Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions about Bible Translations

The following is a pre-recorded program. That's 866-34TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. I'm not taking calls live.

I'm answering questions that were posted earlier in the week. I think you're going to find this really enriching and helpful. So, I start with a question from Daniel. He says this, why do we use the Masoretic Text when the subtuigent was translated from a source that is much earlier and the subtuigent also resolves many of the problem verses that atheists attack? Okay, first, let me clarify that although the Masoretic Textual Tradition, which is composed of thousands of manuscripts and which dates back to a little over a thousand years ago in terms of when it was really developing and growing, even though that Textual Tradition with vowels and accents is later, it reflects an earlier textual form that we have in some of the earliest manuscripts extant. In other words, Masoretic Textual Tradition is the letters with vowel points and accents. The vowel points were later than the letters. The accents were later than the vowel points in terms of tradition and how these things were developed. But the words were always read.

In other words, you didn't just look at it, you read the words. There were vowels, there were vocalizations, they were passed on, and you have different traditions as to how they were passed on. And the Masoretic Tradition is as ancient as any. So, it's a misnomer to say the subtuigent comes earlier as the Masoretic Tradition later. The Masoretic Tradition is put in writing later by the Masoretes, by the transmitters, the traditionalists, as the Hebrew would mean. But they are simply reflecting what has been passed on for generations, and they were meticulous scribes.

So, we have to evaluate on all ranges of textual evidence. So, for example, with the Book of Isaiah, we have in Qumran, the complete Book of Isaiah, the Isaiah A scroll. But that is written in a freer form.

There are more spelling errors in it, there are different vocalizations, the way letters would be used in things. Then you have the Isaiah B manuscript. This is much smaller, but where we have it at different points, it agrees letter for letter with the later Masoretic Textual Traditions. We also have Hebrew Traditions preserved at Qumran that reflect some of the readings in the Septuagint. Other times it's clear the Septuagint translators are being creative or they're looking for different ways to express things. And the earlier translators say the Book of Genesis has a little different style than later Septuagint translators.

So, everything has to be evaluated in and of itself. The Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew. So, sometimes you try to say, okay, what was the Forlaga? That's a German term meaning the text that was before the translators. When they were translating this into Hebrew, it's different than our current Hebrew text that we have in our Hebrew Bibles. Did they have a different Hebrew text? Did they misunderstand the Hebrew text? Were they translating creatively?

Sometimes that's the case. So, the Septuagint is a super important tool for textual criticism, but it is a translation from the Hebrew. So, unless we can clearly recover an earlier Hebrew text, say from manuscripts at Qumran or elsewhere, Dead Sea Scrolls or elsewhere, then the Septuagint is a secondary source. The Hebrew is primary. Now, when I'm working on a commentary, say now in the Book of Isaiah, and I'm looking at the Hebrew text as we have it, I'm looking at the vowels, the accents. Well, I may differ with the accents of the Masoretes. I may differ with the vowels, because those things were put in later. But unless there's clear reason to differ with the consonants of the text, then I will certainly go with that.

So, I hope that makes sense to you. Remember, the Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew. As for problem verses for the atheists, honestly, I don't think it makes a real difference. In other words, the major verses that atheists attack, they're going to attack anyway. I don't think the Septuagint softens the blow in that respect. Okay, but thank you for the question.

Let's see. Suzanne asked, was one of Noah's sons actually Melchizedek? All right, I was only going to answer translation questions, but since I started on this, I don't see that's possible, but I've heard a known pastor say so. No, this is a rabbinic tradition that says that Shem, one of the three sons of Noah, was actually Melchizedek. It's just a rabbinic tradition. It's a myth.

Forget about it. There is no substance to it. It is just a later Jewish story myth.

Nothing beyond that. Okay, let's see. Joey, I read from a book that Noah's name in Hebrew actually means grace, and that grace in Hebrew doesn't actually mean unmerited favor, if not God's protection or God's favor over our lives. Hence is why Noah received God's protection and favor by escaping the flood having been in the ark. If that is true, can this Hebrew meaning of grace be applied in the way Paul uses it in the New Testament?

