Dr. Brown Answers Your Bible Translation Questions

The following is a pre-recorded program.

So, what do the Hebrew and Greek texts really say? It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into The Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Hey, friends. Welcome to the special edition of The Line of Fire. I have been soliciting questions on our Facebook and Twitter accounts, Bible translation questions, questions about specific verses, questions about the Hebrew, questions about the Greek, questions about different translations of the Bible in general. And we're devoting the entire broadcast today to digging into those questions together. You know, a lot of people feel that if I could just know the Hebrew, if I could just know the Greek, then the word would open up to me as if English translations are somehow suspect, as if there is this hidden conspiracy of Bible translators in all different denominations and over the centuries and different branches of the church and the synagogue as well, and they're all suppressing what the text really says.

No, no, quite the contrary. Scholars for many years now have been doing their best and Bible translators have been doing their best to open up the meaning of the Scriptures so that people could read the Bible in their own language. And as I've studied Hebrew for decades and Greek less so, but studied languages enough to know how to use the best dictionaries and come to solid conclusions about Greek as well, I can tell you that we have many fine translations, many beautiful translations, but no translation is going to be perfect because it comes through human hands. And every translation on a certain level is a commentary.

What do I mean? That if you will look at translations done by, say, a cult group like Jehovah's Witnesses, it will reflect their aberrant theology throughout the translation. Conversely, if you look at a Christian translation of the Bible and a Jewish translation of the Bible, you will see differences based on different theological nuances, based on how those faith traditions understand specific words. And that's where you have to get into a further discussion, debate, study, dig deeper, and then you come to your conclusion about what the best translation is. And then in certain cases, and this is where I really struggle when I do Bible translation, simple words, simple words that can, I mean, they can be translated any of a number of ways. What's the best way to translate them?

Or here's another thing. Do I want to communicate to you the feel of the Hebrew, the energy of the Hebrew, Hebrew alliteration, phraseology? Do I want to communicate that to you, but now the English doesn't read so well? Because I'm trying to get the Hebrew feel into English. You say, no, that's great.

I love it. But the problem is it doesn't feel like that in Hebrew. In other words, it feels natural in Hebrew and fully expressive in Hebrew, excuse me. But if you try to put it in English, it sounds unnatural in English. Or do I make it sound really nice and natural and flowing in English the way it would be in Hebrew or Greek?

But in order to do it, I've got to change the feel of the original a little. So these are challenges. The same word that's used. What if a biblical author, what if Paul in Romans uses a particular word over and again? Do I always want to translate that same word the same way so that the reader will know, hey, that's the same Greek word? Or do I recognize it in different contexts? It can have different meanings. So there's a lot that goes into it. But overall, when you'll compare major translations, you'll see the overall message remains the same.

Okay, I'm going to start with some questions on Twitter. FLP asks this. On the original Greek text, does Jesus claim the mustard seed is the smallest seed or just a small one?

Matthew 13, 31, and 32. Now, why does that come up as a question? It comes up as a question because people say, well, actually, it's not the smallest of all seeds. And Jesus says it's the smallest of all seeds, and therefore, he was ignorant.

You know, he didn't really understand. The fact is, the Greek does say smallest. And there's no reason to translate small, just small. Just small, okay? There's no reason not to accept that it means smallest.

However, however, here's the thing. He was not making a scientific statement about all plant life in the world. And every seed in the world or every seed which anyone could potentially find in the Middle East is saying, look, it's the smallest seed here. It's tiny. This is this whole point.

Everybody knows how tiny it is. Look at how big the tree grows. That's the only point he's making to try to press it more scientifically is not what the text is about at all. John 3, 7, Michael asked about this. The Greek anothon, should it mean born again or born from above? It has the nuance of from above, but it's clearly speaking of being born a second time. To just say born again, though, takes away any of the divine sense, the heavenly sense that the context also calls for. To just say born from above takes away the sense of born for a second time.

Nicodemus obviously understands what's going on. The best way to combine these senses of born again and born from above would be born anew. That's what many translators believe. Born anew conveys the fact that it is a second birth, but that it is heavenly. It is regenerative.

There's more to it. Born again, you could be born again, and it's not a good birth, right? Born anew speaks in more positive terms. All right, Corey asked this. Many commentators say in Nehemiah 3-12 that their daughters only assisted and didn't do the actual labor. Is there anything about the original language that would indicate that?

