In the past two days, I was told by no
less than five different unrelated people that one should not look to
the Greek for help when one is in need of further enlightenment about
a word or phrase that might be ambiguous or need further
clarification. In fact, I was told by several of those people that
God meant for us to rely only on the English version. Further
comments told me that it cannot be trusted, and it cannot be
understood unless you are a scholar who has studied it, therefore you
are better to leave it alone, and other such comments. I have heard
it jokingly said that there are people who say, “The King James
Bible was good enough for Paul, so it's good enough for me.”
Sometimes I think people really are that lacking in knowledge, when I
hear some of the comments they make.
First of all, to say that the Greek
cannot be trusted seems to be a ludicrous statement. The Bible in
English is a translation of the Greek, so if the Greek cannot be
trusted, how can the English? Secondly, one does not have to have a
degree in ancient Greek in order to pick up an interlinear Bible and
a concordance and look up what the word is in Greek (or Hebrew for
that matter) and its definitions. Why should we leave it alone as a
study tool, as if it were a forbidden book, when it is so available
to enhance our studying? Can it be misused by wolves who want to
teach heresy? Of course it can, and so can the English. Most people
are so unfamiliar with their English Bible that they can be fooled
without ever having to go to the Greek to convince them of something,
as they never check what information they are being fed against the
Word of God.
Is it really necessary? Can't one get
the full intent of something from just the context and grammar? Well,
most of the time you probably can, but there are times when you miss
something, if you don't look to the original language. Let me give an
example. Let us look at John 21:15-17 in the English. “So when
they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou
knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith
to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He
saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith
unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto
him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou
knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto
him, Feed my sheep.”
I have heard
sermons on this passage, with all kinds of speculation as to why
Peter was grieved and why Jesus said it three times. One is that
Jesus knew Peter was going to deny Him three times, so He asked him
if he loved Him three times. Another says that Jesus wanted Peter to
understand the importance of preaching the gospel so He emphasized it
three times by telling him to feed His sheep. I don't know that I
ever heard an explanation for why Peter was grieved, except that
Christ asked him three times. Now let us consider the Greek. We only
need to look at one word, the word “love.” In English we have
only one word for all kinds of love. In the Greek there are at least
four - “Agape” the kind of sacrificial love that God has for us
and we as Christians should have for God and others, “philia”
brotherly love (hence the city of Philadelphia being the the city of
brotherly love), “eros” sexual love, and “storge” the kind of
affection families have for each other. In this case we are going to
focus on the words “agape” and “philia.” When we rewrite
this passage substituting the appropriate Greek word, we find that
the passage reads like this.
“So when they
had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, agape
thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest
that I philia thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to
him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, agape thou me? He
saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I philia thee. He saith
unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon,
son of Jonas, philia thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto
him the third time, philia thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou
knowest all things; thou knowest that I philia thee. Jesus saith unto
him, Feed my sheep.”
Now let us look at
it the way Christ might have said it in today's English. “Peter, do
you love me? Yes, Lord, you know I love you like a
brother..................No Peter, I mean, do you really LOVE
me, like you'd die for me? Lord, you know that I love you just like
a brother.....................Peter...... so...... you love me like a
brother then.” And Peter was grieved that Jesus accepted and
acknowledged that he loved him like a brother, but not to the point
of sacrificial love. And Peter said, “Lord, you know everything
there is to know, so you know that I love you like a brother.”
It makes much more
sense to understand why Peter was grieved, when you understand that
Christ had changed the word from agape to philia, for it was a
downgrading of the relationship on Peter's side that Christ was
acknowledging. It was a disappointment. You would never get that from
the English. And it does not take a degree in Greek in order to gain
that knowledge. Merely a copy of Strong's Concordance.
What initially
brought on this entire discussion was a disagreement over, of all
things, the word “men.” Now who would think that the word “men”
would need to be defined, but it did. The verse in question said that
“they were redeemed from among men.” Now I had always taken that
in the English to mean that the word “men” meant from among all
of mankind. The other party was of the opinion that the word
literally and specifically meant adult males. So to answer the
disagreement, I went to the Greek word in the concordance and looked
it up. In this particular case, the Greek word was “anthropos.”