If not, then why not? Thank you again, Dr. Brown. Joey, Noah's name does not mean grace. Noah means rest. That's what it's related to, and when you read at the end of Genesis 5, he's named Noah because he will bring rest, so it's not grace. Hebrew words for grace would be hein or hesed. In and of themselves, neither of them fully conveys unmerited favor, but they absolutely convey in different ways mercy, kindness. When it comes to God, from God to his people that turn to him in repentance, it is unmerited in that regard, but we get the full revelation of unmerited favor through the cross. We get the full understanding of God's chorus of his grace through the cross and see the degree to which God has chose favor and mercy and kindness to people who have sinned and betrayed him. His own son takes their punishment, so we get the full revelation, but if you read Psalm 103, praising God for his mercy and goodness, it is greatly extolled or the end of Micah 7, but you don't want to take an Old Testament definition for grace and put it on the New. You want to look at the full revelation of grace through all of the Bible, but what you had heard was not accurate.

Let's see here. Monica, how about the verse that talks about the wearing of gold and costly array? So in 1 Timothy chapter 2. Many must not interpret that the way I was raised, not saying who is correct.

I don't know. Okay, when Paul talks about women and how he wants them to dress modestly, he means it in two different ways. One is for rich women not to flaunt their wealth. You're coming into an assembly together. You've got people of all backgrounds. You've got the poor and others. Don't come in flaunting your wealth. You may have all these riches, but don't flaunt your wealth. Dress modestly. All right, it doesn't say you have to dress like a pauper, but dress modestly. Also, modesty in terms of our general dress out of respect for others. In other words, if you are a beautiful woman, that beauty is a gift from God and something for your spouse, for your husband to enjoy, and there's a general radiance you can have that others can enjoy, but you don't want to dress in such a way as to draw sexual attention to yourself. You don't want to dress in such a way that the moment someone looks at you, they're drawn to certain parts of their body and they're going to think lustful sexual thoughts.

It's not a godly thing to do. So, modesty in terms of not flaunting wealth, modesty in terms of being aware and conducting ourselves in a way that we don't unnecessarily put stumbling blocks in front of others. Sue, the valley of the shadow of death. Is that really an accurate translation of that phrase? The valley of the shadow of death. So, G-d, the valley of the shadow of death. Psalm 23, even though I walk through, Geit Psalmavet, the valley of the shadow of death. There is scholarly debate about this.

Is it Psalmavet, meaning as if from tzeil, shadow, and mavet, death, so the valley of the shadow of death, or is it psalmut, which would be cognate with Ugarit ekramut, meaning deep darkness. There's debate about that among scholars, but the overall meaning is the same. In other words, even though I walk through the deepest, darkest, scariest valley, I won't fear calamity. I won't fear evil because you're with me.

So that would, it's nothing to get uptight about either way. There is actually scholarly debate about that. Now, I am going to refer in a couple of answers to the NET online Bible, so netbible.org. The reason I refer it is not because it's the best English translation, it's excellent, but in many instances I differ with it.

It's an excellent translation, but the reason I will refer to it is it has over 60,000 notes, and if you, so let's just say we're looking at this. We go to Psalm, and then 23, and let's see, even when I must walk through the darkest valley, and I don't know what it's going to say, but this is just checking out. Click on the note, and the Hebrew term psalmav, it has traditionally been understood as a compound noun, meaning shadow of death, as I just explained. Other scholars prefer to vocalize the form psalmut and understand it as an abstract noun, meaning darkness, etc., and they go through the argument and give you all the verses. So that's a great place to go to get an analysis by top Hebrew and Greek scholars to introduce you to the debate around certain words, and then you evaluate, look at other translations, come to your conclusion.

But overall, it doesn't affect the meaning. I remember being in grad school, and we were looking at this and looking at various words and verses and talking it through, but the bottom line in the end, what is the valley of the shadow of death? We're talking about the deepest, darkest, scariest valley. Even there, we don't fear you because God's with us. All right, we'll be right back with a bunch more.

