Does the Bible teach for one to Hate? (Luke 14:26)

[Phil Hellmuth]

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple"

Luke 14:26

Please explain :wakeup

[E20]

May be you could post the preceding verses and the verses after. I guess with that line I could maybe think it is referring that you should only love God and not be in love with this world and it's possesions and worry for the next. It also says be my disciple, during that time beinga disciple of Jesus meant having no life except spreading the word of God and following J and having no love except for God. That's my opnion of it, I'm no thelogian or Bible scholar, ask Don Quioxte or Extra Stout.
Also, as with any text there are many translations and intpretations.

[Phil Hellmuth]

The common reply I guess is to soften the word of Hate and it makes sense.

But this opens a can of worms.

Does ethics automatically matter in the bible and what God says? What about the story of Abraham. God says killing of his son is something he must do to show his ultimate love and passion for him. Obviously, we know that is ethically wrong, but in God terms, it may be right and justified. The ethics part is suspended here. Why can't the ethics be suspended in this passage as well?

[E20]

The Abraham story can be defended by pointing out that, God proclaimed Issac to be the hearld of the covenant, but a little while later he asked Abrahman to kill him, now that wouldn't make sense logically. If he were to be the key to the covenant with God, why would God want him dead? I'm presuming both Abrahman and Issac both knew this did not make any sense, but their faith transcended their reason and they believed that God had it in their best interest. What I'm trying to get at is that God wanted to see what Abrahman was going to do even though he knew that Issac needed to serve a purpose for God on Earth. As far as Ethics go and what God says has to be right if you believe that he is an all perfect omnipotent being.

[purist]

I believe you have to interpret within a broad context of all scripture, not just each excerpt. The bible like other forms of literature often uses extreme language in order to make a point. The basic point of the verse is that to be a true follower of God one must be willing to love God first, i.e. it takes more than lip service. At the time when jesus spoke this, he was contendin with a "church" which was overly preocuppied with the appearance of holiness at the expense of showing love, for god or anyone else for that matter. The Pharisees were quite a self righteous sect of the church which had lost touch with what it meant to love. In addition, the disciples which jesus drew unto him were called into a mission field that would require them to give up much of what they had known as their normal life, including family, for the cause of christ's mission. In the end, many would give the ultimate sacrifice, their lives.

So, you have to keep the discussion jesus is having in the context of: a) who he was addressing, and b) the circumstances in which he was speaking, and c) the greater context of the sum of scripture.

Concerning Abraham and Issaac, it is a story of faith. Abraham's faith that God: a)would not allow him to go through with killing Issaac, or b) that if he did kill his son, God could ressurect him to life.

The story, of course, is full of symbolism of God's own sacrifice of his son and the resurrection that would come.

[Bobby Joe]

Tha bibel tot me to hate tha gays

[Don Quixote]

E20 and the Pure One are basically right here. Ancient literature often uses extreme language to illustrate a point -- "hate" in Lk 14, for instance, is intended to draw a stark contrast between the love one has for God, and the love one has for the world and other people. But it would be incorrect to read it as, "Jesus wants me to HATE my parents and have nothing to do with them," because we know this to be inconsistent with the whole of scripture.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

But this raises a can of worms.




How about you work on mastering popular cliches before stepping up to interpreting the bible.

[thispego]

:lmao

[Phil Hellmuth]

I wasn't implying anything or actually believing in the viewpoints I wrote. I was playing devils advocate.

So, you defenders and well knowledgeable followers of the bible, do you believe in every word written in there, or do you take pieces from it and get the main points or illustrations, or do you actually believe stories that seem extraordinary?

Also, school me on who wrote the bible, how does the description of God and the stories of God can be explained in the physical world compromised from the individuals of regular human beings? It seems to be like a blind man trying to describe the color yellow.

[BigZak]

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple"

Luke 14:26

Please explain :wakeup


pretty easy Phil, anything in the bible that doesn't preach love...man fucked that translation up...N E X T...




for those needing further expository, God wants us to love HIM above everyone and everything else...

and THAT, is why 100% of us will fall short of the glory...

[Don Quixote]

I wasn't implying anything or actually believing in the viewpoints I wrote. I was playing devils advocate.

So, you defenders and well knowledgeable followers of the bible, do you believe in every word written in there, or do you take pieces from it and get the main points or illustrations, or do you actually believe stories that seem extraordinary?

Also, school me on who wrote the bible, how does the description of God and the stories of God can be explained in the physical world compromised from the individuals of regular human beings? It seems to be like a blind man trying to describe the color yellow.

Okay, you have two good questions. The answer to your first question would actually take us through the first 3-4 weeks of Systematic Theology I! As for how we view the Bible, there is some variance in the Christian tradition. My own evangelical view is that it is completely inspired and trustworthy (at least in the original copies), so that to disbelieve or disobey it is to disbelieve of disobey God. So, yes, we believe every word, even the things that seem extraordinary to us modern types -- miracles, Jesus being incarnated in a virgin and raised from the dead, creation, and the like.

Does this mean that we are to take every word to be literal? Obviously, no. Just as we use figures of speech, illustrations, or exaggerated language to make a point, the ancient writers (who were men) used a variety of literary genres to say what they had to say. The Bible is not all narrative (x happened, then y happened, then z happened). Much of it is poetry (e.g., Psalms), there is wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), prophecy (thus saith the Lord), and that is just the Old Testament. The New Testament uses Gospel (an entirely separate type of literature), history, letters of instruction, and Revelation, which is prophecy. The key here is to interpret the Bible by taking into account its genre of literature. It would be inappropriate, for instance, to interpret a Psalm as history.

