The individual Christian is urged to read the Bible in his own language for his spiritual enrichment, but not to use the translation in arriving at personal conclusions. One should read the Bible against the background of the interpretation given it by the Church as a whole, not on one's own interpretation. It is profitable, however, for one who studies the Bible to use short commentaries of the Church and to leave the dogmatic and systematic teaching to the Church, which is the authoritative and infallible body.
Taking a Biblical verse out of context often is misleading and is the basic cause of the Christian Church being separated into many parts, each interpreting according to their own opinions and thoughts. It is not the Bible itself that divides Christianity, but its interpretation based on personal premises. That is the weakness of the human element. This weakness of the human element is reflected in claims that the Holy Spirit has inspired the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own premise.
This is where the fallacy lies-the claim that the Holy Spirit is the author of his own personal interpretation, a claim that all make. The fact that so many persons have claimed that the Holy Spirit has spoken to and chosen them personally should be clear and unmistakable proof that the interpretation of Scriptures lies only in the authority of the Church as a whole, and not with individuals. It should be stressed that the Bible is written on the background of the life of the Church, which has kept the Christian Message, Sacred Tradition, the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, undefiled.
The Church, not individuals, was and remains the infallible interpreter of the written word, the Holy Bible. The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew and, especially, the New Testament Greek text. The fact that there are variations in the translations of the Bible indicates most clearly the need for a common edition of the Greek New Testament on which other translations will depend. A comparison of the text of this edition with that of the edition of the official New Testament text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople shows approximately 2, variations.
But most of them do not change the meaning of the New Testament. All the variations between these two texts are found in the apparatus of the critical edition of , issued by the five Bible Societies. The text of the Patriarchate was prepared by a commission in , and it also has approximately 2, variations compared to the Common Edition, Textus Receptus, prepared much earlier.
Despite these efforts, there is still no one common edition of the New Testament Greek accepted by all. It must be recognized, though, that the edition issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople depended mainly upon the passages and verses designated by the Church to be read during the celebrations on Sundays and feast days, and for this reason, these passages were kept intact with fewer changes.
It is evident that greater efforts involving all the Christian churches must be made to arrive at one common edition in the original language recognized by all Christians. A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries, many words were added or omitted.
This was especially so before the printing press when there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is a valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians.
The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world, in their own languages and in its pure and true form in its original languages and in its many translations. The individual Christian should read the Bible as the Revelation from God Himself for his enlightenment and salvation. He should read the Bible with the fear of God and with true faith. The reader invokes the Holy Spirit to help him understand its deep meaning for his own personal and practical life. The Christian should read the Bible for his spiritual rebirth and divine assistance in order to understand its sacred content carried by the letter, which is a human organ and tool.
Nevertheless, it is the spirit that gives life to the reader, for it is "not of the letter of the new covenant but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life", 2 Corinthians 3: Because the Bible took its literal form in the Christian community, which kept it intact, this community-the Church-was and is the treasurer and interpreter of the Revealed Truths of Christ. Therefore, when the Christian reads the Bible, he must read it against the background of this Sacred Tradition at large.
The reader should also have in mind that the various parts of the Bible were not written systematically, but occasionally. Therefore, the Christian needs a guide to properly understand the meaning of the Scriptures. The guide is the interpretation given by the Church as a whole, which is infallible. The example that one needs to help him understand the Bible was given when Philip the Apostle asked the minister of Candace who was reading the Prophet Isaiah, "Do you understand what you are reading?
In order for the Bible to be read and understood by the people, it should be translated into the various languages of the people, using the interpretation made by the Church as a whole. This is the correct guide. The translation of the Bible into the English language coincided with the invention of the printing press and the period of Reformation 15th th centuries. Before this time, the use of the Bible in the West was forbidden in any language other than Latin.
The Latin translation, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was made by St. Jerome in the fourth century.
The Role of Background Studies in Interpreting the Bible
It became the authoritative Bible for the Western Church and was known as the Vulgate. The reading of the Bible, even in the Latin, was forbidden the lay people without permission. This denial by the authorities of the Western Church was one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation.
Therefore, the first act of the first reformer, Martin Luther, was the translation of the Bible into German in , which translation was the main factor in the establishment of the German language. Before the Reformation and the printing press, various parts of the Bible had been translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. The Western Church was very strict in the use of Latin not only for the Bible, but also for the ritual worship of the Church, which was incomprehensible to the people.
- The Secret Files of Hugo and Victoria.
- Easy Turkish desserts Recipes: How to make Delicious Turkish desserts.
