Romans Series Overview, Part 2 - Which Version and Why?
Before we dive in, we must know where to dive in, if you understand my meaning. In this part of the overview we will cover explicitly simple laws of languages, the methodology by which we will be studying the Greek, which transcript we are reading from, and the version we will be considering in English as a result.
My general plan is to read all of Paul’s letters carefully, from Romans to Philemon, in the original Greek. I want to comment on some of the language or beauty in the text, compare it with a few verses, and move on. This project, in summary, is simple enough. The more complicated question, I think, is to ask which translation we should be reading from.
In asking this question, we immediately stumble upon another major issue that has been full of controversy for generations. Do we read the King James Version, simply because it is the one we grew up with, or one of the most easily accessible? Are we to read the revised New King James, or the New International, or New American Standard? Shoot, should we be reading any translation that starts with “new”???
Unfortunately, we run into a few critical issues with all of these versions. First, most English translations are called majority texts. The meaning of “majority text” varies, but I’ve found that there are two meanings to it: either the text aligns thousands of different Greek manuscripts and aligns them into one “majority reading” of multiple different transcripts (without regard to time or the original writer’s exact word usage,) or the text aligns thousands of different Biblical manuscripts in general (from Swahili to Swedish to Latin to French, etc.)
The latter is easily silly, for you cannot mix multiple different languages with many separate and unique identifying features, and compress them into a new language which carries its own identifying features. To briefly demonstrate how fallacious this is, I have taken the sentence “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs,” translated it into Swahili, then into Swedish, then into Latin, then into French, and finally, back into English. Let’s see how this sentence gets twisted, yeah?
Original: “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.”
After translational hell: “A light brown fox pounces on the lazy dogs.”
What???
Seriously, what?? There is a major departure from the original thought. The fox is no longer quick, but light – giving two completely different thoughts. Moreover, the fox’s action is entirely different! He is no longer jumping over, but pouncing on!
I feel that such simple evidence is so obvious that you should begin questioning your English Bible immediately. Why should you accept something from someone if they are lying to you – especially when that “something” is one of the most important texts ever written?
Unfortunately, combining multiple Greek manuscripts without regards as to how old they are is not much better than the previous example. This still opens a gateway to escaping the original thought of the writer, and moreover ignores Peter’s (and even Jesus’) warnings not to twist their words, lest they lose the purpose. Even an extra word or two could completely decimate the thought of the writer and transform it into something less.
Whenever we are considering the English text, we must accept the simple fact that being that we are, unfortunately, subject to each individual’s interpretation of the text. You will undoubtedly come to find throughout the course of this study that I loathe “multiple interpretations,” and much rather prefer God’s declarations. When I hear someone say, “That’s just my opinion,” in order to turn a verse into something it’s not, they might as well say, “I hate what I just read, and need to conform it to my worldview.” Or, in other words, “I think I could have written it better, and my version would say something more accurate than what is actually written. God, or the writer of the letter, must have made a mistake! Yet I know better.”
This is called “pride.”
Of course, even if you don’t like all of the information presented throughout this study, it takes a truly stubborn man to sit there and say, “That doesn’t say what you think it says.” This method of gaslighting is prevalent in most churches today, unfortunately, and I will be spending a wealth of time unraveling as many of these falsehoods as I possibly can. Funnily enough, a study of Romans is the perfect format for such studies!
The only way to truly combat man’s pride is to stop accepting man’s interpretations. I’m telling you this now, so that later you don’t sit there going, “Oh man, this dude’s just full of it!” Any Christian pastor may end up saying this anyway, but most rational people can grasp that the method that I am about to break down to you is full of consistent, careful planning that almost entirely removes all desire to “theorize” on what the text is saying!
So! What is this method? What bulletproof, sound translation can we consider that will confirm for us what God truly meant when He spoke?
Well, the answer is easy: don’t look at man’s translations at all.
Yeah, just… look at the Greek.