I was going to say a ton, but it's not a ton. Can't wait questions, right? A bunch more of your Bible translation questions to stay right here. Thanks for joining us on a special edition of The Line of Fire today. Instead of taking live calls, earlier in the week, I posted a question and said, hey, if you have on Facebook any questions about Bible translations, translations of verses, words, post the questions, and I'll get to as many as I can on this broadcast. So nothing to post now. We got these questions earlier in the week. Won't be taking calls, but I think you'll find today's broadcast enriching. And we got a lot of questions about the Passion translation. So I'm going to spend time on that once again.

And Iana asked this. Have you seen Mike Winger's take on the Passion translation? He's commissioned scholars to review the translation for specific Old Testament and New Testament books. Are there any specific points brought up by the reviews which you have comments, agree, disagree on?

If yes, we'd love to hear your take. Thank you. And here's the link to Mike Winger, Pastor Mike Winger, The Passion Project, Scholars Review, The Passion Translation.

Number one, big, big issue. It is not a translation. It is a paraphrase.

It doesn't matter to me what others say about it or what its own website says about it. It is a paraphrase. You say, what's the difference? What about a translation that's not word for word, but thought for thought? That is called a dynamic translation. And there are good linguistic reasons to translate dynamically. Many times, the best thing you can do is take the thought, the phrase, and convey it with an equal thought or phrase in the other language. And the more you go word for word, the more it becomes unintelligible.

Others would say we stay word for word as much as possible. That's more literal. But there are no totally literal translations.

If they were, you wouldn't make sense of them. If you went totally literally from Hebrew to English, or from Greek to English, or vice versa, it would make no sense whatsoever. But a paraphrase is like the message Bible. It's stepping back and saying, I'm now going to say it in my own way. I'm going to get it out the way I would express it. I'm going to paraphrase, okay? So we paraphrase all the time. You know, someone's talking to us, okay, let me make sure I know what you're saying. And we expand it. So let me give you a perfect example of the paraphrastic nature of the Passion translation.

And this is something that any of you can do, right? Go to BibleGateway.com. This is free.

Totally free. BibleGateway.com. Now, I'm going to start in Matthew chapter 5, but I'm going to look for, in the English translations, the Passion translation. And let's see. Here we go. Got it.

And I'm going to click. Now we go to Matthew chapter 5 in the Passion translation. And remember, we have the Beatitudes starting in verse 3. And every verse begins with the exact same word in Greek, makarios, which means truly happy. Blessed in that sense.

It's the equivalent of of Hebrew ashrei, or these being Aramaic tuvayon. But it's all the same thing. Truly happy. Truly happy. Truly blessed.

Right? Same word that begins each of these verses. So to me, if I'm a translator, without question, because the original, verses 3 through 10, starts with the same word in each case, actually 3 through 11, I'm going to start with that exact same word, or I'm going to use that same word at the beginning.

This gives the reader a full understanding. So here's what happens as we look in the Passion translation. Instead of blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, it becomes what happiness comes to you when you feel your spiritual poverty, for yours is the realm of heaven's kingdom.

Now there's spiritual truth to what's being said there. In other words, that's explaining some of the meaning of the text, but it's not a translation. Because now look at the next verse.

It begins with what delight, and the verse after that, what blessing, and the verse after that, how enriched, then how blessed, then what bliss, then how joyful, then how enriched, then how blessed. But it's the same word at the beginning of each verse every time. So that's a paraphrase. It's saying it differently each time to convey a different nuance. So as a paraphrase, it often has some very rich and beautiful renderings. So in other words, if you're studying Scripture or preparing a sermon or something like that, and you're looking at different translations and paraphrases like, ooh, I like the way the message said it there.

Bam! I like that. So after I read with the actual verses, I'll say, as paraphrased in the message, or, oh yeah, I like the way the Passion translation brings it out there. Again, it's called TPT, Passion Translation. It's not a translation. It's a paraphrase. So I like the way the Passion paraphrases it. You say that, fine, but you never ever use that as a primary Bible. So others were asking questions and saying, you know, what about churches and pastors that use it as a primary Bible? It's a big error. It's a big mistake. It's a paraphrase.

