The Foolishness of Going Back to the Greek and Hebrew - sermon notes

Whenever someone gets into a pulpit and picks up a Bible and says, "We're now going to read from God's error free word," and doesn't believe that the book he has in his hands is that word of God then he's a liar by profession and in deed. That preacher will say that the Bible is inerrant and infallible only in the originals, which neither he nor the person he trained under has ever seen.

Then there are those people who say they understand that this is truly God's word in the English language and that it is indeed the very words of God. However, when they go to translate the Bible into a foreign language they go back to the Greek Textus Receptus or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible's Masoretic Text to do so making their profession that this Book is God’s word, the Authorized Version, what we call in 21st century advertising parlance the KJB or KJV, also a lie. It's sort of like you trying to impress upon me what an adult you are and then asking me to get you a drink only in a sippy cup or a baby bottle. We've moved beyond the Greek and Hebrew and have been moved on for nearly 400 years.

This Book, the King James Bible, the one that you have in your hands is God's perfect, infallible word.

Now, there is always that know-it-all who, when you are having a Bible study, will try to impress you by saying that the real meaning of this or that word is this or that and it will help you understand the Bible better. May I say "Baloney?" How about "Hogwash?"

Let me give you some examples. First let's look at something every funnymentalist (fundamentalist) apparently wants to understand more than the Resurrection, a wife's submission to her husband.

Ephesians 5:22 says,   "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

Two verses later, this statement is further defined and explained by a parallel;

Ephesians 5:24 says  "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

Is this clear? Look at this verse;

Colossians 3:18 gives a further narrowing and definition of wifely submission; "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

1 Peter 3:1 gives a good reason why a wife should even submit to an unsaved husband,  "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;"

So, wives are to be in submission to their OWN husband as the church is in submission to Christ and even to an unsaved husband in order to lead him to salvation. Submission and subjection are synonyms, meaning they have like meanings. Picture how the church is to respond to and obey Christ and you can get an idea of how a wife is to respond to her husband and, of course, how he is to act. In fact, we are all called to submit to each other in the fear of God in Ephesians 5:21 which, although the remainder of a sentence, in some 1769 editions of the Authorized Version is the start of the paragraph in which we find instructions as to how we are to treat each other as husbands and wives. A simple cross referencing word study using any computerized King James Bible can explain to you, IN ENGLISH, what submission means. It's not rocket science.

Now, if we have a smarty pants Greekophile among us he will then say, these words; "submit", "subjection", etc. are all translated from one Greek word even in verse 21 where it tells all of us to submit to each other plus all of those verses where we are told to submit to the higher powers of government.

But, he will point out that the Greek word, hupotasso, is a military term referring to placing things in proper order, and that it was a voluntary attitude of giving in and cooperating as your duty. Under the Republic in Rome when the entire army was called out it would be commanded by the two elected consuls on alternate days. So, the wife is to submit to her husband's authority as a wise and dutiful Roman consul will submit to someone if only his equal but in command.

Is this clear as mud? Is a wife a general or political rival, who is simply living as if she is waiting for her turn to command the army, err, I mean house? Does Mr. Greek fancypants' explanation make things clearer than the Bible definition? I DON'T THINK SO.

Now, let's use some Hebrew examples;

Genesis 6:4 says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

These giants appeared "also after that" so we know that these shenanigans were going on in the days after the Flood and perhaps even now. In any event giants existed much later and you can see this by Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20; Joshua 17:15 and many other references. The wicked sons of God who fathered those giants and are reserved in chains in darkness in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 awaiting judgment. They fathered giants, as in very tall and strong people as is evidenced by the supposed archaeological finds of people from 7ft to 12ft and taller in graves around the world.

Okay, Genesis 6:4 is clear enough. But, here comes Mr. Hebrew I'm Brilliant. He says that this word is Nephilim. The Nephilim means, he will tell you, "the fallen ones" and these Nephilim were the leaders of the pre-flood world.

What? Does that make things clearer? I DON'T THINK SO. Mr. Brilliant Guy will then say that the KJV translated giants from the Greek word, Gigantes, of the phony Septuagint which really means Nephilim. Not only is he disregarding the King James translators’ own declaration in their letter to the readers that the Septuagint was unreliable but also the fact that in Greek Mythology the Gigantes were, guess what? Giants. So, Mr. Hebrew guy hasn't helped us to understand the Bible one little bit. In fact, he's making things as murky as his Greek buddy. The word in English in 6:4 is GIANTS and it says and also after that there were GIANTS, and that means large, strong men of an unnaturally tall stature, as in GOLIATH.  

So, then we have other, more simple expressions that are adequately explained by the Holy Spirit in the authoritative English Bible but the scchhollaaarrrrr, as he can't stand the idea of anyone having authority over his own intellect, which he worships, by the way, will try to muddy the water and muddle your brain.

Now, we all believe that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 was Satan, and we know from Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 by way of Isaiah 27:1 and Job 41 that Satan is a dragon, which is what dinosaurs used to be called, and a serpent and a leviathan. We know from history that dragons were called serpents but dragons had legs as we know the one in Genesis had, which that one that allowed himself to be used by Satan had removed by God.

We know how beautiful Satan was in the Garden of Eden and why Adam and Eve were probably so used to him and unafraid of him by the reference to him in Ezekiel 28:13-15 as God weaves a description of Satan into his attack on the king of Tyrus, as God does in His descriptions of human beings who act like Satan.