It’s not hard! You can conduct a rudimentary Google search for the original manuscripts, in their original Greek format, and find all of the information that I will provide within a few minutes. With information this easily accessible, it would be a travesty to brush past it in favor of fire and brimstone preaching, from men who have spent their lives grasping someone’s thoughts about the text, as opposed to what the text itself actually states.
God has spoken. The Greek is not “a version” – it is God’s, and His alone. It does not need correction. We do not need to walk by perception in order to grasp Scripture, in the slightest – when properly translated, and ordered properly, the Bible is not a confusing “mish-mash” of nothingness – as you may have grasped during my breakdown of the now-established fact that there are two separate evangels in Scripture. Hating the words we will read in Greek is not a matter of comprehension, but of belief. There are some who will read each word I say who disagree entirely. But it is not solely because they ‘just don’t get it,’ but that they hate it. Many hate the declarations Paul makes, for to accept it, they would have to pull away from their precious “pride.”
When we study the Greek, we will not be relying on the authority of any individual man or Greek scholar, but on the concordant usage of the word in the inspired text. That is – a harmonious usage of the word. We will not “change” the meaning of a specific word when it is convenient for us (and I will be citing examples of this throughout the study.)
But how will we do this? Well, we must follow the laws of language, or, more accurately, the laws of the common Greek used 2,000 years ago. When we scrutinize something in English, we readily pay strict attention to the case of a word, its prefix, its suffix, its tense, and which part of speech it is (noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection.) A functional understanding of each of these topics are vital to following this study. Throughout our venture, I will be peeling back the same laws of language for the student of Scripture who honestly seeks to learn the original Greek transcripts by which our English texts are inspired.
But how will we study the Greek language without affirmations from Greek scholars? Well, our method of study seeks uniformity. Every Greek word, when translated into English, can be divided into one or more “elements” which always contain an exact English word. For example, let’s take the Greek word propator. This word propator has two elements, reading “BEFORE-FATHER.” From these elements, as well as every single use of the word propator in the New Testament (which, in this case, is only Romans 4:1 in reference to Abraham,) we can safely assert that God uses propator to mean “forefather” in English.
Another example would be the word akakon in Greek. The Greek elements of this word are “UN-EVIL.” That, as well as every use of akakon in the NT (being Romans 16:18 and Hebrews 7:26,) we can safely conclude that God is saying “innocent.”
With this method of study, our theories and pre-suppositions must be up-ended. We cannot pretend that the two words we just considered are “only theoretical,” in regards to The Bible, for we considered each use, and gave the Greek word an exact English equivalent. There’s no reason to ever have to question ourselves on propator or akakon now, right? Now, we can gain more insight into the depth of each use of these words, at some later date, but we cannot ignore the fact that we, the honest truth seekers of the world, have had the words propator and akakon in the holy Scriptures firmly established for us by the Creator of all. It’s truly this simple.
Now, there will be more complex words and verses coming up in the future. Words and verses that are heavily debated because of their use in the English Bibles. But you and I? We have a secret: with this simple mechanism of harmonious translation – that is, giving each Greek word its exact English equivalent 100% of the way – we have immediately solved a major issue that most scholars refuse to acknowledge because of their pre-supposed positions on what they believe their English versions must say. They are, in essence, compromised, because they refuse to acknowledge God’s use of a term, and seek multiple interpretations to confirm their view as opposed to resting in what the actual text says.
This is most upsetting when you realize that, when you do properly translate the text, and then study the text’s construct, as opposed to man’s religious constructs, you find the most beautiful story ever written. As you stick around and dwell on what we will read, you will find one of the most profound depictions of a true, unconditional love that, whether you “become a believer” or not, could still fundamentally change your life, and break down the world for you in a way that – trust me – you never would have thought possible.
It all starts with the simple truth. The simple truth is that this is simple Greek. This is a deep language, not a confusing language. It can only become confusing if the same word is given multiple different English words, or a host of 7 or 8 different definitions! Sometimes the opposite is even true, and there can be up to twenty one different Greek words translated the same way (see: the words translated ‘depart!’) It is because of this that most of our English translations try so hard to translate by interpreting, as opposed to translate by… well, translating.