- JIM THE FRIENDLY POLAR BEAR LEARNS THE MEANING OF FRIENDSHIP.
It should be noted that before the Reformation, there was no complete translation of the Bible in English. The only translation in English, from the Latin and not the original Greek language, covering only the New Testament and some parts of the Old, was that attributed to John Wycliffe of England. Despite the fact it was made with the knowledge of the authorities of the Church, its use was forbidden without special permission, according to the decision of the Synod of Oxford of The first translation of the Bible into English from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and the first which was printed was that of William Tyndale in c.
Before this translation, the only printings of the Bible were the Vulgate first printing, , the Hebrew text of the Old Testament , the text of the New Testament Greek by Erasmus , with four revisions through , and the literal translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin The translation of the New Testament into English from the original Greek text depended on the initiative of Tyndale c. Tyndale was denounced and forced to flee to Germany, where he probably met Martin Luther.
Tyndale started to print the New Testament in English in Cologne, but was again forced to flee to another city, Worms. In Worms, he finally completed the printing of the English translation of the New Testament in its entirety. This translation was reprinted many times in Holland. Copies of this translation reached England, where it aroused the anger of his enemies. Nevertheless, Tyndale continued his work and undertook to translate and print the books of the Old Testament.
He first printed the five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, in Antwerp in Over the next few years, he printed the other books of the Old Testament. This began sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, with the first portion of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah , being translated into Koine Greek. Over the next century, other books were translated or composed as well. This translation became known as the Septuagint and was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews , and later by Christians.
It differs somewhat from the later standardized Hebrew Masoretic Text. This translation was promoted by way of a legend that seventy separate translators all produced identical texts. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon as reflected in the Masoretic Text , and on the Greek text for the rest.
Other ancient Jewish translations, such as the Aramaic Targums , conform closely to the Masoretic Text , and all medieval and modern Jewish translations are based upon the same. Christian translations also tend to be based upon the Hebrew, though some denominations prefer the Septuagint or may cite variant readings from both.
Bible translations incorporating modern textual criticism usually begin with the Masoretic Text, but also take into account possible variants from all available ancient versions. The books of the Christian New Testament are widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, specifically Koine Greek , even though some authors often included translations from Hebrew and Aramaic texts.
Certainly the Pauline Epistles were written in Greek for Greek-speaking audiences. See Greek primacy for further details.
- Die besten 5 Hifi-Verstärker (German Edition).
- My 10 Lunch and Dinner Juice Recipes: My Juice Recipes Volume 2.
- Featured Verse Topics.
- Nylon Girls - Photo Selection (Erotic Photography 1) (German Edition)!
- Ambaguam--Beginning at the End!
- Les notions despace en géométrie : De lAntiquité à lAge Classique (Acteurs de la Science) (French Edition)!
Koine Greek was the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-classical antiquity c. It is not a bad thing, but also not necessary. But you should have a pastor who knows it. The spiritual leader of any band of disciples should be able to bring these old treasures out of the storehouse along with new ones. I believe you will have a much fuller understanding of any text when you read it in its original language. How many times have you heard someone translate a phrase and then say, "It has a much different meaning in the original?
Reading parts of the Torah in Hebrew, it's amazing how many ideas get twisted by people who have only read the King James version. For example, Isaiah 53 is the oft-cited chapter that Christians say "proves" that Jesus is the Messiah. But the translation twists the meaning of the words:. Does it make a difference to be able to read the bible in its original language, rather than relying on translations? It depends on what you're trying to get out of reading the Bible.
Biblical languages - Wikipedia
If you're looking to see if there are any deeper religious insights to be had between language versions, my only comment would be that a fairy tale in one language is very much like a fairy tale in another language. However if you're reading the Bible in an attempt to compare what was said when it was originally written with a modern version in order to highlight the many subsequent additions, translation errors and misinterpretations of meaning, then yes, it's a very useful exercise.
But you have to remember that the Bible is a collection of texts written by many people from different cultural and religious backgrounds over a period of perhaps 1, years and was never "a book" as such. The modern bible only came into being in the early 4th century when the Roman Emperor Constantine and his bishops hand-selected texts for inclusion, rejecting many others including many more gospels known as the Gnostic Gospels simply because they didn't give the particular version of the storyline which Constantine wanted.
You also have to remember that this compilation wasn't done particularly for religious purposes per se , but simply to give a unified religious belief, and consequentially make military control easier, to the then Roman Empire, which included a considerable number of Pagan beliefs. The inclusion of Christmas in the Christian calendar is one good example of this manipulation; originally it was the Pagan celebration of sol invictus or the winter solstice, however it was decreed that from that time on it would become a celebration of Jesus' birthday!