Okay, I have not looked at that question before, so we're going to take a look together. I'm going to go to Nehemiah chapter 3 verse 12, and okay, yeah, well, it's just the end says, huva uvnotav, he and his daughters, right? So next to them, shalom, son of Halochash, chief of half the district of Jerusalem, repaired he and his daughters. The fact it mentions his daughters would say that they were involved with the physical labor.

Maybe he didn't have sons, but the fact that it mentions his daughters, there's no reason to mention them, if not for the fact that they were working together. And for an Israelite or Judean woman to do physical labor is certainly normal enough. So yeah, I wouldn't, they only assisted, I don't think that anyone was wondering what they were doing.

You know what I'm saying? That they did what they did, men did what they did. There may have been segregated roles for labor, the types of things men did versus the types of things women did.

That's common to this day in different parts of the world. But the point is they were assisting in the overall work, and I wouldn't try to cut through, well, were they doing the same? It's just the Hebrew just says he and his daughters, that's it. That's it. There's nothing more. Everything else you have to read into it.

All right, let's see, Marco. Curious to know, Dr. Brown, why the Greek preposition en is translated as among in John 1.14, when every other verse using the same preposition in that same chapter is translated as in. So John 1.14, of course, very famous verse, and the word was made flesh and tabernacled among us. So the question is, why does it say among rather than in?

And tabernacled in us. And let me just look, and the word became flesh and right. So the answer is that the Greek preposition en has a wide variety of usages. Just like the Hebrew preposition be in can have a wide variety of usages, sometimes it depends on the verb. In other words, if I join this preposition with this verb, it can have a particular nuance. I remember when I was learning Arabic that there was one particular verb to draw near, and you use the preposition from, to draw near from, and it was, in my mind, it was to draw near to. Prepositions, though, are multifaceted. I've often used the example of listening to someone on the radio. If I said that in Hebrew, I was listening to someone baradio, that would mean to them that I was standing on a radio listening to somebody, or the person I was listening to was standing on the radio, or excuse me, it was actually inside it somehow.

They're physically inside it. Or take that all back. Retrace my steps. I said it completely backwards.

See, that just shows how the confusion, you come in with prepositions. In Hebrew, that's how you say it. You listen to someone in the radio. When we hear that, we think someone was inside the radio. We say, I listen to someone on the radio. There we have it right now.

Listen to someone on the radio. In Hebrew, that would mean they were standing on the radio, or I was standing on the radio as I was listening. And here, just a simple question. Do you drive down the road or up the road?

When you leave your house, do you drive down the road or up the road? So, all that to say, prepositions, adverbs, they can have wide ranges of meanings, and you have to look in context, because en can mean inside of. It can mean among. There are various usages. So, just because it's used a certain way in the chapter doesn't mean anything.

The question is, how is it used in general? And then you have to plug in the right meaning in each particular setting. He made us dwelling among us. He didn't dwell in us, right?

He made us dwelling among us. So, that's certainly the right translation there. Sorry for the confusion with Hebrew radio.

OK, Jared, why isn't Hebrews 5.18 translated, be being filled with the Holy Spirit instead of filled, stark difference between a life of constant filling and once filled? The issue there is simply one of English usage. In other words, it does work to say in Greek and the particular verbal form that's used to say being filled.

It's an ongoing state. But that doesn't work well in English. We don't say be being filled. So, I'm just looking at various English translations to see if any bring it out a little bit more. The complete Jewish Bible, David Stern New Testament, keep on being filled with the Spirit. He seeks to emphasize that, but very few others do. Yeah, one version be fulfilled with the Spirit. That really doesn't work.

The ISV is another. Keep on being filled with the Spirit. Sometimes the issue is we get used to a particular translation and that's what sticks. And be filled with the Spirit.

If we understand, OK, it's not talking about a one-time act, but ongoing, don't get drunk on wands, don't do that, but be filled with the Spirit, it should convey ongoing. But I agree it would be better to do an ISV or CJB there and say keep on being filled with the Spirit. All right, more of your Hebrew and Greek Bible questions when we come back. And Twitter on Bible translation questions. Questions about the Hebrew, questions about the Greek, questions about different translations to use, etc. So, not time to post questions now because we've already gotten a bunch of questions sometime earlier.

