Greek seems like a hard language, and you are sure to be put off by the complex presentation of it that inevitably happens at the higher levels of church clergy. But people have been scared away from it unnecessarily. It’s not complex. It was a real language. Real people spoke it.
Hundreds of millions of people put their trust into the work of a handful of men who have been responsible for the transmission of the Scriptures from their original languages. Hardly anyone reads them in the original languages. The thought patterns of the author, the deliberate word choices, and the intentional obscurities of the texts are all but lost and can never be meditated on by anybody.
We are in fact told not to look to closely at original texts unless we are instructed on the “proper” way at a seminary under “qualified” Ph.Ds. Yet which seminary of which sect? And which Ph.D. of which doctrinal bias?
In the case of Islam, a great majority of Muslims read the Qur’an in its original language, or learn to. They will tell us that it must be read in Arabic and that translations are not to be relied upon. They would consider a watered-down paraphrase of the Qu’ran an abomination.
Conversely, a typical clergyman or pastor will tell us that a gross paraphrase of the Bible is “just as good as any other” because after all the “Holy Spirit can use anything”. Laypeople have not realized the amount of trust they have extended to translators. Were the translators being faithful and honest, really? Unbiased? Factual? Lets put forth this question, if Bible translations were labeled this way:
- New International Interpretation
- New Living Interpretation
- King James Interpretation
- Good News Interpretation
- New American Interpretation
- English Standard Interpretation
Would you buy any of them? Would you entrust your life to what you read? Any yet many do, blindly following the advice to “simply trust” that “the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth.”
As was the case with the lawyers, scribes, and religious authorities of Jesus’ time, the Christian authorities today are playing the people with a massive gimmick of “Don’t ask too many questions, just trust us.” It is a gimmick that is worth a lot of money, fame, and accolades. It doesn’t take much (especially these days) to look up in dictionaries and lexicons the words that are consistently fed to us by the grandees. All one has to do is log on to the Internet. I believe this is a noble thing to do. Do not believe everything you hear.
Most, if not all, of the Bible has been defaced and skewed linguistically through heavy religious bias. One good example is 1 Peter 3:7. Greek and Hebrew have no specific words for husband/wife. Occasionally Greek words may have a broad meaning, and the translator must choose, as is the case with sunoikeo. Sunoikeo occurs only once in the NT, in Peter’s exhortation.
sunoikeo συνοικέω 1
I.to dwell together, Plat., etc.; ς. τινί to live with, Aesch., etc.
2.to live together in wedlock, cohabit, Hdt., Eur., etc.; τούτων συνοικησάντων γίνεται Κλεισθένης from their marriage sprang Cleisthenes, Hdt.
3.metaph., ἄχθος ᾧ ξυνοικεῖ the grief with which he is associated, Soph.; so, ς. φόβῳ Eur.; ἡδοναῖς, ἀμαθίᾳ Plat.; ἱππικοῖς ἐν ἤθεσι ξ. being versed in the ways of horses, Eur.
b.reversely, with the thing as subject, γῆρας ἵνα πάντα κακὰ κακῶν ξυνοικεῖ old age with which all evils are associated, Soph.; of the poisoned robe of Hercules, to cling closely, id=Soph.
II. to colonise jointly with, Κυρηναίοισι ς. Λιβύην Hdt.:—Pass., of a country, to be thickly peopled, Xen.
Source: Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.
Many times words are just outright changed because they are thought to be “figures of speech”. Maybe the text is a figure of speech, and maybe it isn’t. Translators are no longer translators but interpreters when they change the words. This is why Bible translations are largely speculations and not what’s actually there. Hypotassomenai [G5293], meaning those-being-subject, is a participle verb and not an imperative command. In 1 Pet. 3:5 it is translated correctly, “…those hoping into God, ordered themselves, being subject [hypotassomenai] to their own men.”
It suddenly becomes difficult to argue that something is an imperative command when it isn’t. Take note of how Peter spoke of women and men in the plural, not singular. An accurate, and far less biased translation of 1 Peter 3:1-7 would therefore be this:
Likewise the women, those-being-subject [hypotassomenai] to their own men, in order that even if any are disobedient to the word, through the up-turn of the women, without a word they will be won over having beheld your pure up-turn in fear.