Now, I say simple Greek, but we will be extremely careful in considering our translation. Although an understanding of the English language is beneficial in our study, it is not a perfect language – not by a long shot. It is a beautiful language – I agree. But the English language (like most English Scripture translations,) is a mixture of multiple different languages. It may have various laws, but many words in English look and sound exactly the same. If I say, for example, that “I hit the bat with my bat,” you kind of have no choice but to logically interpret what I said. You would have to infer that I did not pick up a winged creature in a cave and whack a baseball bat with it, but the other way around.
In contrast to this, koine Greek has no such issue. It is one of the most carefully perfect, law-abiding languages in all of history. It, like the Hebrew, is designed for Scriptural study (almost as if God set everything up in order to deliver us a perfect piece of writing that can only get messy when you throw it through Google translate 4 or 5 times, but what do I know?) In koine Greek (especially concerning how God uses it,) we don’t have to worry about “bat” and “bat,” or “read” and “read.” We can simply appreciate the original text, and rarely need to question whether this word “means one thing or the other.”
We will now cover some of the laws of the Greek language, beginning with the “law of revelation.” When something is revealed to us, it is only revealed in relation to another object. We are not absolute creatures, and are stuck considering things relatively. We know the difference between a “door” and a “window” by their relative relation to each other. We comprehend the difference between a phone screen and a computer screen by way of contrasting the two. As such, when we are considering a proper translation, we want an English rendering that will consider, before translating each word, the usage of a word (that is, the surrounding context by which a word is used,) the etymology of a word (that is, the family of words from which it springs,) and the overarching contrast between the Greek and English language itself (which we will be uncovering as we study.)
When we consider the Greek more carefully like this, we come to realize that one of the first laws of the Greek language is this: “No one word is the exact equivalent of another word.” When we are considering English, this rule, of course, is nonexistent. “Parallel” and “side by side” are equivalent in meaning. “Pain” and “hurt” are equivalent in meaning. So on and so forth.
In Greek, no such ‘equivalents’ exist. Each word, in Greek, is definite in meaning, and have no good reason to be translated in various different ways. The words “soul,” “spirit,” and “life” are not interchangeable. So why, if a Scriptural writer writes “soul,” psuche, does the King James randomly translate psuche as “life” in some cases, as “mind” 3 times, and “heart” 1 time?? Why, if a Scriptural writer writes “spirit,” pneuma, does the King James randomly add notations to limit the word to their personal worldview (translating it “holy ghost” eighty-nine times, when the words “holy” and “ghost” are represented by their own Greek words??)
Such shoddy translating is unacceptable, and will not hold a place in the English version we land upon. If the word is soul, let it be soul. We don’t change the meaning of a set language just because we personally don’t understand it, for again, this is “pride.” If you are truly seeking to stick to such shoddy translational work, then stop reading now, for you are more interested in man’s ideas about the text, as opposed to what the text truly says.
The next law we will consider in Greek is the “law of location.” This law does not so much apply literally to the Greek language, but in the art of translating. The law is simply that “Every word in the original should have its own English equivalent.” Any translator(s) refusing to follow this notion are immediately compromised, so we must consider an English version that includes this critical notion. This, thankfully, is noted by most translators of English versions. Many can tell the differences between “yes” and “no,” or “empty” and “full.” However, as I’ve covered before, most translations still disregard this simple translation system by translating according to their pre-supposed theology. It’s a rather depressing thought, that our English versions are mucked up like this, but fear not – for the more considerations on the Greek language that we consider, the fewer English versions we must rely on, for a small number are taking these simple laws into consideration.
Now, when I say that “every word in the original must have its own English equivalent,” this is not to claim that “Greek” and “English” must have the exact same number of words used in the text. The simple reality is that English has more words than Greek for a reason. What the Greek language can convey with 1 word, the English language may need 3, or even 4. This is why paying attention to the tense of a word matters so much.