And not taking calls today, but sit back, enjoy the broadcast. Let me just give you a little useful online hint, OK? If you don't have any Bible software and you just want to check different Bible translations in English, actually in multiple languages, go to BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway.com. Just type in the verse that you're looking at.

That'll be on the left top. Then on the right, you'll see a list of versions. And you can go from King James to New King James to NIV to CSB to ISV to NET, wide ranges. There are even translations into other languages.

Arabic and Spanish and German and Dutch. They're there. So, let's say you're looking up John 1-1 at BibleGateway.com. Let's say you look it up in the ESV. Then when you look at it, it'll give the translation. Then if you scroll down a little, it'll give you an option to click on it, and you can read it in all of the different English translations that they have available. So, right there on your screen, you can compare 20, 30, 40, 50 different English translations. That's one really helpful tool to know about. And it's free online. What a gift.

What an incredible gift. Here's another one. Go to netbible.org. Netbible.org.

You'll see it comes up on your screen. In the left corner is the biblical text. So, let's say you're looking at, oh, let's say, okay, we were talking about John 1. So, you click on John 1. Then it'll ask for the chapter, and it'll bring you to John 1-1. Now, here's the unique thing about the NET, the New English Translation.

It has over 60,000 translation notes. Now, some of it's technical, and you'll have to work through slowly. If you have no background, it won't make a lot of sense. Some of it's simpler to understand. But let's say you're looking, okay, in the beginning, the Greek anarchy. In the beginning, there's a number one next to that.

You click on that, and it'll come over on the right in the beginning, the search for the basic stuff out of which. So, there's going to be a note to give you the sense of what's being discussed there, and then on and on. So, you'll get a lot of Hebrew and Greek questions answered there.

At least you'll get the perspective of those answers. All right, let's go over to Facebook. Henrique asks, what's your take on the Septuagint?

Thank you. The Septuagint is the most important ancient version of the Old Testament that we have, plus what we would call the Apocryphal books. It is the first major translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into another language. Now, you also have the Aramaic Targums, which are translation slash paraphrases, which grew and were completed over a period of centuries. But the Septuagint was finished probably at least 150 years before the time of Jesus. And the Septuagint is often used by the writers of the Greek New Testament because they're writing in Greek, therefore they're citing from Greek. You know, when I'm writing a book, and I'm citing verses out of the New Testament left and right, I'm just going to cite from an English version. I don't have enough Greek skills to do my own translation straight from the Greek. I mean, I can decide which translation I think is more accurate.

But let's just say that the publisher uses the ESV or the MEV or whatever version they use, and they ask, am I happy to use that? Okay, so I'm just quoting from that because they said, yeah, that's the version our readers are going to be most familiar with. So in the ancient world, it's not like everybody had a Bible in their home. It's not like everyone had a Bible app on their cell phone, right? So the Septuagint was the primary Greek translation that was being used, and because that's how Greek speakers would read the Bible. They couldn't read the Hebrew Bible.

They'd read the Greek. So this was what was available, and therefore the New Testament writers are frequently quoted from it. Sometimes they do their own translation straight from the Hebrew, like Matthew does in Matthew 8, 16, and 17, and specifically 8, 17.

He does that. Other times Paul will vary from the Septuagint where he wants to convey a different truth or emphasis, but it's frequently used because that was the Greek Bible of the day. It is especially valuable to give you Jewish theological insight into how Jews at that time were reading certain texts. It is highly interpretive, so sometimes there's a particular theological agenda that the text is seeking to carry out, consciously or unconsciously. Other times it just gives us an idea of a difficult text, how it was read through readers at that time. So it is highly, highly valuable for text-critical studies, and Old Testament scholars will always go to the Hebrew Bible, then they'll go to Septuagint next in terms of assessing the ancient witnesses.

All right, let's see. Jenny, from a mom with four kids that wants to look at the original text, how do I do that? I have a wiry study Bible, but it's not enough. I want to go deeper but need help. Okay, great question.

For a mom with four kids, or a mom with eight kids, or a mom with no kids, or anybody, how do you go deeper? Okay, so one thing is check out those tools I mentioned, thebiblegateway.com, just to compare translations, and then netbible.org for lots of in-depth information. But there is a wealth of rich biblical software available. A wealth of it.

