the Bible. They plunge God’s pearls into the murky mire of paganism.

Sin-Stained or

Sin-Stained or Stained-Glass WorStained-Glass Wordsds

The Bible tells Chrisans, “be not conformed to this world.” We are to be “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 12:2 and 8:29).

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isa. 55:8, 9).

Therefore the Holy Bible is wrien, “notnot in thewordswordswhichman’s wisdomman’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). Chapter ve ofIn Awe of Thy Word explainswhy the Holy Bible must be as Christ is ― “holy, harmless, undeled,separateseparate from sinners

from sinners, madehigherhigher” (Heb. 7:26).

The words of the King James Bible are oen higher, ‘special’ words, not deled or dened by worldly use. Danker dislikes these, calling them “churchly” words; lexicographers avoid them, calling them “ecclesiascal” words. These include words such as ‘hell,’ ‘heaven,’ ‘preach,’ ‘grace,’

‘gospel,’ ‘mercy,’ ‘lust,’ ‘carnal,’ ‘charity,’ ‘salvaon,’ ‘sanccaon,’ ‘heathen,’ ‘heresy,’ ‘superson,’

‘hereck,’ ‘redempon,’ ‘righteousness,’ ‘salvaon,’ ‘repent,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘covetousness,’ ‘ungodly,’

and ‘tribulaon.’ One will be hard pressed to nd these words in most new versions and Bible study tools. Liberal lexicographers have from the very beginning set out to strip the Holy Bible of its ‘holy’

‘separate from sinners’ vocabulary by replacing these holy words with the words of sinners. The English denions and translaon choices in lexicons are highly secularized, that is, they are “the words which men’s wisdom teacheth,” not those special “separate from sinners” words God inslled early in the English Bible.

God’s words are “unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). Consequently, lexicographers have stoutly resisted any input, even from nominal Chrisans. Their irraonal anthem rings ―

“We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14).

Professor Rykle Borger admits that Chrisans have tried to hinder lexicographers from secularizing the Bible’s vocabulary(Taylor, p. x). He gives the two heresy trials of Bible lexicographers Charles Briggs and Frederick Danker as examples:

“Lexicographers are somemes severely hindered in their work by ecclesiascalecclesiascal authories

authories. The preface of Brown-Driver-Briggs (p. x) menons “serious interrupons from unforeseen circumstances of a personal nature.” In 1892 Briggs was brought to

to trialtrial and condemnedcondemned for heresyheresy by the Presbyterian General Assembly, and suspended

suspended from the ministry…F.W. Danker had similar problems with Concordia

Seminary and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod while working on BAGD. In 1974 he le “Concordia” together with many other teachers and many students, ancipang hisdismissal, and was ordered to stay awaydismissal, and was ordered to stay away””(Taylor, p. 46).

Frederick Danker is the author of the currently most popular New Testament Greek-English lexicon. You may never have heard of him, but you have heard his idle words, as men ‘dene’ Bible words. Lexicographers, such as Danker, wrongly think that the words of the tradional ‘Holy’ Bible give a too-Chrisan ““stained glass” connotaon.” He equates using Chrisan words in the Chrisan Bible with “incest”! Danker says his replacement word ―

“maynot sound churchlynot sound churchly, but it expresses thetruthtruth:: not a not a theological preferenctheological preference,e, but a semanc reality that can steer one away from the hazard of dogmachazard of dogmac presupposions.Refuge in sancedRefuge in sanced vagueness, despite the pana of centuries of usage, is not a lexical gesture devoutly to be greeted. Indeed, such pracce may invite liability to the charge of linguiscincestincest””(Taylor, p. 24).

(Danker’s choice of “truth” over theology echoes Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky’s moo “There is no religion higher than truth.” This book will show that shockingly other authors of lexicons and Greek texts repeat Blavatsky’s moo (e.g. Scrivener, Trench et al.).

Danker gives the word “grace” as an example of a “churchly” word, saying that he prefers the less “churchly” word “generosity.” However, the word ‘grace’ means completely undeserved favor.

Generosity could be bestowed as part of an exchange. All lexicons secularize Bible words. Those that retain a few “churchly” words are gradually being changed to replace these words. Barkley Newman, author of A Concise Greek-English Diconary of the New Testament , said, “…were I to have the opportunity of revising the diconary, I would certainly change the rst meaning given for χάρις [chari s] by oming “grace” from the lisng”(Taylor, p. 93). Such corrupters of God’s words certainly need God’s ‘charicharity,’ that is,GGod’sRRichesAAttCChrist’sEExpense― GRACE.

(Reading grade level is dependent upon the number of syllables in a word. As unusual, lexical substutes have many more syllables than their corresponding KJB words. In this case ‘grace,’ a one syllable word, is replaced by ‘generosity,’ a ve syllable word. Consequently, new versions, which use the words in lexicons, are always a higher reading grade level than the KJB. SeeNew Age Bible Versions.)