Examples? Sure! Look no further than Genesis 1:1. The very first word of the Bible, in Hebrew, reads beresit. This directly translates to “IN-BEGINNING.” Yet most of our English versions translate this one word as “In the beginning.” This is because the first letter of the Bible, “be,” is actually a prepositional prefix added to the Hebrew word resit. Prepositions in English are separate from their object, and thus we need more than one word.
However!
While this means more words are necessary to form an English version, it does not mean that the thought of the Hebrew should by any means be lost. Most English versions actually get the first word of Gen. 1:1 wrong, by adding the word “the” into the mix. There is a separate Hebrew prefix for “the,” and this prefix is used later on in the same verse – “the” heavens and “the” earth. If the definite article “the” has its own word, then “the” should not be included in the phrase, “IN-BEGINNING.”
Yes, this is how exact we are going to be getting, as often as we can. The correct phrasing of the word beresit in English should be “In a beginning,” for the “beginning” used in Genesis 1:1 is not said to be definite. Now, this may make many Christian pastors mad. However, “anger” does not supercede “grammar.” These folk can be mad about it, but consider: if the evidence is so clearly set forth in the very verse we’re studying, then… is that anger rational? They didn’t even write these words, yet their spirit seeks to defend something that is clearly mis-translated, by a simple law of relation.
More complex examples of this issue will arise. We will be discriminating specific words by their relation to each other. “Sin” and “offense,” for example, are not the same thing. If they were, then “sin” would have been used where “offense” is written. The same is true for “offense” and “transgression.” These are all different Greek words that, while related (in this case, all represent sin in some way,) carry a different weight in the passage that they are used. This issue will be most evident as we go through Romans.
The last major law that I want to consider is what I call “The law of reciprocation.” The law is simple: “Every thought symbol, the moment that it is placed in connection with others, both influences the meaning of its neighbors – and is, itself, modified by them.”
In other words, you’re never going to read the phrase “bright darkness” in Scripture (nor should you read that anywhere except a David Lynch film.) Words, with their meaning, are given weight by their surrounding context. You can very easily find out what a word means to the Author apart from a dictionary. You do this by considering each and every time it is used in the book you are studying.
We can see the value of this law in relation to translators, by why does it matter to us? Well, simply put, it means that the use of an English word in whatever English translation we may find may not be its meaning in the current dictionary. This, unfortunately, is not only true of Scripture, but of many other forms of media (and this misunderstanding is the driving force of cancel culture today.) For example, the definition of “gender” today in the dictionary is not the definition of “gender” fifty years ago. The same is true of the term “gay.” The same is true of the term “righteous.” The same is true of the word “racism.” Mankind shifts its meanings of words with the current fashion of the world, and changes when that fashion becomes “outdated.”
Now, none of that is an indictment on any particular group or theology. I am stating the above as simple facts – man changes definitions of words when it is convenient for them to do so. The good news about the Bible, however, is that it has already been written. Assuming that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God, and said Bible claims that God does not change (Mal. 3:6,) then we should rightly infer that His use of a word will not change, even over the course of the 1,500 years by which the Bible is written. We know that “sin” does not change its meaning anywhere in Scripture. Neither does “human,” or “finger,” or “breath.” To presume that a word’s meaning could potentially mean its opposite, or radically shift, in the completed word of God is, simply, artificial.
Now, this does not mean that a word’s meaning does not grow. “Righteousness,” for example, is defined by its context. Job is said to be a righteous man, in Job 1:1. Does this mean that He held the righteousness of God, documented in Romans 3:21? Hell no! They are two dramatically different uses of the word, and when we consider all three laws we’ve covered, we can safely conclude that Job is considered righteous in relation to humanity, whereas God’s righteousness has no equal.
See how these laws keep us from deifying creation, and keep us worshipping the Creator instead?