And there are different programs with different costs. Accordance Bible software is really good for reading the original text and having reference to what dictionaries say and things like that. When I'm just grabbing text and looking at the languages, the first place I would go, Accordance, they're adding a growing library continually of commentaries and other books like that, and geographical background and cultural background. So that's a rich place, accordancebible.com. And one with an even more massive resource of materials is Logos, Logos Bible Software, so logos.com. So with either of these, you'll be able to have a Greek text and hover over it, and it will tell you what the word means and link you to key dictionaries, and you can expand. I own them physically, but now on software too, every imaginable Hebrew dictionary and Greek dictionary and Aramaic, you know, just have a wide range of resources.

You can keep going deeper. Logos is even richer with commentaries and other studies available. So that's the simplest way. I only use these software programs to a certain aspect of their potential. In other words, I haven't taken time to master all of the nuances of the software, but the more I dig in, the more amazed I am by what's there. There are other good sources. Olive Tree Bible Works is one I used for years, but they've kind of discontinued, especially for Apple users. So accordancebible.com or logos.com. Check out the packages.

Check out what's available. You'll be able to dig deeper to your heart's content. Steve says that poor translations can severely alter the meaning. Yeah, but of course, translators are doing their best.

Some have an agenda in a wrong way, like cults that are going to translate the Bible to suit their false theology, but others are really trying to get the text out accurately, and that's why you compare different ones to get an idea. If you see 10 different English translations that come from a wide range of backgrounds – Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Messianic, Jewish, Liberal, Conservative – and they all say it the same way. Add in Jewish on top of it, then you can be sure, okay, that's what it says. That's what it says. When you see great diversity, 10 different translations, and they hardly resemble each other, that tells you the original Hebrew and Greek is very obscure.

You say, well, that's the solution. I just need to learn Hebrew and Greek. By the time you've learned enough Hebrew and Greek to debate it with the scholars involved with translation, it's going to be many, many, many, many years. So don't just think, oh, I could figure it out, because you guys are folks that have been studying languages for decades and have been studying the commentaries and the dictionaries. So when you see a verse that everybody translates differently, you realize, okay, there are some difficulties in understanding this for us.

And let's see. Up high, I guess that's the name here. Psalm 110, 4.

How should it be translated? Kohen as a priest or a chief? Melchizedek doesn't look like a name in here. Noah, I fully affirm the translation of Psalm 110, verse 4. You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Absolutely affirm that. In other words, David slash the Messiah is a priestly king, just as Melchizedek was in Genesis the 14th chapter. There are Jewish translations that will render it differently. For example, the new Jewish publications to society version says it like this. You are a priest forever, a rightful king by my decree, and says, or it could be after the matter of Melchizedek. So I'm convinced that is the right way to read it. And I'm just looking at, yeah, the Targum reads it a little differently. The Greek, the Septuagint has Melchizedek.

So that's definitely the right way. I see no reason, I mean, I examined this text for many years and debated it back and forth with rabbis and things. I see no reason not to translate it with after the order of Melchizedek. Joanne, I miss my old NIV. Will they ever republish it? I'm using an ESV version now and while I understand it's a reliable translation, I still prefer the other one.

The old NIV, which was, what, 1984. I still have a Bible old NIV that I travel with. I get used to preaching out of it where I want to correct the Hebrew or the Greek.

I'm obviously free to do that. But it reads really well. Certain places, it missed things.

It wasn't exact enough. So the new version that fully came out, what, around 2011, in certain ways improves on it. But in other ways, I don't like it as much.

Absolutely with you on that. I don't like the new as much as the old. But no, the old is gone. It's gone. It's not sold. You have to get a used copy. They don't use it on Bible software. It's gone. It has been fully replaced.

So yeah, I miss aspects of that as well. Okay, we'll be right back with more of your Bible questions. Welcome, welcome, friends, to this special edition of The Line of Fire where I'm answering questions that we previously solicited on Facebook and Twitter, asking for your Hebrew and Greek-related questions, your Bible-translation-related questions. So we're not taking calls, we're not taking new comments on social media, just those that were posted, trying to get to as many as we can in the order in which they were posted. You say, oh, if I had known that I'm not connected with you on social media.