I've been shouting that out. It's a paraphrase. So I appreciate some beautiful renderings and some that are rich, but it's a paraphrase. It also puts too much stock on the pashita, the Aramaic translation from the Greek, rather than relying more on the Greek.

So that's a philosophical issue that I would take with it. And then it does add in much more about, quote, the anointing to seek to bring in a spiritual dynamic, but in a way that goes beyond Scripture. So I've only watched, Mike Winger sent me all the links to all of the scholars that he commissioned. Let me say this, the scholars he commissioned are all qualified scholars. When you've got Trumper Longman on there, one of the top evangelical Old Testament scholars, he was editor of a co-editor of my volume, Israel's Divine Healer, came out in 85 with Zondervan and the Old Testament editor from Jeremiah Commentary.

So we worked together on an academic level. Or Darryl Bach, who's a friend and colleague, New Testament scholar. The scholars that Mike Winger commissioned are top flight. If they raise criticisms, I would take those seriously. And hopefully Brian Simmons, putting out a future edition of The Passion Translation, can learn from these. I learn constantly from other academics and seek to sharpen what I do as well. So the concerns are valid concerns.

Here and there may be overstated, but valid concerns, for sure. Matt, since so many translators' translations disagree, how are we to know who is right? If you say, by Holy Spirit revelation, have personal revelations then become the authority over Scripture? Number one, every so-called Holy Spirit revelation must be tested by the Word. If I tell you the Holy Spirit has really been leading me to spend more time with the Lord and more time focused on Jesus, well, I can't prove to you that the Holy Spirit led me to do that, but that revelation is certainly in harmony with Scripture because the Holy Spirit is drawing us to Jesus and bringing us in submission to God's will. If I tell you the Holy Spirit told me that the key to getting on more radio stations for your ministry is to rob a bank and use that money to pay for radio, well, now you know that was not a revelation from the Holy Spirit because it's against the Word that commands us not to steal.

So that's the second part. If someone says, the Holy Spirit told me what this verse means, well, I'm going to check it based on the Hebrew and the Greek, all right? You say, okay, but what about all the different translations?

Look at it as a positive, not a negative. What I mean is, if you're studying a verse, and here, again, a simple way to do this, and it's free, of course, if you have software like Accordance Bible Software or Logos, then there are lots of different translations you can get with that. But totally free for everybody. Bible Gateway, all right, or the You version of the Bible. But here's what you can do with Bible Gateway. Go there, type in your verse, all right, and let's say you're looking in the New King James. I want to read this verse in the New King James.

Fine. Then at the bottom, let's say you're looking at two verses. At the bottom of that box, it'll say, click to read all English translations of that. So now you can read 20 or 30 or 40 translations. When you see that all these translations are basically saying the same thing, you know that you know that you know, that's what the original is saying. When you see little different emphases, one leaning this way a little bit, one leaning that way, you realize, okay, that even reading it in the original could go this way or this way. Look, people read passages I wrote in the book, and one will know exactly what did I mean when I wrote it. I made it as clear as I could, but ah, I could have different nuances. You could understand it one way or another. So look at it as a tremendous blessing. When I got saved, the English Bible was the King James. There was the RSV.

None of our circles would think of reading that because I was liberal and so I wouldn't touch that. So it was the King James, and I memorized 20 verses a day, probably six months straight without missing a day, out of the King James in English, and can quote many to this day in King James English. But it's wonderful. It's a great blessing that we have so many translations.

And in the vast majority of cases, it's a matter of different nuance, not fundamental differences of meaning. So overall, you'll see this flood of truth all going in the same direction. Sue, what about who rescued Israel out of Egypt? Jude says Yeshua did.

Jesus did. Okay, this is a very interesting phenomenon, but the Septuagint translators, the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible, translated the name Yeshua, which occurs about 27 times. They translated that as Yesus, which is the right way of putting Yeshua into Greek.