With this, we have a set foundation by which to study the Greek text. These laws are not here to “obscure” things, but to shine a light on obscure dogma in the Christian church. How does the original text compare to modern-day Christian theology? Are these two even remotely compatible?
When you break a law, there is a penalty. You have “transgressed.” This is true in all regards. You break a U.S. law, there’s a penalty. You break a law in driver’s ed, there’s a penalty. Businesses have laws. You break them, and you’re booted from said business. Why, then, would grammar be any different? When you break a grammatical law, you have infringed upon the original thought, and it takes a toll on your understanding of the text. When you add five or six different meanings to a word (as opposed to studying the word itself, and how each use of said word relates to the text,) horrible twisting of a beautiful text transpires.
Our dilemma is clear. For many who have been disillusioned by Christendom, this lack of systematic translation (which effectively dissolves all false dogma) is why there is so much religious turmoil and degradation. For the passer-by who cannot grasp why this text is so valuable, consider this: if Satan is real (Satan Satan, not the silly two-horned dude on glass panes in churches,) then it means that there is a creature out there that is hiding the true text for what it is, and confusing your friends and family into this perpetual state of inconsistency and conditional love. If we are to study this carefully, we must consider what the Christian church proclaims, and then see if the text that they claim to believe in truly matches the original text.
We need a translation that follows simple grammatical laws. We don’t want to get bogged down in the weeds of wondering if we can actually trust what we’re reading (which, if we’re being honest, is exactly what belief is all about: trust.) We need some kind of solution. We obviously can’t learn an entire language at once and then meet up next year. We must, for times’ sake, study an English translation that follows this objective method of studying Greek words in Scripture only.
But… is there a version? I mean, this careful kind of translation… does it even exist? Is there actually a version that does this? This is some heavy-duty stuff, and the Bible… well, it’s the size of an encyclopedia. Has any group ever attempted it?
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, with great joy, the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible.
Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern
Yes – The Concordant Version of the Bible takes everything we have considered, in Greek, into consideration – and more.
See, when I began studying the
text, I presumed that the laws above would satisfy. Yet the head of the
Concordant Publishing Concern, named A.E. Knoch, writes,
“At
first it was thought sufficient to assign each word standard English
equivalent. Much as this helped, it fell far short of our ideal.
So the whole vocabulary of the Greek scriptures was analyzed into its Elements,
and to each of these was assigned a ‘STANDARD.’
Thus, for example, two
elements, ‘FROM’ and ‘COVERing,’ in combination, became ‘FROM-COVERing,’ with
secondary standard, ‘unveiling.’ Whenever possible, these elementary standards,
which are printed in small capitals, appear in the [Greek manuscript’s] sublinear,
beneath the Greek word, commencing under its initial letter. They will be found
delight fully suggestive and profitable.”
Knoch essentially does what we did with “BEFORE-FATHER,” or “forefather.” Using his terminology, “BEFORE-FATHER” would be the standard, and the ‘secondary standard’ would be “forefather.” Yet Knoch segregates many Greek words into families using these elements, and, in following all of the Greek laws, we get information such as the one in the large photograph below.
This should be our standard. If a translator is not conclusively breaking down an English version on the Greek language, but is instead being carried by “personal judgments” and “interpretations” (as the KJV writers admit to, in their preface to their version,) then the version in consideration is not actually the word of God, is it? It would, by definition, be the word of man.
On this subject,
A.E. Knoch, the compiler of the Concordant Literal New Testament, writes in his
Intro to the Concordant Greek Text (p. 7) –
“The
English reader, who knows nothing of Greek, has somewhat the same
advantage as the learned scholar. Anyone can readily refer to the Lexical
Concordance to find the meaning and occurrences of any word, and those of the
entire family of which it is member, and satisfy himself as to the correctness
and accuracy of any passage.
Uniformity
or consistency is the key note. This is attained by the use of standard
English expression for every Greek element of the original, and secondary
standards which correspond to the words, and form the basis of the version. All
is uniform when possible, and consistent, when uniformity is
impracticable.”
Comments
Post a Comment