Who should not be the outwardly plaiting of hair and putting around of things of gold, or the dressing of garments of the world…
“Up-turn” comes from the Greek noun 391 anastrophḗ (from 303 /aná, “down to up” and 4762 /stréphō, “turn”) – properly, up-turning. In external Greek literature it means turning back, recourse, etc. (see Liddel).
Peter grouped a bunch of nouns into three symbolic points as seen in bold. Kosmos in this sentence is always interpreted as “adorning” and plugged into the first part of the sentence. But this is the literal reading of the the sentence and it has always confused scholars since kosmos is a nominative noun. The only verb in the statement is to be found at the beginning. It is fascinating that out of 186 instances of the word kosmos in the New Testament, meaning world, this one time we are told that Peter had in mind something totally different. Taking into account the definite articles (the) we can read “the secret” rather than “a hidden” and “the meek, tranquil spirit” rather than “a gentle quiet spirit”:
but rather the Secret Man of the heart, in the incorruptible Meek and Tranquil Spirit, who is before Theos, of great cost.
The men, likewise, dwelling [colonizing jointly] with them, according to knowledge, as to a weaker vessel — to the woman– imparting honor, as also being joint-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.
1 Peter 3:7 literal
When it comes to the original, the concepts and thinking of the writers suddenly becomes far less clear. The NT, along with the OT, is a plethora of obscurities hidden from the common man by all who interpret it. Euphony (making it sound good, sensible) is their goal, not translation. Those who really know the languages of the Bible would readily admit they understand a great deal of what is in there, if they were honest. However, in a position of authority or a good paying relgious position it is preferable to them to not be so transparent. Why if the grandee doesn’t have a clue about so many of these texts, how could any lay person? So the game continues—what the lay-person doesn’t know, won’t hurt him.
Ten Commandments Literally
/in Uncategorized /by MattExodus 20
Ten Words
1 And elohim ordered אֵת–the
whole of the Words of These-ones, to say,
2 Myself is Yahweh your elohe who caused you to go out from the earth of dual-siege, from the house of slaves.
3 He is not becoming[1] to-yourself elohim of those-behind[2] upon my faces.
4 You are not making to-yourself a hewn-image and the whole of a form who is in the Dual-heavens from the top[3] and who is in the Earth from the bottom, and who is in the Dual-waters from the bottom to the Earth.
5 You are not bowing yourself to-them and you are not serving them for myself is Yahweh your elohe, a jealous el, he-who-visits [is] a bent-one[4] of the fathers upon the builders [sons] upon the third-ones and upon the fourth-ones to those-who-hate-me.
6 And he-who-makes a kind-one to friends,[5] to those-who-love-me, and to those-who-guard my commandments.
7 You are not lifting אֵת–the name of Yahweh your elohe to the False-one, for Yahweh is not freeing אֵת–who is lifting אֵת–his name to the False-one.
8 Mark[6] אֵת-a day of the Cessation to set-him-apart.
9 Six days you are serving, and you have made
the whole of your service.[7]
10 And the day of the Seventh-one is a cessation
to Yahweh your elohe.[8] You are not making the whole of a service, you, and your builder [son], and
your built-one [daughter], and your servant, and your female-servant, and your behemah, and your offroader who is in your gates.
11 For six days Yahweh has made אֵת–the Dual-Heavens and אֵת–the Earth and אֵת–the Sea, and אֵת–the whole who is in them, and he is resting in the Day of the Seventh-one. Upon an upright-one Yahweh has kneeled אֵת–the day of the Seventh-one and he is setting-him-apart.
12 Make-heavy [glorify] אֵת–your father and אֵת–your mother to-the-purpose of making-long your days upon the Red–one, whom Yahweh your elohe is he-who-gives to-yourself.
13 You are not breaking-in-pieces.
14 You are not going-astray.[9]
15 You are not stealing.
16 You are not eyeing in your friend a witness of a false-one.
17 You are not desiring a house of your friend, you are not desiring a woman of your friend, and his slave, and his female-slave, and his traveler [bull], and his foaming-one [he-ass], and the whole of which is to your friend.
18 And the whole of the Gathered-one [people] are those-who-see אֵת–the Voices and אֵת–the Torches and אֵת–the voice of the Horn and אֵת–the smoking Mountain. And the Gathered-one [people] is seeing and they are wavering, and they are standing-firm from-afar.
[1]
Hebrew לֹא יִהיֶה
lo yiyeh this is the third person
masculine singular of the verb to be/become. Translators have always twisted
this somehow into “have”.