Well, here we are. Connect. On Facebook, it's Ask Dr. Brown, A-S-K-D-R Brown. On Twitter, it's Dr. So, D-R Michael L. Brown. That's Twitter. So, at D-R Michael L. Brown on Twitter. Facebook is Ask Dr. Brown, A-S-K-D-R Brown. And Instagram, do we have? Hang on, let's just see.

Do I have? Is it? Okay, no middle initial L on Instagram. So on Instagram, it's D-R Michael Brown. They're on Instagram. Now we're on some other places, but they're just not generating that much activity.

We don't focus there. And YouTube, of course, Ask Dr. Brown, A-S-K-D-R Brown. Did you know you can actually watch the show there? Yeah. You can watch it live on Facebook or on YouTube.

You say, I'm in my car, I missed some of that. Just go to our website. Simple. Askdrbrown.org. Askdrbrown.org. Go there and we've got all the links for social media waiting for you. But if you're on Facebook, Twitter in particular, the moment we post a new article, boom, you'll know about it. The moment we're doing a live feed, boom, you'll know about it. The moment that we are some debates about to happen, I'm going to be in a certain area, you'll know about it.

And then, of course, the daily shows, you can watch live. So this way you won't feel left out. All right. Okay. Let's go to Otto over on Facebook. I think you should talk about Simon the Tanner and Simon the Leper.

Same guy. As the words are so close in the Hebrew that the Greek got it wrong and he references Matthew 26-6. Matthew 26-6.

So here's the only problem I have with this. The idea that the Greek got things wrong because the words were closely connected. It's forgetting the fact that there is divine inspiration in the writing, number one. And number two, that for most all of the New Testament, the Greek is the original, meaning not that Jesus spoke and taught in Greek, but that the Greek is how it was written, that Luke wrote his gospel in Greek. And even if there was an original Hebrew Matthew or a compilation of Hebrew or Aramaic sayings of Jesus that Matthew did, the gospel of Matthew, as best as we can tell, was written in Greek itself. In other words, it's not a translation of another document.

So what I would say is caution there. There are some that say, yeah, the words are close and, you know, got confused. But there's no hardcore textual evidence for that. So rather than saying the Greek got it wrong, why wouldn't this person have been known as Simon the Leper?

Maybe he had leprosy in the past. All right, so you might say, well, no, no, no, because Jesus would have healed him, he wouldn't be called that anymore, and therefore, tanner. It's an argument that can be made, but there's no concrete textual support for it. So even when I'm looking at Bibles that would seek to recover the Jewish roots of the text of the Jewish nuances, like the complete Jewish Bible, it says he had sarahat, which is the Hebrew word for the skin condition. The TLV calls it Simon Hamid's sarah, which would be the same thing, the leper.

And then the NET, which will give you further background, etc., and the Hebrew and the Greek, the leper. So if people say, no, no, no, we know it, no, it's just speculation. It's just speculation, and there's no compelling argument that can be made for it.

Okay, Michael asked this. Slaves. Why is the word for slaves in the New Testament usually always translated as servant when the original was slave?

This is actually a big question that Bible translators have debated. I was watching a video of one translation where the Old Testament scholars came back with their report on their study and their data and debated how to translate the Hebrew eved, should it be slave or servant. In Greek, doulos, should it be slave or servant. The problem with translating slave is it conveys to us in America the slave trade.

It conveys brutality. It conveys harsh servitude. Now, you could say you were slaves in Egypt, and it would have been more apropos there, but to say that if you have a Hebrew slave, I know you're talking about the New Testament, but I'm starting with old. If you have a Hebrew slave, well, it's not the same. It wouldn't have been the same system that happened in Egypt or that we were used to with the horrors of the African slave trade that we subjected the people to.

And then the same with Greek doulos. Yeah, you could be a slave captured in battle and in some oppressive setting, but if you had a household slave, it was different. So, are we slaves of the Lord? Does that mean he's there with a whip beating us, or does it mean that we were just at his service full-time and he's our master and lord?

Obviously, the latter. So, that's why some Greek translations will say bonslave. And, again, it's debatable, but they're trying to say it's not just slave in the way it's conveyed. So, that's another aspect of translation work. What does the word mean in the language, the target language, that you're translating into? A generation ago it may have had one meaning, and then a generation later, the culture's changed – it has another meaning.