But, Mr. Hebrew I’m Brilliant says, NO! It’s a nawchawsh, a snake, in Genesis 3:1. The word pronounced taneem means dragon or sea monster. And I say, Balderdash! When Moses is talking to God and throws his rod on the ground in Exodus 4:3 and it is turned into a snake it is nawchawsh. 

But, when Aaron confronted the Pharaoh’s sorcerers, magicians, what they both threw down became taneem.  Does anyone believe that after Moses rod became a snake that Aaron’s and the Egyptian sorcerers’ became fire-breathing dragons in the context of the story in Exodus 7? No, of course not, because the meaning of a word in the Bible is based on the context in which it is used and the cross-references by which it is linked to other writings given by inspiration of God. Whether it is nawchawsh or taneem is not important. It is the context that is important. Whether the word is serpent or dragon is not important, but it is the context in which those words are used that is important. In Ezekiel 29:3 the Pharaoh is likened to a taneem, a dragon. So, we see these words are all interchangeable by the linkage between cross references, something to which a modern translator is blind, not believing in the unity of the Bible as given by inspiration of God.

A serpent can be a dragon or a snake, depending on the context. A serpent that had legs is hardly a timber rattler, is it? A serpent that slithers and can be picked up by its tail is hardly a dragon, a dinosaur, is it? This is not rocket science, unless you are a highly educated buffoon with a reading comprehension problem.

For my last example, let's look at another darling of liberal Bible expositors; John 21:15-17.

After the resurrection Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves Him, which calls into sharp, painful memory that Peter had denied His Lord three times as Jesus predicted He would. And there are many other great sermons from this passage, I'm sure.

But, there is a problem. My friend who pretends to be a Greek expert is about to burst. He excitedly points out that the first and second time Jesus asks the question He uses the word Agape' for to love someone from esteem or respect and also used for divine love. Each of those times Peter responds with Phileo, the love that comes from friendship or brotherly love. The last time Jesus Himself uses Phileo and once again Peter responds with the same. My pseudo-scholarly friend will say that this lends much more meaning to the conversation because Jesus is asking for a different kind of love, a divine love, which Peter is not capable of and this reflects a fundamental failure in mankind's capacity or willingness to love God in the right way blah, blah, blah.

What my friend who likes to think he is more intelligent and knowledgeable than a Christian janitor who can read English has done is to reveal his own ignorance. Agape' and Phileo are words for love that are used interchangeably. No extra insight into these verses is gained by playing ping pong with them. In Matthew 6:5 hypocrites phileo to pray standing in the synagogues, in Matthew 19:19 you are told to agape' your neighbor as yourself, John 15:19 says the world won't phileo the disciples, 1Corinthians 16:22 says that if any man phileo not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha, and when we are repeatedly told to love our neighbor as ourselves with agape' the Scriptures in no way imply that this is superior to our brotherly love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. I doubt anyone would imply that the kind of love Jesus says we are to have for each other, which distinguishes us as His followers, is inferior to the love we are supposed to have for a stranger who is in need.

Titus 3:4 doesn't have the love of God our Saviour toward man as agape'. Paul's admonition in Titus 3:15 isn't agape'. 1 Peter 1:22 uses both words for the same thought with phileo first and then agape'.

 Does knowing this change your understanding of the text? Does it help you know what you are to do? Is your lack of access or availability of access to the Greek a determinant of your ability to understand God's words? Finally, in Revelation 3:19 does it matter to you that Jesus phileos here?

Now, my point in saying all of this is very clearly, in a limited time, and taking only a few examples, is that you will gain no valuable insights in the Bible by going back to the original languages. It's like telling me you are going to really get to know the Gettysburg Battlefield and then immediately digging the deepest hole in the ground that you can. I would tell you to compare verse with verse in the Bible or tour the entire battlefield. Keep in mind Paul's admonition in 1Corinthians 2:13  "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even Strong's Concordance, as well as the references I just gave you are not given by inspiration of God and are often corrupt. Lexicons, dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek are notoriously corrupt. Even their own creators and those modern translators who use them and revise them say so. Here are some quotes from the book, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography.

“The fact is that opinions will very often differ over the precise wording of lexical definitions even - or perhaps, especially - after careful consideration of a proposed definition.”

“…there is the fact that even the latest lexicons derive their material from their predecessors, and a great deal of it has been passed on uncritically over the course of centuries.”

“…we cannot know for certain that what we find in front of us when we look up a word is sound.”

“…all the existing lexical entries in all our dictionaries are now obsolete and await reassessment in the light of the full evidence,or at least checking to see if there is further evidence to be added.”

“Lexicons are regarded by their users as authoritative, and they put their trust in them. Lexicons are reference books presenting a compressed, seemingly final statement of fact, with an almost legal weight. The mere fact that something is printed in a book gives it authority, as far as most people are concerned. And understandably: if one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the only means of rescue from ignorance. Yet this trust is misplaced.”

Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton &Richard E. Whitaker, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (Kindle Locations 955-956). Kindle Edition.

 So, compare scripture with scripture and ignore the scholar who says the original languages give more insight than the English. All they are trying to do is to take the authority of your Bible from you and replace it with their own intellect as your final authority.