As for your second question: who wrote the Bible?, it also has a historical and theological answer. Theologically, Christians believe God wrote it. As for what exactly we mean by that, there is, again, some variance. I hold to a theory of verbal inspiration, that God inspired certain men to write down what he wanted them to write, but in a way that used their particular language, personality, and writing style. Paul's letters certainly reflect Paul's personality, and read much differently than John's. There is more to say about this (I can get into a more involved discussion of how we got the "Holy Bible" as it is today, if you're interested.), but our view of the Bible is not the same as the Moslem's view of the Koran, in which Allah dictated the very words of heaven into Mohammed's mouth, and they're not allowed to paraphrase or augment it.

You make a good observation -- John trying to describe heaven is like trying to describe yellow to a blind man. Fortunately, most of the Bible deals with things we CAN understand!

I'm sure you have more questions. Thank you for them, and I welcome more.

[tlongII]

Don't read too much into it. It's only a book after all. The Old Testament was written partially in Aramaic and partially Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. There are certain to be inaccuracies in the English versions.

[Don Quixote]

To be more accurate, the only Aramaic in the OT is a small portion of Daniel and a little in Esther. The rest is in Hebrew. The NT, as you correctly point out, is in Koine Greek.

And, as someone who has learned both OT Hebrew and NT Greek, I'll be the first to tell you that some things do not translate that well into English. This is a good reason to learn the languages, or at least buy some good exegetical guides! But our English translations are excellent overall.

Can you list any specific inaccuracies between, for instance, the Greek text (I use UBS, 3d ed.) and an English translation (I generally use the NASB)?

[tlongII]

Translation Inaccuracies
in the 2005 TNIV New Testament:
An Updated Categorized List of 910 Examples

Note: This list of translation inaccuracies, which was originally based on the 2002 Today's New International Version – New Testament, has now been updated to correspond to the revised New Testament in the 2005 TNIV. We found that some inaccuracies in the 2002 TNIV have been corrected by the translation committee and others have been introduced, with the result that this list has been changed from 901 examples to 910 examples.

All the changes noted here are from the 1984 NIV (which had translated gender language accurately in these verses) to the 2005 TNIV.

Most of the changes in this list have to do with gender language, and the changes have been made to avoid using five words with masculine meaning or nuance: father, brother, son, man, and he/him/his. However, at the end we have also included a list of 24 verses that were changed to avoid using the phrase "the Jews" and 41 verses where the nuance of holiness in "saints" has been lost.

With regard to the use of gender language, it seems to us that in every case listed here the change eliminates masculine meaning or masculine nuances that are present in the underlying Greek terms, and also that these changes frequently go beyond the legitimate bounds of ordinary, well-established meanings for the common Greek words being translated (though in some cases there are differences among the lexicons, as noted in the individual categories below). These examples therefore seem to us to be “translation inaccuracies” that were included in the TNIV for the sake of producing a more “gender neutral” or “inclusive language” version.

This list was prepared under general oversight of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and has been compared for accuracy against the Greek New Testament. In the event that readers may find any corrections or additions that may need to be made, we would welcome your input sent to us at: [email protected]

A. Changes from Singular to Plural to Avoid the Use of “He/Him/His”
“he/him/his/himself” changed to “they/them/their /themselves” (where Greek has singular verb and/or masculine singular 3rd person pronoun) (217)

Matt. 10:10, 24 (2x), 25 (2x), 38, 39 (2x); 12:35 (2x); 13:12 (3x), 19, 21 (3x), 23, 57 (2x); 16:24, 25 (2x); 18:15 (2x), 17 (2x); 23:12 (2x); 25:29 (3x); Mark 2:22 (2x); 4:25 (2x); 6:4 (3x); 8:34 (2x), 35 (2x); 13:13; Luke 4:24; 5:37; 6:40 (2x), 45 (2x), 47, 48; 8:18 (3x); 9:24 (2x); 10:7; 12:21; 14:11 (2x); 14:27; 16:16; 17:33 (2x); 18:14 (2x); 19:26; John 3:20 (2x), 21; 4:14 (3x), 36 (2x), 44; 7:53; 11:9, 10 (2x); 12:25 (2x), 35, 45 (2x), 47, 48; 13:10 (2x), 16 (2x); 14:12; 15:15, 20; 16:2; Rom. 4:8; 14:4 (4x), 6, 22, 23 (2x); 15:2; 1 Cor. 4:5; 6:18 (2x); 8:2 (2x); 11:29; 14:2 (2x), 4, 5, 13 (2x), 16, 28 (2x), 37, 38; 2 Cor. 9:9 (3x); 10:18; 11:20; Gal. 4:1 (2x), 2 (2x); 6:6, 7, 8; Eph. 4:28 (2x); 5:29 (3x); Phil. 3:4; Col. 2:18 (3x), 19; 3:25; 2 Thess. 3:14 (2x), 15 (2x); 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; Titus 3:10 (2x), 11; Heb. 2:6 (2x), 7 (2x), 8 (4x); 4:10; Jas. 1:7, 8, 9, 10 (2x), 11 (2x), 12 (2x), 23, 24 (2x), 25 (3x), 26 (4x); 2:14, 24; 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:19;1 John 2:4, 5, 10 (2x), 11 (3x); 3:3, 9 (3x), 10; 5:16, 18 (2x); Rev. 2:27, 28; 3:5 (2x), 12 (3x); 16:15 (2x); 21:7 (2x)

“he/him/his/himself” (with singular Greek verb and/or masculine 3rd person singular Greek pronoun) changed to “they/them/their/themselves” (with singular antecedent in English; these are examples of the so-called "singular they") (159)