[2]
Hebrew #312, the acharim, those following, those who come behind. Cf.
BDB: אַחֵר
adjective another (properly one coming behind).
[3]
Hebrew מִמַּעַל
mima’al from the top. The same construct is used in Gen. 22:9, “he
placed him on the Altar, from the top [mima’al] of the wood” see
also Ex. 25:21, “you have given the cover upon the chest from-to-the-top
[milma’alah]”
[4]
How does Yahweh “visit” an “iniquity”? This is quite the semantical feat of
translators to force “visit” to mean “punish, judge, hold responsible” or similar
idea. This verb is one that
Strong’s #5771, avon. Bent one, bowed,
crooked. From #5753, avah, to bend, twist. Considered to be
in opposition to the metaphor of being “straight”. The basic verb has been
interpreted to be figurative for perversity, iniquity, crooked, amiss.
Hence,
“He has walled-up my roads in a cut-one, my paths he has
bent [avah]. Lam. 3:9 literal
[5]
The Alaphim / Friends
Hebrew #505 alaphim. Plural. Eleph is the singular.
There is no word for “generations” in this verse, and “showing kindness to
thousands” makes no sense. Only thousands? The word could be potentially a
variety of things. As the name of the first letter “A” (alaph) in the alphabet it
is apparently used as a numeral hence the interpretation of “a thousand”. The
root verb and primary meaning is to be familiar/accustomed. Used of
animals, tame/taught-ones. In the Piel form to teach. Eleph
is also apparently used of a “cow” and “ox” because the letter א evolved from a
glyph of an ox head. But this is not the standard word used for oxen or cows
and only occurs in the plural alaphim:
“You cause him to rule in the works of your dual-hands; the
whole you have put underneath his dual-feet, a flock, and friends [alaphim],
their whole, and also the behemoths of the field.” Ps. 8:6-7
But what is the point of specifying that cows/oxen are
underneath the feet of Adam? Eleph is also a town of the Benjaminites
Jos. 18:28
[6]
Hebrew #2142, zakar. To recall/remind in the sense of memorializing,
marking down, make a note, recording something. Hence,
“Take a lyre, circle a city, a harlot who-is-forgotten,
cause-good strumming, abound a song, for-the-purpose of being-memorialized
[zakar].” Isa. 23:16 literal
“and Yoah [brother-of-Yah] son of Asaph [gatherer] the Recorder
[mazakar].” Isa. 36:3 literal
This translation of the word makes much more sense when we
find “Yahweh is memorializing Abraham” (Gen. 19:29) since the idea of
Yahweh remembering Abraham or anything else is essentially an absurdity
since the idea of God forgetting is an absurdity, and it’s hard to imagine the
Hebrew writing such a thing. See also #2146 zikkaron memorial,
and #2143, zeker memorial.
[7]
Hebrew #4399, melakah. A prescribed work, service, deputyship. Feminine
of #4398 malak angel/messenger. Not simply work, for it is
not rooted in abad #5647, but more like ministry.
[8]
Hebrew #7676, shabbat. From the verb shabat to cease, desist.
Related to Genesis 2:2:
“And elohim is finishing in the Seventh Day his service
[melakah] whom he has made and is ceasing [shabat] in the
Seventh Day from the whole of his work whom he has made.” Gen 2:2 literal
[9]
Hebrew #5003 naaph. Properly, to go astray. From J. Fuerst:
“here and here and in the middle Jesus”
/in Uncategorized /by MattJohn’s linguistics are strange and difficult to picture in this verse compared with his word usage in other parts of his writings:
What does “here and here” mean? This is weird. Elsewhere, John is a little more descriptive with similar language:
In this instance John uses enteuthen and ekeithen which mean here and there. In John 19:18 he repeats enteuthen and enteuthen.
Language to describe “sides” is not used in these passages. It is said that “middle” implies “two sides” but this is conjecture. Middle (Grk. #3319 mesos) has a broad usage and can be used for “sheep in the middle of wolves” Matt. 10:16, “the wicked in the middle of the righteous” Matt. 13:49, “the middle of the sea” Mark 6:47, or “the middle of the city” Luk. 21:21.
This matters when there is a more specific word metaxu #3342 that means “between”.
Whatever kind of cryptic picture John is trying to paint, he is clearly not trying to describe to us two people crucified on each side of Jesus as the tradition states.