Now that word should be recognizable as the root word of our word
“anthropology.” I am very familiar with the word, because my one
son is an anthropologist. Anthropology is the study of humans, as in
mankind. And the Greek definition of the word was “human beings,”
not specifically adult males. So going to the Greek proved that I had
indeed interpreted the phrase correctly that they were redeemed from
among mankind or human beings. Unfortunately this person was one who
fell into the category of people I mentioned at the start. The Greek
was not trusted, therefore my going to the Greek did nothing to end
the debate.
One of the
arguments given to me by one of the aforementioned group of five, was
that the original manuscripts were inspired by God and without
error, but the copies were merely that, copies that were suspect as
to accuracy, but God has told us that He would preserve His Word (the
intent more or less) so the KJV was the Bible we are to use and God
will tell us everything we need to know through that, as since we
don't have the original manuscripts, this is as good as you can get.
I would take issue with that. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle
would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. Now the law is the
Masoretic Hebrew text which is far, far older than the Greek New
Testament. Yet here is Christ telling us that a copy (as they
probably did not have the original either) of the Old Testament is
still perfectly preserved word for word, even to the jot and tittles
on the words (Jots and tittles are the equivalent of the dots over
the “I's” and crosses on the “T's”.) and it would continue to
be until all is fulfilled. If God could preserve that, and
continues to, why could He not preserve the Greek New Testament as
well even in its copies. In this case, the copies that I would say
are the accurately preserved ones are the copies of the Received
Text, which was circulated around the area of Antioch and Byzantine.
They are very different from the Alexandrian texts, which were found
in Egypt. For more on this and why the difference, read my article on
the KJV Bible.
https://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2011/01/king-james-version-only-controversy.html
The copiers of the
original manuscripts were very exact in how they copied it. They
checked in every way possible to make sure that there were no
mistakes. And the large number of extant manuscripts that we have of
the Received Text show extremely little differences, meaning that
they kept any mistakes to a bare minimum. Any mistakes have been
easily caught by seeing upon what the greater number of manuscripts
agree, thereby giving us a very accurate Greek version of the New
Testament. The same can be said of the Masoretic Hebrew texts as
well. So while we may not have the actual originals, just as we may
not have the originals today of some things, but copies made from a
computer or copier machine, the content is just as accurate as the
original. Therefore it can be trusted. And as pointed out at the
beginning, if you cannot trust the Greek, how can you trust a
translation of it, when no translation is perfectly word for word,
although the KJV does that as much as a translation possibly can.
There is a slight loss of information though, to a certain extent, as
pointed out in the passage of John that I quoted above, as English
does not have as precise a language as Greek had. To be able to check
into the Greek can only bring greater understanding, unless it is
your deliberate intent to want to make a passage say something
other than it intends, because you want to try to push a theory or
private interpretation which is not actually taught there. And there
are people who will do this. But they do that with the English as
well. It requires being studious, discerning, and a Berean, and
checking what people teach against the Scriptures to catch things
like that. And for the record, yes, I encourage people to check
anything that I write against the Word of God. I want people in their
Bibles learning what it says, and I am not afraid of being
challenged, as so many who want to deceive are. If everybody were in
their Bibles as they should be, I could quit writing.
So, in conclusion, while true understanding does come from the Holy Spirit teaching
you, it makes His job easier if you use all the tools at your
disposal. If you want to get a little deeper into your study of the Scriptures,
by all means, get yourself a KJV Bible, Greek interlinear Bible
using the Received Text, a Hebrew text (Masoretic) , and a good
concordance, along with a good Bible dictionary, lexicon, maps, and
etc. Don't listen to those scholars who say that you can't possibly understand how to use them. They just don't want you being able to study the Bible on your own without their input. You might find out that they aren't always right, and that might put them out of a job.