Matt. 5:39, 41; 10:38, 39 (2x); 11:15; 13:9, 43; 15:4, 5, 6 (2x); 16:24 (2x), 25 (2x), 27; 18:6 (3x), 15 (2x), 16, 17 (3x); 24:18; Mark 2:21; 4:9, 23; 7:10, 11, 12 (2x); 8:34 (2x), 35 (2x); 9:42 (3x); 11:25; 13:16; Luke 2:3; 5:36 (2x); 8:8, 16; 9:23 (2x), 24 (2x); 14:27, 35; 17:3 (3x), 4 (2x), 33 (2x); John 3:4 (3x), 18, 36; 6:40, 44, 65 (2x); 7:18, 38; 10:9; 11:25; 14:21 (3x), 23 (3x); Acts 2:6; 4:32 (2x); 25:16 (3x); Rom. 2:6; 4:4 (2x), 5; 8:9, 24; 11:35 ("who"?); 14:2, 5; 1 Cor. 3:8 (2x); 8:10; 11:28 (2x), 29 (2x); 10:24; 14:24, 25 (2x); 2 Cor. 5:10; 10:7 (3x); 1 Tim. 5:8 (2x); 6:4 (2x); 2 Tim. 2:4; Jas. 3:13 (2x); 4:11; 5:13 (2x), 14 (3x), 15 (4x), 20 (2x); 1 John 2:5; 3:15, 17; 4:15 (2x), 16; 2 John 1:10 (2x), 11 (2x); Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 12, 13, 20 (2x), 22; 13:9, 10 (2x); 14:9 (2x), 10 (2x); 22:12

“he/him/his/himself” (singular verb and/or masculine singular 3rd person pronoun in Greek) changed to “those” (often “those who”) (36)

Matt. 7:8 (2x), 21; 10:22; Luke 6:47; 11:10 (2x); John 15:23; Rom. 14:1, 6 (3x); 1 Cor. 1:31; 7:22 (2x); 14:4 (2x), 5, 38; 2 Cor. 10:17; Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Pet. 4:1; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 22:7, 11 (4x), 17

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “you/your/yourself” (90)

Matt. 6:24 (2x); 6:27; 7:9; 10:36; 16:26 (4x); Mark 7:15 (3x), 18, 19 (3x), 20; 8:36, 37, 38; 11:23 (3x); Luke 5:39; 9:25, 26; 11:8 (4x); 12:25; 13:15; 14:28 (2x), 29 (2x), 33; 16:13 (2x); John 15:5 (2x), 6; 16:32; 1 Cor. 3:18 (3x); 6:1; 7:17 (2x), 20 (2x), 24; 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7 (2x); Gal. 6:3 (4x), 4 (4x), 5; Eph. 4:25; 6:8 (2x); 1 Thess. 4:4; Jas. 1:5 (2x), 6 (2x), 14 (2x); 4:17; 1 Pet. 3:10 (2x), 11 (2x); 2 Pet. 1:9 (3x); 1 John 2:15; 3:17; 5:16 (2x); Rev. 22:18, 19 (2x)

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “we/our/ourselves” (9)

Rom. 14:7 (2x—ourselves); 12 (ourselves); 15:2 (ourselves); 1 John 4:20 (5x--we)

“he/him/his/himself” changed to no pronoun (sentence changed to other wording) (17 verses)

Matt. 5:22; 18:4; Luke 6:45; 9:62; 12:8, 15, 47 (2x); 14:26; John 7:18; 1 Thess. 4:6; 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15, 17; 4:20; 5:10

“he/him/his/himself” is omitted (25)

Matt. 5:40; 10:32, 33, 42; 12:29 (2x); 18:15; Mark 8:34; 9:35, 41; 10:28; 13:34; Luke 9:48; 10:6; 11:8; John 3:27; 7:17; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 4:6; 2 Tim. 2:5, 21; Heb. 10:38; Jas. 4:11; 5:13, 14;

“he/him/his/himself” changed to “other” (2)

Matt. 18:15 (omit "your" and "you"); 1 John 5:16 (any)

“whoever” (singular) changed to “those” (often “those who”) (12)

Matt. 13:12 (2x); 23:12 (2x); Mark 4:25 (2x); Luke 8:18 (2x); John 3:21; 4:14; 1 John 2:11; Rev. 22:17

“anyone” (singular) changed to “those” (often “those who”) (6)

John 16:2; 1 Cor. 14:2; James 1:23; 3:2; 1 John 3:10; Rev. 13:18

“one” (singular) changed to “those” (often “those who”) (8)

Luke 6:49; John 12:48; 1 Cor. 14:5; 2 Cor. 10:18 (2x); Gal. 6:8 (2x); 1 John 3:9

“everyone” (singular) changed to “those” (often “those who”) (7)

Matt. 25:29 (2x); Luke 14:11 (2x); 18:14; John 3:20; 1 Cor. 14:3

Other changes from singular to plural for the whole sentence (20)

Matt. 10:10, 24 (2x); 13:19, 20, 57; 19:23, 24; Mark 2:22; John 11:9, 10; 12:25 (2X), 35, 44, 47; 13:10; Rom. 13:4; 14:23; Gal. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:21; 1 John 2:4; 3:10; Rev. 21:7; 22:7

Words left untranslated in process of changing verse from singular to plural or from masculine to gender-neutral (2)

Matt. 18:17 (“them”); Heb. 12:9 (“human”)

B. Changes to Avoid the Word “Father” and Related Words

“father” (pater, singular) changed to “parents” (1)

Acts 7:20

“fathers” (pater, plural) changed to “parents” or “people” (2)
(Though “parents” is sometimes acceptable as a meaning for the plural of pater, in this case the context is speaking of fatherly discipline)

Acts 7:11; Heb. 12:9

“fathers”/forefathers” (pater, plural) changed to ancestors (34)
(The BDAG Lexicon, p. 786-787, gives “ancestors” as a possible meaning, but the LSJ Lexicon (p. 1348) only gives the meaning of “forefathers.” We have included these verses in this list because they seem to us to fit the general pattern of excluding male nuances in the TNIV, and because the male nuance or connotation of the plural word pateres would have been evident to the original Greek readers, but “ancestors” has no evident relationship to the word “father” and no male connotation in English.)