Another thing to remember when reading the Bible is that many of the stories in it were never written to be factual, rather they were a re-telling of older myths from another culture the story of Moses for example, the story of Noah's flood for another which were 'updated' to meet the then religious beliefs. Some other stories were written as allegorical tales to try to convey a particular religious or cultural message by way of a narrative that people of the time could understand and relate to. Many, if not all, of the supposed Jesus 'miracles' come under this heading, having allegorical meanings specific to countering the then strict Jewish orthodoxy and Roman rule, direct criticism of which could result in the death penalty.
First of all, I'd like to clarify a point: The Hebrew Bible actually has some sections that are in Aramaic. The earliest known versions of texts from the New Testament are in Greek. That makes a total of three languages. If you'd like to read the Nag Hamadi library for context, then Coptic is also crucial. If you'd like to read the Dead Sea Scrolls for comparative purposes, you also might need to brush up on Nabataean-Aramaic.
Secondly, I must point out that this decision depends on your relationship with biblical Christianity. For many Christians, their religion is the difference between spending eternity in bliss or torment, and Jesus is the most important being who ever lived on earth, and the Bible is the most important record of God's relationship with human beings. These are not trivial matters, or so it seems to me as an outsider. None of these conditions really apply to me, so it doesn't matter much to me that I can't read biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek fluently.
I'm an idiosyncratic and not very traditional Jewish person. At the very least, I'd get hold of an interlinear bible and a few reference books, and do my best to get a sense of what the documents are like in their original languages. It makes a big difference to me because I can't read any of the original languages. My solution is to read and discover excellent resources which cover this. I also have a greek interlinear bible which helps with some parts of the bible.
For the most part, unless one is trying to do scholarly research, the KJV and NKJ as well as the Amplified bible and a couple of concordances and dictionaries are sufficient to get as accurate a picture you may need for living day to day life. For most people getting them to read just one bible would be a bonus to their faith. Jewish poet, Haim Nachman Bialik wrote that,"Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing your new bride through a veil.
You can't get the puns, you can't delight and struggle with the grammar, you can't wrestle with the text without understanding Hebrew. For instance, " And there was evening , and there was morning --the third day. The words for evening and morning can also mean "chaos" and "clarity". Then learn it well enough to understand the Bible. Some people are too old to learn two different languages well enough to understand what the scriptures say in the Bible. It would be nice if our children were taught Hebrew and Greek at an early age when they can pick up a foreign language with no trouble.
Bible Living
Then once they got grown, they would at least have an idea of what the ancient scriptures say. The bible's original language is a foreign language to me, a native-English speaker, and I understand that biblical Hebrew is not the same language as modern Hebrew. So it appears that even to a modern Hebrew speaker, the bible would seem as if written in a foreign language, or at least a primitive version of the modern language, much as Chaucer's obsolete English would seem to a modern-English speaker.
So, how then can the bible be read in its original language without relying on translation? It must make a difference. Ask New Question Sign In. Does it make a difference to be able to read the Bible in its original language, rather than relying on translations? Elasticsearch Service - Start a day free trial. The only solution built by the makers of Elasticsearch.
Navigation menu
Free Trial at elastic. You dismissed this ad. The feedback you provide will help us show you more relevant content in the future. Yes, it makes a real and useful difference You can understand why different translations translated the same verse differently. You can make up our own mind which translation is more likely to be correct or often, why both translations are equally possible.
There are much "word pictures", especially in the poetic parts of Scripture, that only become visible when you read it in the original language. Some common misconceptions mistranslations? Often translators are forced to use different English or other modern language words for the same original word, or use the same English or orther modern language word for different words in the original. This happens often when the "same" word have slightly different shades of meaning in the different languages. It only really makes a difference if you start to look into the details of specific verses; the basic overall message is unlikely to be changed.
However, it can help to improve your confidence in the reliability of the Bible overall and your own ability to understand it correctly. What do your coding skills say about your secret AI talent? Take the Developer Economics survey, test your software development skills and find your AI alter ego!
Start Now at survey. Related Questions More Answers Below How can Christians split hairs with Bible interpretations when very few of them can read it in its original language? Why don't Christians read the Bible in its original language? All the prophets taught others to read in a certain language. What language was the Bible originally written in? How accurate was the translation? Do languages that specify gender produce more accurate translations of the Bible than English translations? If I want to read the Bible in its closest form to the original version, which version should I read?
Thanks for the A2A. I'll take that in reverse order.