The Queen of Heavens
/in Uncategorized /by MattThe NT word for kingdom is basileia. This is a feminine noun. In ancient Greek this word is used for both
1) a queen
2) a kingdom
The words are exactly the same. So how do we know if Jesus was speaking about a “queen” rather than a “kingdom”?
Scholars have always pointed to context (at least amongst themselves) as the general public was never given a chance to see such things. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon merely states, “βασιλεία, βασιλείας, ἡ (from βασιλεύω; to be distinguished from βασιλεία a queen.” But why? Contexts are not always clear.
If contexts dictate translation, it would seem the semantic context of Matt 13:38 would be a give away:
“Sons of the Kingdom” makes no sense semantically. Poetically, sure. We could construe any weird writ as “poetical”. But as far as the word “sons” go a “kingdom” does a kingdom give birth to sons?
The genitive 3rd person singular feminine relative pronoun herself is always translated as “itself” in Matt. 11:12, 12:25 and similar passages.
If you’re in the business of encrypting, encoding, making riddles, creating enigma…your words are going to appear very strange to people, obviously. This is why the Bible has never been translated literally in any true sense of the word.
“Olam” as “the Future”
/in Uncategorized /by MattIn my many years of Hebrew study, I have often come across the sneaky practice of scholars which takes a simple objective word and interprets (more like morphs) it into a more subjective concept for the purpose of avoiding readings that seem too crazy for common sense to endure.
In studying the “progress” of translations over history, one can easily notice the increasingly subjective translation methods employed in the more modern ones. Why? The modern sentiment has far less tolerance for fantastical ideas. Thomas Jefferson stripped the Gospels of the miracles, for example, and that was quite a long time ago.
The Hebrew word “olam” עוֹלָם is noted by the master Gesenius as being far more often used in the context of the future than anything else (cf. Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon), but is never translated as such. Why? Because it would create contexts and readings that might be a little too radical for the modern sentiment. But guess what? The Hebrew Scriptures are mostly about revealing “the future”. In my mind there is little or no difference between such an idea and time travel. Visions from the future are exactly that–time travel. The future through a prophetic channel somehow “travels” into the past and then gets written down by the prophet. This is hands-down fantastic and radical, is it not? Otherwise they are not real visions but subjective promises given by a higher power, or as some doctrines might put it, immutable decisions of what will happen because the Higher Power will make it happen. This is the endless hodge-podging practice of Bible interpretation that changes with every wind of every era in order to make it “relevant”.
Taking a look at the word Olam we find that it can easily be defined objectively to some extent by its root alam (#5956) which means to conceal or hide. The literal meaning is vanishing point/horizon. It must refer therefore to that which is hidden, or out of sight.
There is another element to consider. Olam is a Hebrew word that appears around 15 or 16 times with a definite article, i.e. the Olam. It also often appears with the preposition “to” לְעֹלָֽם “to Olam”. There is no definiteness to “eternity” or “everlasting” and hence no such thing as “the eternity” or the “everlasting”. But there is such thing as “the Past”, “the Present”, and “the Future”. And since Olam refers to that which is hidden and out of sight, it can’t logically refer to “the past” or “the present”…
But here’s what we end up with in an objective translation:
“the Woman however, is glory of a man.”
/in Uncategorized /by MattThis passage has always been one of the most controversial because of its appearance as a “black and white” precept. But what if it was an enigma? A dark saying? What if we paid a little closer attention to the finer details of the text rather than ignoring them? The definite articles in Paul’s writing are taken to mean he is talking about a specific man or woman. Traditional interpretation pays little attention to definite articles, if any at all. To emphasize the contrast the words with a definite article are capitalized (i.e. Man, Woman, Head). The presence of definite articles as opposed to possessives or indefinites (i.e. a woman, a man, her head, his head) should not be overlooked. Getting the enigmatic symbols right is difficult. It’s not me who’s playing around with words, it’s Paul:
It’s in Colossians where Paul speaks of the “son of his love” as “a mirror-like-image of the unseen Theos, firstborn of the whole establishment…” Col. 1:13 literal
This text is not as black and white as was thought. In fact, it is incredibly obscure. If you have read this before in any context you have no doubt applied a enormous amount of presupposition to the meanings of the words without realizing it simply because it is so obscure. Obscure, dark sayings have a way of forcing our minds to “fill in the gaps” of meaning. But how do we know what to fill the gaps with? Even the thought that Paul is referring to the narrative of Adam and Eve is an assumption, since we have no quote or specific reference by Paul about it. The inherent problem with obscure language is that anyone can build any kind of dogma they wish from it. This is precisely why doctrine and denominations have multiplied beyond reason in the last few centuries. The more accessible biblical text has become to the masses, the more multiplied the dogmas have become until the point at which it is now—a massive jungle of babel.