Matt. 23:30, 32; Luke1:55, 72; 6:23, 26; 11:47, 48; John 4:20; 6:31, 49, 58; Acts 5:30; 7:12, 15, 19, 38, 39, 44, 45, 51, 52; 13:17, 32, 36; 15:10; 22:14; 26:6; 28:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; Heb. 1:1; 3:9; 8:9; 2 Pet. 3:4

C. Changes to Avoid the Word “Brother” (Or to Add the Word “Sister”)

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “brother” or “sister” (19)

Matt. 5:22 (2x), 23; 18:15, 35; Luke 17:3; Rom. 14:10 (2x), 13, 15, 21; 1 Cor. 8:11, 13; 1 Thess. 4:6; Jas. 4:11; 1 John 3:10, 17; 4:20; 5:16

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “(fellow) believer” (5)
(The BDAG Lexicon, p. 18, lists “brother, fellow member, member, associate” as possible meanings for adelphos, but all the singular examples listed refer to male human beings. The earlier BAGD Lexicon, p.16, did not give these meanings, and the new BDAG Lexicon (2000) gives no new examples or new arguments to justify these new meanings that it proposes. The LSJ Lexicon (p. 20) gives the meaning “brother (as a fellow Christian)”, but does not give the meaning “believer.”)

2 Thess. 3:6; 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15; 4:20

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “(fellow) believers” (4)

1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:15; Jas. 1:9; 1 John 2:10

“brother” (adelphos, singular) changed to “other” (15)

Matt. 5:24 (that person); 7:3 (someone else), 4 (omitted), 5 (other person); 18:15 (them), 21 (someone); Luke 6:41 (someone else), 42 (friend, other person); 1 Cor. 8:13 (them); 1 Thess. 4:9 ("brotherly love" to "your love for one another"); Heb. 8:11 (one another); James 4:11 (them); 2 Pet. 1:7 (mutual affection--2x); 1 John 4:21 (one another)

“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “brothers and sisters” (where sisters is uncertain or doubtful) (8)

Acts 1:16; 2:29; 13:26, 38; 2 Cor. 11:9; Heb. 2:17; Jas. 3:1; Rev. 19:10

“brothers/brotherhood” (adelphos, plural) changed to “fellow believers” (4)

Acts 15:22; 1 Tim. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:17; 5:9

“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “believers” (27)

John 21:23; Acts 9:30; 10:23; 11:1, 29; 15:1, 3, 22, 32, 33, 36, 40; 16:2, 40; 17:6, 10, 14; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15; 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4; 3 John 1:3, 10

“brothers” (adelphos, plural) changed to “other” (11)

Matt. 5:47 (own people); 22:5 (associates); 28:21 (our people); Acts 22:5 (“associates”); 28:21 (“our people”); 1 Cor. 8:12 (them); 1 Thess. 4:10 (dear friends); 5:26 (God's people); 1 John 3:14 (each other), 16 (one another); Rev. 22:9 (fellow prophets)

“brothers”(adelphos, plural) omitted (2)

Matt. 7:4; 1 Cor. 15:31 (TNIV uses less likely variant reading)

D. Changes to Avoid the Word “Man”

“man” or “husband” (aner, singular) changed to “other” (7)
(The BDAG Lexicon (p. 79) gives as the general definition of aner the meaning, “a male person,” and under that general definition it gives as meaning 2, “equivalent to tis, someone, a person.” All the examples they list under meaning 2 either clearly refer to a male human being (as Luke 19:2, for example, “and there was a man named Zacchaeus”), or the context is not determinative but the meaning “man” makes good sense and the meaning “person” is not required. BDAG at the end of this entry also notes an idiom, katandra, which clearly means “man for man, individually,” and clearly includes women in some instances, but that idiom does not occur in the New Testament. The LSJ Lexicon (p. 138) also notes the idiom katandra, with a similar meaning. The LSJ Lexicon does not give the meaning “person” for aner, but rather, “man, op-posed to women,” “man, opposed to god,” “man, opposed to youth,” “man emphatically, man indeed,” “husband,” and some special usages. For further discussion on the word aner, “man,” see Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000), p. 101, note 2, and pages 321-333; see also, “Can Greek aner (“man”) sometimes mean “person”?” at www.cbmw.org/TNIV/aner.html.)