Danker is forgeng his own rule that the translaon of a word should t its context; the Bible is a

“churchly” context. Danker admits elsewhere that ―

“Context in the source text determines what specic word in the receptor language is adequate to express what the source speaker nuanced through the syntagmac structure thatcoloredcolored the lexeme”(Taylor, p. 27).

Sorry, Mr. Danker ― the color of the Bibleis “stained glass,” which lexicographers paint over to block the light of the scriptures.

Sociological terminology and thinking pervade Greek-English study tools. To lexicographers all gods and all religions are equal and are mere manifestaons of a culture. John H. Ellio says Danker’s Lexicon gives the “meaning and funcon of terms in their social-cultural contexts”(Taylor, p. 49). Danker feels that with the Chrisan use of “churchly” words, “Thereby certain terms lose almost all connecon with the socio-cultural context that made them meaningful to their primary audiences”(Taylor, pp. 24, 25).

He evidently thinks that the New Testament is merely an historical record, about and for its subjects and not the living word of God for all generaons. When wring about the Spirit in Acts 2:18, Danker uses the term “culc rite”(Taylor, p. 22). The word ‘culc’ is rooted in the word ‘culture.’ Evidently he sees

‘religion’ as merely an extension of human ‘culture,’ not a revelaon from God. He says,

“In brief, it is important that wedo notdo not mulplymeanings based onmeanings based on the rich reservoir of synonyms in our language or on associaons based on elaborate theologicalelaborate theological tradion

tradion””(Taylor, pp. 25, 26).

Observe some examples of Danker’s wrecker-ball crashing against God’s clear light-bringing words.

 Danker calls the capitalizaon of the word “God,” a “morphological intrusion.” He says, “one may through such typography succeed in merely suggesng to polytheists that “our God is beer than your god…”” (Taylor, p. 25). Likewise in Bruce Metzger’sLexical Aids for Students of the New Testament , he rst denestheos as “a god” andkurios as “a lord.” He only capitalizes them in their second denions(Metzger, p. 8).Although these words have these secondary meanings, they are hardly paramount in a lexicon about the New Testament.

 Danker says, “In English, “preach” suggests a moralisc or didacc mode of communicaon…”Danker therefore prefers the secular “proclaim” in some contexts, as do most new version translators(Taylor, p. 23).

 Of the word ‘pray,’ Danker’s suggests the denions, “ask for,demanddemand.” Is it any wonder the name-it-and-claim-it TV preachers tell their listeners to “demand” things from God(Taylor, p. 25).

 The word of God is described as “powerful” in Heb. 4:12. Danker wants to defuse its dynamite and

“intensity.” He says,

“Distoron of the source text can also occur when a translator uses an expression that loads the source text with anegave intensitynegave intensity derived from a receptor’s term that has acquired a specialized sense. For example, the Greek verb [blasphemeō]] is clearly transliterated as ‘blaspheme’ meaning “to speak in a disrespecul way that demeans, denigrates, maligns.” The word is thus used in Greek about humans or transcendentbeings [plural!]beings [plural!], whereas in English the transliteraon “blaspheme” has acquired an exclusive associaon withsacralsacral aspects, and when used in translaons of the Bibleobscures the culturalobscures the cultural breadth in usage of the Greek term”(Taylor, p. 26).

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are the hallmarks of new version editors and lexicographers. Their general trend is to secularize, soen and neutralize the Bible. They can not bear to express some of the potenally spiritual aspects of a Greek word which are expressible in English. For example:

 While they will not transliterate ‘blaspheme,’ they do transliteratesheol andhades(hell), so you will not know how hot they are.

 Although the Greek wordouranos generally means ‘heaven,’ in certain contexts it can refer to the ‘sky. However the word ‘heaven’ is too “churchly,” so lexicons and new versions generally opt for the denion ‘sky.’

However, even Chadwick admits,

“Generally speaking, words which have a basic physical or material sense [sky] tend to acquire by transference non-physical or metaphorical senses [heaven]. One of LSJ’s frequent faults is a failure to disnguish these, especially when a corresponding English term has the same extension”(Chadwick, p. 20).

Lexicographers can do an about face when it serves to defuse the Bible. In these cases they do suggest that some words might be translated in a variety of ways. In other entries Danker has

many synonyms which he admits “may elicit outcries of inconsistency.” For example, Danker writes of “the boredom that might be hazarded by the repeon of “and” in a translaon...”(Taylor, pp. 25, 26).

Boredom? Is this a translaon of the Holy Bible or a comic book? When Danker wants tochange the the Bible he speaks out of the other side of his mouth saying,

“…Greek can be minimalist in its vocabulary compared to English. A seemingly endless variety of connotave possibilies can enrich the meaning of a lexeme, which the English language in its own way is able to color by drawing on its vast repertoire of synonyms within a specic semanc set”(Taylor, p. 26).