If Paul intended to teach a basic male-female leadership paradigm here, he failed miserably. Exousia-authority is the highest form of authority and means a de-facto rulership or dominance, not some pseudo “servant-leadership” which is a new linguistic slight-of-hand invented by a failing modern church. The enigmatic text would seem to tell of an authority of “angels/messengers” being placed upon the (governmental) Head a specific “woman” (nation). Angels are defined as “sons of Elohim” in the Hebrew scriptures.
Pondering further, one could think of the symbolic pillars that were erected in the OT and the “oil” that was subsequently smeared on pillars’ heads. Is “anointing oil” upon the head symbolic of “angels” which is symbolic of “sons of Elohim”? And what of the first literal word of the Bible in Genesis 1:1, “In the head“, which is indeed the feminine construct of the Hebrew word for head? The mystery of it all would seem that the entire language of the Bible is enigmatic, meaning that although the world needs to be saved, it is in fact not for the world to know the truth. The trouble is, who can know it? He who has an ear to hear, right?
Classical Greek provides plenty of words and means to teach such a paradigm so that this could have been written in an indisputable manner and a 1000 times easier to understand. When one reads and studies a forced euphonic translation of an obscure text, confusion inevitably results because it is no longer possible to add up the actual thoughts of the author (Paul, Jesus, etc.). Their thoughts will seem inconsistent at best or contradictory at worse which is the case with a great many translations. What was Paul thinking? Paul knows. Elsewhere we have additional thoughts of Paul that we must take into account:
It is Paul who has in mind the body as symbolic thing referring to a gathered people. Everywhere important words are used symbolically, and the trouble is knowing when he is using a word symbolically and when he isn’t. Riddles are the toughest things to figure out for anyone, and scholarly degrees don’t help one bit. In fact, academia will do very well to make you fudge the riddles.
Perhaps we read this wrong all along? Perhaps Paul is speaking sequentially? First the Man is in debt to the Woman, then the Woman becomes in debt to the Man? Perhaps the Man rules the body of the Woman first, then later the Woman rules the body of the Man? Maybe—understanding this as an enigma—Paul is speaking of two different men and two different women? Perhaps this is summation of a greater enigma of the Scripture regarding the first woman (a harlot) ruled by the Man, and afterwards, a second Woman ruling the first, as when a maidservant displaces her mistress…
What are you saying Paul?
Some will regard this hunting of pseudo-definition and deep riddle-solving as a complete violation of the whole of Christian orthodoxy. Of course it is. The orthodoxy is a tyrannical bitch goddess that entraps men in her lair where they whither away in self-denial. As long as the grandees keep scaring the common man away from breaking with the traditions and digging into the enigmatic possibilities of scripture by holding an abstract concoction of “hell” over their heads, they will continue to slave away in the tar pits of Egypt, unsaved.
An enigma necessitates the study of every individual word of a given text. The hypothesis that this and other sayings are not what they seem but constructed of an entirely different language or “tongue” (i.e. “man” and “woman” do not mean theologically what we take them to mean socially) is indeed an idea that would undermine the entire known paradigm of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, which has always been controlled and dictated by the elite anyway.
And that’s just fine with me.
The Hebrew thought of “world”?
/in Uncategorized /by Mattתֵּבֵל
This word, tebel, #8398, means world. It is a highly “extended” word, i.e. a “poetic synonym of earth” (eretz). But it is hard to pinpoint just what the idea behind this is since it is always used in “poetic” prose.
The root is יָבַל yabal, #2986, which means to conduct or bear along, as a river bears along a boat.
This sounds like it could be similar to our modern idea of “world” as that collective human force that carries us along whether we like it or not, and hence the adage, “to go against the flow”. The world goes…and it takes you with it. If it invents the phone, you will be inevitably be compelled to use it if you want to survive. If it discards the phone and invents the smartphone and Facebook, you will inevitably be compelled to use it to survive. Going against the flow of the world is always, I think, a drastic move with tough isolating consequences. One is forced to weigh the pros and cons, and it is never easy. The only alternative, as I see it, is to rule the world.