Rom. 4:8 (those); 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 (“husband” to “faithful” on both); Jas. 1:12 (those), 20 (our), 23 (people); 2:2 (someone)

“man” (aner, singular) omitted (2)

Jas. 1:8; 3:2

“men” (aner, plural) changed to “people”(10)

Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:31, 32; Acts 2:22; 3:12; 13:16; 17:22, 34; 19:35; 21:28

“men” (aner, plural) changed to “other” (4)

Acts 14:15 (friends); 17:34 (people); 19:25 (friends); 20:30 (some)

“men” (aner, plural) omitted (2)

Luke 14:24; Acts 15:22 (Judas Barsabbas & Silas)

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “people” or other plural nouns (9)

Matt. 12:35 (2x); 18:7; Luke 6:45 (2x); Rom. 1:23; 4:6; Gal. 6:7; 2 Tim. 3:17

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “you/your” (10)

Matt. 10:36; 15:11, 18, 20; 16:26 (2x); Mark 7:23; 8:36, 37; Luke 9:25

“man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “human being/human/mere mortal” when referring to a specific historical man (6)

Acts 10:26 (Peter); Acts 12:22 (Herod); 1 Cor. 15:21 (Jesus); Phil. 2:8 (Jesus); 1 Tim. 2:5 (Jesus); Jas. 5:17 (Elijah)

“men” (anthropos, plural) changed to “people” when referring to male human beings (1)

Heb. 5:1 (high priests)

“men” (anthropos, plural) changed to “other” (8)
(Neither the meaning “man” nor the meaning “person” is represented in these verses.)

Matt. 5:13 (underfoot); 10:32 (publicly), 33 (publicly); Luke 12:8 (publicly), 9 (publicly), 36 (servants); John 8:17 (witnesses); 1 Cor. 7:7 (you)

“men” (anthropos, singular or plural) omitted (8)

Matt. 10:17; 16:26 (2x) 19:12; Luke 12:8; Acts 4:12 (no other name under heaven); 17:26 (all nations); 1 Tim. 5:24 (sins of some)

“man” (anthropos, singular) meaning the human race changed to “people/mortals/human” (6)

Matt. 4:4; Mark 2:27 (2x); Luke 4:4; John 2:25; Heb. 2:6 (mere mortals); 13:6 (human beings)

E. Changes to Avoid the Word “Son”

“son” (huios,, singular) changed to “child” (3)

Matt. 23:15; Luke 14:5; Heb. 12:6

“son” (huios,, singular) changed to “children” (3)

Gal. 4:7 (2x—sentence plural); Rev. 21:7 (sentence plural)

“sons” (huios, plural) changed to “children” (16)

Matt. 5:9, 45; 17:25, 26; Luke6:35; John 12:36; Rom. 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal. 3:26; 1 Thess. 5:5 (2x); Heb. 12:5, 7 (2x), 8

“sons” (huios, plural) changed to “people” (2)

Matt. 13:38 (2x)

“sons” (huios, plural) changed to “sons and daughters” (1)

Heb. 2:10

F. Changes to Avoid the Phrase “The Jews”

“the Jew(s)” (hoi ioudaioi) changed to “Jewish leaders” (15)

The 2000 BDAG Lexicon (pages 478-479) objects to translating hoi ioudaioi as “the Jews” because it claims that “many readers or auditors of Bible translations to not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religions-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts” (p. 478). In other words, we should no longer translate hoi ioudaioi as “the Jews” because many Bible readers today will not realize that the Bible is talking about ancient Judaism, not modern Judaism. So it favors the translation, “Judean.”

However, we find this argument unpersuasive and believe that the term “Judean” will wrongly imply a reference to people who simply live in a certain geographical area, whether Jews or not, and will not adequately convey the religious and ethnic identification with the ancient Jewish people that the term “the Jews” implies.

On the next page, the BDAG Lexicon discusses the phrase hoi ioudaioi when it is used of people who are opposed to Jesus, and says the following: “Those who are in opposition to Jesus, with special focus on hostility emanating from leaders in Jerusalem, center of Israelite belief and cult; there is no indication that John uses the term in the general ethnic sense suggested in modern use of the word Jew, which covers diversities of belief and practice that were not envisaged by biblical writers …” (p.479). In other words, John does not use the word “Jew” to speak of modern Judaism or anything like the diversity of modern Judaism.

The implication of this BDAG comment is, again, that modern readers will not understand that John is referring to ancient Jews in the first century and that these are different from modern Jews in the 21st century. While we agree that John did not use hoi ioudaioi to refer to modern Judaism, we believe that readers of the Bible are able to realize that they are reading about events that occurred in ancient history. To take another example, when Bible readers today read that “Jesus entered Peter’s house” (Matt. 8:14), we don’t avoid using the word “house” out of fear that people will think Matthew meant a modern house with electricity and air-conditioning and an automatic dishwasher. Readers automatically realize that they are reading an ancient document and that “house” refers to whatever kind of house people had in first century Palestine. Even if the BDAG Lexicon is correct in saying that hoi ioudaioi can be used “with special focus on hostility emanating from leaders in Jerusalem,” that does not mean that only the leaders were involved in such opposition to Jesus, for no doubt many common people were involved as well. And there were some Jewish leaders, such as Nicodemus (see John 3) who did not join in the opposition to Jesus. So it seems to us that changing hoi ioudaioi from “the Jews” to “Jewish leaders” introduces an incorrect change of meaning into a translation.

The older BAGD Lexicon (1979) simply translates hoi ioudaioi as “the Jews” (p. 379). The LSJ Lexicon simply translates ho ioudaios (singular form) as “a Jew,” and gives no special meaning for the plural form (p. 832).