So, that is one of the challenges, but it's a debated question, sir. Laurie, could you give the correct translation for Jesus' words, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Thank you. That was the correct translation. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? It's Psalm 22, 1, in Hebrew, Elie Elie lama azaf tani, and the Aramaic equivalent Eloi Eloi lama shabak tani.

It is not zavach tani, why did you sacrifice me? No, no, no, it doesn't work in the Hebrew. He's quoting from Psalm 22, that's not what Psalm 22 says, that's number one.

Number two, it doesn't work with the Greek phonetics, the way it's laid out. So, when they hear him, what is he calling Elijah? In Hebrew, it's Eliyahu, parts throat hanging on the cross. Is he calling for Elijah? So they misunderstand him, but that's the correct translation, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

No question about it. It's what it would say in Hebrew, and what it would say in the Aramaic that he'd be speaking, that would be his mother tongue, you know, to speak it in Aramaic. So that's what it means. Let's see, Nick, recent question I have is from Deuteronomy 24.1 in relation to Matthew 19.8 where Jesus refers to Moses allowing a certificate of divorce because of hardness of heart. I follow Tim Keller and he attributed Jesus granting divorce due to the hardness of heart when I've always read this to mean he was just repeating Moses' concession.

There was then some debate from others that the hardness of heart referred to by Jesus was in effect the same thing that Jesus commands were right. Okay, so just to jump in for time's sake, my understanding of Yeshua's words in Matthew 19 is it was because of Israel's hardness of heart that God gave the divorce laws, but it was not his intention from the beginning. And therefore, contrary to the Hillel school of Pharisees, you did not have the right to divorce your wife for any and every reason, but only because of sexual immorality, which would be a breaking of the covenant of the one member of marriage now joining themselves to another. That's a covenantal act. You are breaking the covenant with your spouse in doing so, and those would have been grounds for divorce. That's what the debate was over. As we know that the two Pharisaical schools, the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai, the one said that you can divorce for any reason, and that was also considered compassionate to the wife. If the husband's tired of her, why make her be in a bad marriage?

That was the justification, obviously a weak one. And the school of Shammai said, no, no, only for the cause of adultery, for sexual immorality. And Jesus is agreeing there with the school of Shammai versus the school of Hillel.

So the hardness of heart is not his concession for divorce, but the reason that it was issued under Moses. Yeah. Let's see.

Ah, okay. Colin. Ekklesia. Republic or monarchy? Neither.

Neither. Ekklesia is not a republic. The Ekklesia is not a monarchy. Yes, the Ekklesia in the ancient Greek world could mean – and this is the word that we wrongly translate – church, because church is associated with a building, right?

It should be the messianic community or the congregation. But Ekklesia in the ancient Greek world could in some contexts have the meaning of a ruling council. And there have been teachers in recent years who have taken that and now applied it to the New Testament church that we are God's ruling council on the earth, and that we therefore carry out God's decrees on the earth, and it's up to us to set the world in order by our authority in Jesus. That can lead to a wrong dominionism thinking.

That can lead to a wrong idea of the church somehow taking over or imposing views. It's absolutely not how the word is used in the New Testament, nor would it be in keeping with how the Hebrew word edah or kahal, a congregation, especially kahal, is used in the Hebrew Bible. And that's often translated as Ekklesia in the Greek New Testament. You say, yeah, but the kahal is mentioned gathering at Mount Sinai. That's just the congregation.

It's just the people. It doesn't make it into a legal assembly. Matthew 28, 18, Jesus says, all authority in heaven and earth is given to me. So we go in his authority. We preach and set captives free in his authority. We have authority over demons in Jesus' name. We have authority to drive out sickness in Jesus' name. We have authority to proclaim liberty to captives and proclaim forgiveness through the cross.

But we are not God's legislative council on the earth. It's a common teaching today. It's a very popular teaching today. It's a spreading teaching today.

And it ties in with Christian nationalism in certain ways, but it is not a New Testament teaching. I painstakingly went through the lexicons on one broadcast. I say painstakingly. I don't mean it was hard for me to do. I mean, it's not like an inspirational show like, preach it, man! Come on!