Here’s some other interesting related words from the same root:
יָבָל yabal, #2988 – watercourse, stream
יָבָל Yabal, #2989, – son of Lemech (Gen. 4:20)
יַבֵּל yabbal, #2990 – a running, supperating (sore? – Lev. 22:22)
יִבְלְעָם Yibbl-Am #2991 – a conducting people, worldly people? This is a city in Manasseh. Thought by Strong to be “From bala’ and am; devouring people”
Tapping into the text of the NT we find Jesus providing an allegorical interpretation of this,
the singular “good seed” interestingly is equated with the plural sons…
John the Baptist vs. Elijah
/in Uncategorized /by MattThe book of Job is heavy in enigma. It seems to have multiple contexts by which one could interpret. Is it poetry? Is it a historical dialog? Who speaks poetically in dialogue? Perhaps the author had in mind something even deeper?
In the following passage from Job, translators have always added the word “way” which is not in the original text. The words “one” and “two” are in the feminine form (achat, shtayyim) which is intentionally different from the masculine form as nothing in the sentence dictates the gender.
It’s like the dark allegory of three women. Were there not three “Mary’s” at the foot of the cross, and three who went to the tomb? Nah, must be just coincidence.
The Gospel appears to have its own hidden agenda….but you have to pay real close attention…
Aaron’s name is of unknown origin the scholars say. Or is it? As it happens his name aharon (אַהֲרוֹן) is spelled and pronounced exactly as this word acharon (אַחֲרוֹן), with the exception of a chet (ח) in place of the het (ה), a very slight difference. Is there something here about remembering sons? And what does God remember? His oath, his promise….
And are you sure you had the right translation when you read that verse about Elijah [My El is Yah]? Jesus spoke in the present participle active, “is about“….
Jesus again breaks the linguistic boundaries of time. It’s almost as though Jesus is saying that Johnny boy is both from the “past” and “future”. What the? I suppose he is right to preface his bizarre, enigmatic statement with, “If you are willing to accept it…”.
It’s a funny thing to ponder about what time-space really is. The Greek-Western concept plots points along a line. Both ends are open to infinitum. But look at how we are forced to symbolize infinitum:
It’s closed and not open. The only way to express infinity/eternity is with a closed line, a.k.a a circle. Is time closed? If it is, Jesus would certainly know. And this “living” and “active” book, might actually be living and active….
Note that “day one” in the Hebrew is י֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד yom achad which is exactly the same reading as found in Genesis 1:5, י֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד yom achad the first day/day one.
Is Zion a “woman” now? Let’s add to the mystery—Zion means Dry-Land.
The Heavens are Counting Ones
/in Uncategorized /by MattGod told Abraham about Heaven.
The Mesapharim
The Hebrew for “to count” is saphar. The passive participle masculine plural means those-who-count, it is written mesapharim and is similar to chayyim (living ones), cherubim, raphaim (giant ones), or nephalim (fallen ones), etc. The word mesapharim, or counting ones, appears in two scriptures,
Not “in the twinkling of an eye” but “in a wink of an eye”
/in Uncategorized /by MattBringing out more of the concrete meaning in these words is important as it allows us to draw a some important connections with the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul chooses the word wink of an eye to help us understand this secret. This is the only instance of the the word in the New Testament. It is connected to the Hebrew רֶגַע rega which is a noun that means wink.
It is based on the Hebrew verb רָגַע raga, which according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance means,
Let’s examine a few scriptures where this word shows up.
How agenda ruined Scripture translation – 1 Peter 3:1-7
/in Uncategorized /by MattGreek seems like a hard language, and you are sure to be put off by the complex presentation of it that inevitably happens at the higher levels of church clergy. But people have been scared away from it unnecessarily. It’s not complex. It was a real language. Real people spoke it.
Hundreds of millions of people put their trust into the work of a handful of men who have been responsible for the transmission of the Scriptures from their original languages. Hardly anyone reads them in the original languages. The thought patterns of the author, the deliberate word choices, and the intentional obscurities of the texts are all but lost and can never be meditated on by anybody.
We are in fact told not to look to closely at original texts unless we are instructed on the “proper” way at a seminary under “qualified” Ph.Ds. Yet which seminary of which sect? And which Ph.D. of which doctrinal bias?
In the case of Islam, a great majority of Muslims read the Qur’an in its original language, or learn to. They will tell us that it must be read in Arabic and that translations are not to be relied upon. They would consider a watered-down paraphrase of the Qu’ran an abomination.