John 1:19; 5:10, 15, 16; 7:1, 11, 13; 9:22; 18:14, 36; 19:31, 38; 20:19; Acts 13:50; 21:11

“the Jew(s)” (hoi ioudaioi) changed to “they” or omitted (9)

John 2:20; 5:18; 8:52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:33; 18:31; Acts 18:14

G. Changes that Lose the Nuance of Holiness in “Saints”

“saints” (Greek hagios, plural) changed to “people” or “God’s people” or “Lord’s people” or “your people” (41)

Acts 9:13, 32; 26:10; Rom. 8:27; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2, 15; 1 Cor. 6:1, 2; 14:33; 16:15; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1; 13:13; Eph. 1:15, 18; 2;19; 3:18; 6:18; Phil. 4:21, 22; Col. 1:4, 12, 26; 1 Tim. 5:10; Philem. 1:5, 7; Jude 1:3; Rev. 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20, 24; 19:8

H. Other Gender Related Changes

Other gender related changes (7)

Acts 12:13 ("girl" dropped); 19:24 ("craftsmen" to "workers"), 25 ("workmen" to "workers"), 38 ("craftsmen" to "associates"); 1 Cor. 7:29 ("wives" to “are married”); 2 Cor. 11:13 ("workmen" to "workers"); 1 Tim. 2:12 (“have authority” to “assume authority”)

Other examples of unnecessary removal of masculine references to God or Christ (5)

John 1:33 (the one who); 6:33 (that which; margin: he who); 10:2 (the one); Heb. 2:6 (the "son of man," apparent Messianic prophecy or theme that the author of Hebrews sees fulfilled in Christ, from Ps. 8:4, changed to "human beings"

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

The bible wants you to be emo?

[Twisted_Dawg]

Keep in mind the sayings and teachings of Jesus were first handed down in the oral tradition utilizing ancient Aramaic, whch was then years later translated to Greek and then finally put into writing using Greek. It was many many years after Jesus died that his teachings made their way to written Greek. So when it comes to certain words, sayings, passages in the Bibe, a knowledge of ancient languages and traditions is necessary.

[tlongII]

Keep in mind the sayings and teachings of Jesus were first handed down in the oral tradition utilizing ancient Aramaic, whch was then years later translated to Greek and then finally put into writing using Greek. It was many many years after Jesus died that his teachings made their way to written Greek. So when it comes to certain words, sayings, passages in the Bibe, a knowledge of ancient languages and traditions is necessary.

True, but a "perfect" knowledge of these ancient languages and traditions does not exist.

[Don Quixote]

Okay ... you have cut & paste what attempts to be an argument against the NIV. Congratulations!

I would say two things to your argument:
(1) The NIV does not attempt to be an exact "word-for-word" translation. The NIV used a method of translation known as "dynamic equivalence," or "thought-for-thought." So, if the NIV used figures of speech more common to contemporary English, then good for them.

(2) Most of the examples listed are of no theological significance. So what if "sons" is changed to "sons and daughters," theologically speaking? My question is, how are the modern English translations deficient in conveying the theology of the original languages? I say that they are excellent.

Did you cut and paste this from a King-James-Only website? I know their work when I see it.

[tlongII]

Okay ... you have cut & paste what attempts to be an argument against the NIV. Congratulations!

I would say two things to your argument:
(1) The NIV does not attempt to be an exact "word-for-word" translation. The NIV used a method of translation known as "dynamic equivalence," or "thought-for-thought." So, if the NIV used figures of speech more common to contemporary English, then good for them.

(2) Most of the examples listed are of no theological significance. So what if "sons" is changed to "sons and daughters," theologically speaking? My question is, how are the modern English translations deficient in conveying the theology of the original languages? I say that they are excellent.

Did you cut and paste this from a King-James-Only website? I know their work when I see it.


Dude, of course I cut & pasted that! You think I'd try to come up with all that on my own? :lmao The internet is our friend! :)

[AlamoSpursFan]

Screw God...I'm going to Red Lobster! (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)

[Don Quixote]

Keep in mind the sayings and teachings of Jesus were first handed down in the oral tradition utilizing ancient Aramaic, whch was then years later translated to Greek and then finally put into writing using Greek. It was many many years after Jesus died that his teachings made their way to written Greek. So when it comes to certain words, sayings, passages in the Bible, a knowledge of ancient languages and traditions is necessary.


Pretty close. There is a minority of scholars who think that Matthew had an Aramaic original. But you're right about the oral beginnings of at least the Gospels. The accounts of the life of Jesus circulated through the community, and they were eventually written down in Greek between about 57 for Mark up to about 80 for John, give or take. So, it wasn't exactly many, many years. It took the first generation of Christ-followers to begin to die off, and the need for a written standard, for the Gospels to be written down.

As for the Letters, we can be pretty sure they were originally in Greek. Overall, though, our modern translations are exceptionally good and faithful attempts to accurately convey what the extant manuscripts say (we no longer have the originals -- wish we did).

[Extra Stout]

Screw God...I'm going to Red Lobster! (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)
That line of satire fails to take into account what the Bible itself says about the applicability of Old Testament law to Christians. Now, granted, this is because there are a fair number of fundamentalists who don't understand the applicability of Old Testament law to the New Testament and just go hunting for a proof-text instead.

However, this was hashed out in the early days of Christianity when some Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile converts needed to follow the Mosaic Law as part of being Christians, including all the dietary restrictions, etc. However, the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (chronicled in Acts 15) determined that in fact, the only parts of the law Gentiles should follow involved sexual immorality and participation in pagan sacrifices (specifically, eating the sacrificed meat).

Paul in his epistles explains the significance of sexual immorality (sin against one's own body) and of meat sacrificed to idols (causing the weaker, i.e. Jewish, brother to stumble). The latter has very little applicability today, since we don't get much of our meat supply from pagan sacrificial rituals. The former, of course, is the object of much contention, because a lot of people don't like Christian teaching on the subject.

[Emo Jesus]

The bible wants you to be emo?

One can't just BE emo. It's a way of life.

[RandomGuy]

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple"

Luke 14:26

Please explain :wakeup

My best guess:

A mistranslation for the word "hate".