You're stirring my heart! I mean, line by line by line. So if you'll search on askdr.brown.org or on the Ask Dr. Brown YouTube channel, check for Ekklesia. E-K-K-L-E-S-I-A. You'll see a whole broadcast I devoted to just going through verse after verse after verse after verse in the New Testament and then looking at all of the major Greek lexicons that have been compiled in the English language. I mean, every single major Greek dictionary, and then some that are multi-volume, and none of them understand Ekklesia in the New Testament, which is speaking of the body of Christ, the body of Messiah, speaking of us, sons and daughters of God and Jesus. None of them understand Ekklesia there to mean a ruling council.

So neither a republic nor a monarchy. Yes, we're under-chained Jesus, but Ekklesia is not referring itself to a monarchy but to a congregation besides man. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Welcome friends to the Line of Fire broadcast. This is a special edition of the show today, not taking calls. I previously solicited questions on Facebook, the Ask Dr. Brown Facebook page, A.S.K. D.R.

Brown, and our Twitter page, so that would be at drmichaellbrown at Twitter. And I said, do you have questions on translations of the Bible, meaning of Hebrew, Greek, things like that? So the entire show today is devoted to answering these specific questions.

So I'm going to go back to Twitter. And Kevin, difference between Son of Man, Son of God in the Tanakh, and in the Gospels, and how does that apply to the identity of Messiah? Hebrew Ben Adam, which is how God refers to Ezekiel, just means mortal. Son of Man just meaning a mortal one, a mortal one.

That's what Ben Adam means there. Barnasha, which is the Aramaic for Son of Man in Daniel 7, in Aramaic, Daniel 2, 4 to Daniel 7, 28 is written in Aramaic, that refers to an exalted heavenly figure. When Jesus refers to himself as Son of Man in the New Testament, he's clearly referring to himself in the Daniel terms, this exalted heavenly figure who's now here on the earth. So that plays into his messianic identity. A son of God is used in a few different ways in the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 2, God says to the king in Jerusalem, you are my son, today I've given you birth. The king was referred to as God's son, even the most exalted one on the earth. And then ultimately, the son of God, who has no beginning or end, who comes from the Father, is now in a more highly exalted position than the king of Israel would have been. But the son of God terminology in the New Testament builds on what's written about the king as the son of God, the Davidic king as the son of God in the Old Testament, and now in a more highly exalted sense, the literal son of God, the one who comes forth from the Father. Let's see.

Cam, or C-A-M. Okay, brother, on the Hebrew word yom in Genesis, can it ever in certain contexts mean a longer period of time? Yeah, of course. Of course.

Sure. And it can mean a shorter period of time, like daytime. Like how about in Genesis 1, there was morning and there was evening. Day one, right?

So, what's—let's just take a look there. Day one, right, refers to 24 hours. Earlier, God called the light, what?

Day. So that can refer to daytime. Then in Genesis 2, 4, it uses the prepositional phrase b'yom, meaning in the day, which just means when. And that's speaking of the entire context of creation. Or the last days. That's just a period of time. Or we understand from God's perspective in Psalm 90 that one day with the Lord is like a thousand years.

2 and Peter 3 makes that comment. So, yeah, it can—the day of the Lord. What's the day of the Lord? Is that a 24-hour period? Could that be a period of days, weeks, months? There's debate about that. Some would say, yeah, yeah, but if you have morning, evening, then that always means 24-hour period.

Well, that's assuming that it's a normal morning and a normal evening. So you don't have to read Genesis 1 like that. I've never felt you have to read it like that based on Hebrew. And I'm not arguing for old-earth creation. I'm just saying you don't have to read it as a 24-hour period, for sure. 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10, this is from V.R.

46. 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10, actually verse 9, why does it speak of abusers of themselves with mankind in the Greek? So this is not a common modern translation, but rather the King James that—and let me get it for you. Well, I'll tell you what, here.

We'll just do this. It is a translation for the Greek word arsenokoites, which is literally bedding with a man or lying with a man. And the language is taken from Leviticus 18, 22, Leviticus 20, 13 in the Greek.

That's certainly what it's taken from. And it is speaking of a man having sexual relations with a man. The King James wrongly translated the previous word malakos, in plural, malakoi, as effeminate. But really, malakoi and arsenokitai together—forgive the mispronunciation there—together are speaking of men who have sex with men.