Mulple Meanings in

Mulple Meanings in Dierent ConteDierent Contexts Make Sense:xts Make Sense:

The fact is all all versions of the Bible use numerous English words to translate a single Greek word.

Chadwick says,

“If the word has only one meaning, what is somemes called monosemy , this may emerge from only a few examples. Butthis is rarethis is rare, since polysemy , the simultaneous existence of anumber of meanings, is the number of meanings, is the general rulegeneral rule. Where the word is used in a few quite dierentcontextscontexts, it will then be useful to sort the examples bycontextcontext””

(Chadwick, p. 20).

For example, the Greek worddioko is variously translated as the English: ‘persecute,’ ‘follow aer,’

‘follow,’ ‘suer persecuon,’ ‘given to,’ ‘press toward’ and ‘ensue.’ The Greek worddoxa is translated as ‘glory,’ ‘glorious,’ ‘honour,’ ‘praise,’ ‘dignity,’ and ‘worship.’ Lexicons are limited by space constraints and cannot list all possible English equivalents.They oen “separaThey oen “separate” “from their company” te” “from their company” holy KJBholy KJB words

words (Luke 6:22).

Looking rst at the leer ‘a,’ note the following examples in the KJB of mulple translaon equivalencies for just one Greek word.

Greek:

Greek: anabaino English:

English: spring up, grow up, come, enter, arise, rise up, go, come up again Greek:

Greek: anakeimai English:

English: sit at meat, guests, sit, sit down, be set down, lie, lean, at the table Greek:

Greek: anastrepho English:

English: return, have conversaon, live, abide, overthrow, behave, be used, pass Greek:

Greek: aule English:

English: palace, hall, sheepfold, fold, court

(An enclosure can be a sheepfold or a palace depending upon the context. The Greeks also had the context and could understand what was meant.)

The same phenomenon occurs with the Hebrew Old Testament. In the KJB the single Hebrew word sheol is translated 31 mes as ‘hell,’ 31 mes as ‘grave,’ and 3 mes as ‘pit.’ All three words correctly describe a pit, the depth of which varies. All men are buried in a grave or a pit, but all men do not go to hell. The context reveals where the person might be going and the KJB relays that informaon. The word sheol contains both the word ‘hole’ (shheeolol)andthe word ‘hel’ (sheheooll). (In German ‘hell’ is ‘holle’;

have you ever heard of a bad place referred to as a ‘hell hole’?). All go to a hole; some go to a hole called ‘hell; it just depends how far down you ride the elevator of the pit – just to a shallow grave or

down to the deep “enlarged” pit in the center of the earth (Isa. 5:14).

The Language of the King James Bible traces the etymology of the word (s)heol back to the Hebrew wordHel el, meaning Lucifer. The wordshelel and(s)heol are related to ‘burning’ and ‘shining’ (like the hot sun). It is seen in English as ‘hell,’ in Greek as ‘helios,’ in Middle English as ‘helle,’ and in Danish as

‘helvede.’ Many new versions and lexicons join the Jehovah Witness sect and refuse to translate the wordsheol , just as they refuse to translate the Greek word ‘hades’ in the New Testament. They simply leave the Hebrew wordsheoland the Greek wordhades untranslated and carry its leers into English (to transliterate). They do not transliterate ouranos(heaven). Why? It is not as hot! New Age Bible Version (chapter 18) exposes why new versions avoid the word ‘hell’; their editors do not believe in it!

They somemes substute the word ‘grave’ or ‘death.’

“Hell’ is a powerful blood pressure word because its collocaons [nearby words] in the Bible are words such as ‘ame’ and ‘tormented.’ Powerless people use the powerful word ‘hell’ to curse and thereby appear ‘powerful.’ The word ‘hell’ has a meaning recognized by the English mind;sheol and hades have no such meaning. They are powerless. Can you imagine the weakness of an altar call which warns of going tosheol ? (The Bible’s own hot denion of ‘hell’ will be explored later in this chapter.) The three words used to translatesheol in the KJB (hell, grave, and pit) include all aspects of the

“Hell’ is a powerful blood pressure word because its collocaons [nearby words] in the Bible are words such as ‘ame’ and ‘tormented.’ Powerless people use the powerful word ‘hell’ to curse and thereby appear ‘powerful.’ The word ‘hell’ has a meaning recognized by the English mind;sheol and hades have no such meaning. They are powerless. Can you imagine the weakness of an altar call which warns of going tosheol ? (The Bible’s own hot denion of ‘hell’ will be explored later in this chapter.) The three words used to translatesheol in the KJB (hell, grave, and pit) include all aspects of the

In document Vista de Siglos XIX-XX (página 35-88)

Documento similar