The larger passage concerned Jesus telling his followers that they had to be ready to give up everything worldly to be a disciple and devote themselves to God exclusively above all other conerns.

Insert the words "give up" or "forsake", and the passage fits into the greater chapter a bit more smoothly.

[Extra Stout]

Pretty close. There is a minority of scholars who think that Matthew had an Aramaic original. But you're right about the oral beginnings of at least the Gospels. The accounts of the life of Jesus circulated through the community, and they were eventually written down in Greek between about 57 for Mark up to about 80 for John, give or take. So, it wasn't exactly many, many years. It took the first generation of Christ-followers to begin to die off, and the need for a written standard, for the Gospels to be written down.

As for the Letters, we can be pretty sure they were originally in Greek. Overall, though, our modern translations are exceptionally good and faithful attempts to accurately convey what the extant manuscripts say (we no longer have the originals -- wish we did).
I understand that the argument for an Aramaic original for Matthew comes from a fragmentary reference by Papias. He says that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaic and that Papias and the other Greek-speakers do their best to struggle through it.

However, the text we have as the Gospel of Matthew does have some features inconsistent with an Aramaic original. One, it is Synoptic, and since Q has never bothered to demonstrate its existence in the manuscript evidence, the best hypothesis we have to go on now is Markan priority. Two, the text includes a stylistic feature on a couple of instances whereby it transliterates a word or phrase directly from Aramaic, and then explains the meaning to the Greek reader. Based upon these, I find it unlikely that the Gospel of Matthew we have is the one Papias was writing about.

Naturally, the actual sayings came out of Jesus' mouth in Aramaic. I remember reading a debate between Ben Witherington and some Reformed guy about the proper way to render the Aramaic behind the Greek in Jesus' words. BW3, who usually is unassailable in his reasoning, here tried to argue that we should assume the Gospel writers used a formal-equivalence translation of Jesus' literal words into Greek, and therefore we should reconstruct Aramaic verb forms within that paradigm (this was specifically applied to Jesus' discourse to Peter about binding and loosing things in earth and in heaven). The Reformed guy rightly pointed out that doing exegesis based upon such a speculative assumption as Mark's translation philosophy is utterly spurious.

But this does bring up a question in my mind regarding verbal plenary inspiration. Which is moreso the inspired inerrant Word of God, the verbal Aramaic words coming off the lips of the Son of God, the Word made flesh, or their translation, literal, dynamic, or whatever else, into Greek in the original autographs of the New Testament?

[Extra Stout]

My best guess:

A mistranslation for the word "hate".

The larger passage concerned Jesus telling his followers that they had to be ready to give up everything worldly to be a disciple and devote themselves to God exclusively above all other conerns.

Insert the words "give up" or "forsake", and the passage fits into the greater chapter a bit more smoothly.
It's not a mistranslation; it is Semitic hyperbole.

Within a Western nation steeped in centuries of Christian cultural veneer, perhaps it is harder to understand this, so instead imagine a Muslim nation. Let's say a woman hears the gospel and believes, and becomes a Christian. According to Islam, she is an apostate. Her family must reject her and cut her off. She literally has to choose between Jesus Christ and her family.

In the early days of Christianity, it was much the same way for some Jews who believed the gospel. Faith had a real cost. That's why there weren't a lot of pew-sitters in the early church (that, and also because there were no pews back then).

[peewee's lovechild]

(that, and also because there were no pews back then).

:lol:lol

[midgetonadonkey]

Every word of the Bible came from the mouth of God into the author's ear. So every word must be taken literally. If you question the word of God then you question God and ye shall be damned to eternal hellfire.

[Extra Stout]

Every word of the Bible came from the mouth of God into the author's ear. So every word must be taken literally. If you question the word of God then you question God and ye shall be damned to eternal hellfire.
So, Reverend, what should I make of the whole "easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" thing, and your 5000-square foot mansion the church bought you, along with the two Bentleys?

[RandomGuy]

It's not a mistranslation; it is Semitic hyperbole.

Within a Western nation steeped in centuries of Christian cultural veneer, perhaps it is harder to understand this, so instead imagine a Muslim nation. Let's say a woman hears the gospel and believes, and becomes a Christian. According to Islam, she is an apostate. Her family must reject her and cut her off. She literally has to choose between Jesus Christ and her family.

In the early days of Christianity, it was much the same way for some Jews who believed the gospel. Faith had a real cost. That's why there weren't a lot of pew-sitters in the early church (that, and also because there were no pews back then).

That sounds as good as any explanation 2000+ years after the event.

Having a degree in a foreign language gives me some interesting perspective on this, because there are some instances where one can perfectly translate a particular turn of phrase linguistically, but miss the added dimension of cultural translation.

This is one of those cases where the missing bit is indeed, as you point out, cultural. Translation is truly an art form. :lol

[midgetonadonkey]

So, Reverend, what should I make of the whole "easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" thing, and your 5000-square foot mansion the church bought you, along with the two Bentleys?

It is not I who am rich but the church. I simply live how the church would want me to live.

[to21]

My favorite bible quote:

Ezekiel 25:17 (http://everything2.com/title/Ezekiel%252025%253A17). "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

:lol

[Extra Stout]

My favorite bible quote:

Ezekiel 25:17 (http://everything2.com/title/Ezekiel%252025%253A17). "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

:lol
Only the parts in bold are even related to the actual verse. The rest is from the annotated Quentin Tarantino Version.

[Don Quixote]

I like Tarantino's reading of Ezek 25:17, myself. I didn't know he had a background in Old Testament and Hebrew.