And that's how many translate that today. So the King James nor the—these are those who will not inherit the kingdom—the effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind, not the best way to translate it. So CSB puts the two together, males who have sex with males. The CJB, complete Jewish Bible, puts the two together and speaks of those who engage in active or passive homosexuality.

For those understanding the concepts there, that's what it would be referring to. ESV, men who practice homosexuality. Even better just to emphasize the sexual, men who have sex with men. ISV speaks of male prostitutes and homosexuals. I don't like that translation simply because it gives the idea that even if you're same-sex attracted, you're doomed to hell. Whereas this is talking about someone practicing sin, not saying, I have this attraction and I renounce it and I don't live according to it. So that could be a little bit misleading there.

Oh, just a couple of others. Yeah, MEV nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals. I wouldn't go—I would rather put the two words together and say men who have sex with men.

So that's the explanation to it. It's literally in Greek, a man lying with a man. Okay, let's see.

I've got time for a few more questions. Ferny, Torah equals law. Why do translations do this? Is instruction a better translation?

Okay. The Hebrew word Torah can mean teaching or instruction or a specific teaching or instruction that is a law. The Hebrew does not emphasize law as much as Greek nomos does, but with the Septuagint, the ancient Jewish translation translating Torah with nomos, law, and here these are all Jews before the time of Jesus translating it in this way, it seemed to be the best way to convey it in English, and then English translations have followed suit. But in many cases, it's not the best way to translate it. For example, in Psalm 1.3 that the godly man is constantly reciting, repeating, meditating in God's Torah, it's best to translate teaching, where teaching or instruction will go forth from Zion and Jerusalem and Isaiah, the second chapter and the third verse. On the other hand, this is the Torah concerning the burnt offering. With specific instruction, this is the law concerning it. And the Torah is filled with laws and commandments.

So it's something that should be nuanced more. Even Greek nomos, when it's referring to Torah, you might want to translate, even put Torah in the New Testament, as the TLV would do or the CJB would do, to try to emphasize that. But the contrast for the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus the Messiah.

If you had it, let's hypercontrast it. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. You could nuance it to say for the teaching, the Torah was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus the Messiah. It's complementary as opposed to totally opposed.

Glen. In the King James Version, Romans 8.1 has additional language compared to more modern translations like NIV, NLT or ESV. Why the difference?

So it's a simple question. King James, there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Modern translations say there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Period. So why the discrepancy? Two different Greek texts. It's Byzantine verses, Alexandrian. It's two different textual traditions that are followed. But it's nothing to trouble you, because Paul goes on in the verses that follow to identify being in Jesus is being in the Spirit, not in the flesh. So even if that's an addition there, it's an addition that is 100% in harmony with what follows and nothing to be concerned about.

Being in him is to be in the Spirit and not in the flesh. But that's why you have discrepancies. So for example, the King James, New King James, MEV will follow the one ancient Greek text and the other modern translations will follow the other Greek textual tradition. 99% of the time they're in virtually complete agreement on all major issues. On all major issues, complete agreement.

But on some of these more minor ones, 99% of the time in agreement. And then lastly, Bitcoin. How did they get James into the Bible when the Russian translation says Jacob, so does the Greek? Yeah, so here's what happened. That Jacobus in Greek then became Jacobus in Latin. And then the B morphed into an M in Latin. It went from Jacobus to Jacobmas and then as it came ultimately to German and ultimately through English, through the Latin, it became James. But it shouldn't be James, it should be Jacob. Now I know the Greek New Testament distinguishes between the patriarch Jacob and the apostle Jacob. So one is Jacobus and one is Jacob, or Jacob the leader in Jerusalem church. So there is a distinction made so you recognize who the patriarch was, but it still should be Jacob in English, the letter of Jacob.

You know, when you read it, you realize this is a letter written to Jewish believers in Jesus. All right, friends, I hope you found this helpful. We're here to serve you, support you, be a blessing to you.

We'll be back taking your calls on the next broadcast. So visit our website, AskDrBrown.org. Pray about joining our support team, would you? We pour it back into you in many, many different ways every single month when you join together with us. So go to AskDrBrown.org, click on donate. Thank you.