Conversely, a typical clergyman or pastor will tell us that a gross paraphrase of the Bible is “just as good as any other” because after all the “Holy Spirit can use anything”. Laypeople have not realized the amount of trust they have extended to translators. Were the translators being faithful and honest, really? Unbiased? Factual? Lets put forth this question, if Bible translations were labeled this way:
Would you buy any of them? Would you entrust your life to what you read? Any yet many do, blindly following the advice to “simply trust” that “the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth.”
As was the case with the lawyers, scribes, and religious authorities of Jesus’ time, the Christian authorities today are playing the people with a massive gimmick of “Don’t ask too many questions, just trust us.” It is a gimmick that is worth a lot of money, fame, and accolades. It doesn’t take much (especially these days) to look up in dictionaries and lexicons the words that are consistently fed to us by the grandees. All one has to do is log on to the Internet. I believe this is a noble thing to do. Do not believe everything you hear.
Most, if not all, of the Bible has been defaced and skewed linguistically through heavy religious bias. One good example is 1 Peter 3:7. Greek and Hebrew have no specific words for husband/wife. Occasionally Greek words may have a broad meaning, and the translator must choose, as is the case with sunoikeo. Sunoikeo occurs only once in the NT, in Peter’s exhortation.
sunoikeo συνοικέω 1
I.to dwell together, Plat., etc.; ς. τινί to live with, Aesch., etc.
2.to live together in wedlock, cohabit, Hdt., Eur., etc.; τούτων συνοικησάντων γίνεται Κλεισθένης from their marriage sprang Cleisthenes, Hdt.
3.metaph., ἄχθος ᾧ ξυνοικεῖ the grief with which he is associated, Soph.; so, ς. φόβῳ Eur.; ἡδοναῖς, ἀμαθίᾳ Plat.; ἱππικοῖς ἐν ἤθεσι ξ. being versed in the ways of horses, Eur.
b.reversely, with the thing as subject, γῆρας ἵνα πάντα κακὰ κακῶν ξυνοικεῖ old age with which all evils are associated, Soph.; of the poisoned robe of Hercules, to cling closely, id=Soph.
II. to colonise jointly with, Κυρηναίοισι ς. Λιβύην Hdt.:—Pass., of a country, to be thickly peopled, Xen.
Source: Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.
Many times words are just outright changed because they are thought to be “figures of speech”. Maybe the text is a figure of speech, and maybe it isn’t. Translators are no longer translators but interpreters when they change the words. This is why Bible translations are largely speculations and not what’s actually there. Hypotassomenai [G5293], meaning those-being-subject, is a participle verb and not an imperative command. In 1 Pet. 3:5 it is translated correctly, “…those hoping into God, ordered themselves, being subject [hypotassomenai] to their own men.”
It suddenly becomes difficult to argue that something is an imperative command when it isn’t. Take note of how Peter spoke of women and men in the plural, not singular. An accurate, and far less biased translation of 1 Peter 3:1-7 would therefore be this:
“Up-turn” comes from the Greek noun 391 anastrophḗ (from 303 /aná, “down to up” and 4762 /stréphō, “turn”) – properly, up-turning. In external Greek literature it means turning back, recourse, etc. (see Liddel).
Peter grouped a bunch of nouns into three symbolic points as seen in bold. Kosmos in this sentence is always interpreted as “adorning” and plugged into the first part of the sentence. But this is the literal reading of the the sentence and it has always confused scholars since kosmos is a nominative noun. The only verb in the statement is to be found at the beginning. It is fascinating that out of 186 instances of the word kosmos in the New Testament, meaning world, this one time we are told that Peter had in mind something totally different. Taking into account the definite articles (the) we can read “the secret” rather than “a hidden” and “the meek, tranquil spirit” rather than “a gentle quiet spirit”:
When it comes to the original, the concepts and thinking of the writers suddenly becomes far less clear. The NT, along with the OT, is a plethora of obscurities hidden from the common man by all who interpret it. Euphony (making it sound good, sensible) is their goal, not translation. Those who really know the languages of the Bible would readily admit they understand a great deal of what is in there, if they were honest. However, in a position of authority or a good paying relgious position it is preferable to them to not be so transparent. Why if the grandee doesn’t have a clue about so many of these texts, how could any lay person? So the game continues—what the lay-person doesn’t know, won’t hurt him.