[Don Quixote]

That line of satire fails to take into account what the Bible itself says about the applicability of Old Testament law to Christians. Now, granted, this is because there are a fair number of fundamentalists who don't understand the applicability of Old Testament law to the New Testament and just go hunting for a proof-text instead.


The cults are very good at this too. Whether it's the Mormons reviving the Old Testament priesthood (or trying to), or the Jehovahs not letting their members get blood transfusions (they used to be against organ donation, not they're okay with it), or even liberal groups, there seems to be a lack of understanding on how to correctly integrate the Old Testament law into today's ethic.

It's just much easier to proof-text.

[Don Quixote]

I understand that the argument for an Aramaic original for Matthew comes from a fragmentary reference by Papias. He says that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaic and that Papias and the other Greek-speakers do their best to struggle through it.

However, the text we have as the Gospel of Matthew does have some features inconsistent with an Aramaic original. One, it is Synoptic, and since Q has never bothered to demonstrate its existence in the manuscript evidence, the best hypothesis we have to go on now is Markan priority. Two, the text includes a stylistic feature on a couple of instances whereby it transliterates a word or phrase directly from Aramaic, and then explains the meaning to the Greek reader. Based upon these, I find it unlikely that the Gospel of Matthew we have is the one Papias was writing about.

Naturally, the actual sayings came out of Jesus' mouth in Aramaic. I remember reading a debate between Ben Witherington and some Reformed guy about the proper way to render the Aramaic behind the Greek in Jesus' words. BW3, who usually is unassailable in his reasoning, here tried to argue that we should assume the Gospel writers used a formal-equivalence translation of Jesus' literal words into Greek, and therefore we should reconstruct Aramaic verb forms within that paradigm (this was specifically applied to Jesus' discourse to Peter about binding and loosing things in earth and in heaven). The Reformed guy rightly pointed out that doing exegesis based upon such a speculative assumption as Mark's translation philosophy is utterly spurious.

But this does bring up a question in my mind regarding verbal plenary inspiration. Which is moreso the inspired inerrant Word of God, the verbal Aramaic words coming off the lips of the Son of God, the Word made flesh, or their translation, literal, dynamic, or whatever else, into Greek in the original autographs of the New Testament?

Good question. I lean toward the latter, that the Word of God is inspired, at least in the original autographs. Of course, the words that Jesus spoke that ended up in the Gospels were inspired as they left his lips, but there was a stage of "oral memory" among the community of faith before the words began to hit paper. And really, the written word, is all we have access to today. We can't go back in time and hear Jesus' words. All we have is the manuscripts (not even the autographs!) that are probably really close to the originals.

[Extra Stout]

Good question. I lean toward the latter, that the Word of God is inspired, at least in the original autographs. Of course, the words that Jesus spoke that ended up in the Gospels were inspired as they left his lips, but there was a stage of "oral memory" among the community of faith before the words began to hit paper. And really, the written word, is all we have access to today. We can't go back in time and hear Jesus' words. All we have is the manuscripts (not even the autographs!) that are probably really close to the originals.
So do we just have to assume that the spoken Aramaic and the written Greek are in perfect agreement in their transmission of ideas?

[Don Quixote]

At least in the transmission of ideas, yes. I didn't mean to imply that the EXACT Aramaic words of Jesus were the EXACT Greek words that ended up in the autographs, which were preserved exactly in the 3d and 4th century manuscripts. I hold to verbal inspiration, not dictation.

[Don Quixote]

If you have a better idea, or a tape recorder of Jesus' words, I'm all ears!

[Wild Cobra]

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple"

Luke 14:26

Please explain :wakeup
This is simple to me. The greek word translated to hate in the Bible also means "less love." I see this passage as meaning that those who have no hatred in their heart, and love everyone, have no need for Jesus' salvation. They are already saved!

Now how many people don't have complete love for everyone else in this world?

[Don Quixote]

This is simple to me. The greek word translated to hate in the Bible also means "less love." I see this passage as meaning that those who have no hatred in their heart, and love everyone, have no need for Jesus' salvation. They are already saved!

Now how many people don't have complete love for everyone else in this world?

Every last one of us, you and me included. None of us love others completely.

And there are other sins besides hate! But none of us are without sin. The man who thinks he is, is wrong. Myself included.

Jesus drew a very stark line in his sayings. While other systems (communism, fascism, liberalism) draw lines along ones socio-economic status, one's "background," orientation, or occupation, Christ draws that line between good and evil right through our hearts. It's us who are the problem, it's us who have screwed it all up, and it's us who need Him to save us.

So ... I guess you're right in your interpretation. But absolutely none of us is perfect. We all need his grace. And he gives it freely. all we have to do is ask. Doesn't that feel good? :bking

Okay, preaching over

[peewee's lovechild]

I like how Don Quixote is such an expert, due to him knowing Hebrew and all that.

I'm sure Hebrew hasn't changed at all and that people can read and translate Hebrew with 100% accuracy.

Even the Israelies, whose official language is Hebrew, can fully understand ancient Hebrew.

I wonder if DQ is circumsized.

He must be a hit with the ladies.

[peewee's lovechild]

A guy who has cigarettes and malt liquor in his avatar just screams of spirituality and morality.

God must be proud of his little soldier.

[TDMVPDPOY]

so with the new edition

are they going to change adam and eve

to

adam and steve?

[to21]

Only the parts in bold are even related to the actual verse. The rest is from the annotated Quentin Tarantino Version.Wow.........really I didn't know that.

/sarcasm

[smeagol]

How about you work on mastering popular cliches before stepping up to interpreting the bible.

What he really meant is that it opened some eyebrows . . .