And Greek does not have a sh, so the sh becomes a suh. So Yeshua in Greek becoming Yesus, Yesu, then the final suh, that makes perfect sense. But for some reason, the Septuagint also translated the name Yahoshua, Joshua, as Yesus.

I've read discussions as to why I can't say I fully understand the reasoning. So when Hebrews would talk about Jesus leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, he's talking about Joshua. It's just the Greek way of saying Joshua, which is the same Greek way of saying Jesus. So most modern English translations will make a distinction between Joshua and Jesus in the New Testament. For example, in the King James, you'll find it will say Jesus for Joshua in some of these cases, and Jesus obviously for Jesus as well, hence the confusion.

But it was Joshua who let Israel out, just spelled in a funny way in the Septuagint and reflected that way in the Greek New Testament. It is Bible Translation Day on The Line of Fire. Rather than taking live calls, I posted earlier in the week, told folks if you have questions on translations of the Bible, translations of verses, individual words, to post the questions, and then I would answer them during this broadcast. So I'm not taking calls, and if you post now, we won't be seeing it because we've got a ton of questions came in days earlier. So we've been dealing with them getting to as many as possible. And yeah, I did say a ton of questions. Earlier I said a ton. You can't weigh questions, but we've got a lot.

We've got a lot of good questions, great questions. Okay, Jed, what does 1 Corinthians 14 27 mean, which says, If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. Does it mean members of the congregation must not speak in tongues if there is no interpreter? And does it mean that some members must not speak in tongues if there are already three doing it?

Thank you so much, Dr. Brown. All right, so let's think of this not in terms of speaking in a heavenly tongue or an angelic tongue, but let's just say that you've got a group of folks from Spain with you. They speak Spanish. They don't speak English, all right? And different ones from their group want to share. Okay, so one can speak after them, a second, that one, a third, but that's it because you want to stop and translate, understand.

So we've got a Spanish translator there. It's like, okay, what did our sister say? Let's hear that. Okay, let's hear the second one. It's not all three at the same time, right?

So you hear each one. Okay, well, one sister gets up. She's all excited. She's going on for a couple minutes in Spanish.

It's like, wait, wait, wait, stop, stop, stop. Does anyone here speak Spanish? Can anyone translate?

No. It's like, oh, okay, sister, you can freely praise the Lord. Go ahead if you want to praise the Lord in Spanish, but if you're speaking out to us, we don't understand. So, sorry, no, no, no more speak. You know, you're trying to convey that, right?

The same with tongues. That if we're all worshiping the Lord together, right, hey, let's all just praise God and thank him for his goodness or your Pentecostal Charismatic Church. Lord, I love you. I praise you.

You're good. We're all just thanking him, and there's someone next to me praising him in Spanish, and someone next to me praising him in Arabic, and someone behind me praising him in German, and someone in front of me praising him in tongues. We're all just praising him all together. But if now it's quiet and someone speaks out, let's see if the Lord wants to speak to us prophetically, and someone speaks in a tongue, okay, does someone have the gift of interpretation? If not, don't deliver that message. That's what it's saying. And the two or three is not all at the same time. It means you want to hear it. You want to digest it. Okay, same with prophecy.

Two or three prophets you speak. Same thing. Hear the message, digest it.

That's what it's talking about. Okay, another question about the Passion translation, so I'm not going to get into that in depth, but here Bethany says, I learned all my verses, King James version growing up. I'm teaching my kids via NASB. I use ESV in my personal Bible.

I just want the most basic direct translation that will communicate God's important word to myself, my growing family. Should I be using a different translation? I wrestle with this dilemma often. I hope I'm not creating confusion for my kids later. If you're teaching your kids through the NASB, great, that's fine.

If you're using ESV, great, that's fine. Obviously, if you go verse for verse, line for line, scholars are going to differ here and there, but you're on good sound ground. A key thing is, though, for your kids, your family, is to be consistent, especially for the purpose of memorization. I have friends of mine that have been reading the Bible through cover to cover every year since they were children. Now as they're older, 30s or 40s, they will read from a different English translation every year, so this way they're kind of seeing a little different angle, hearing it with little different nuance here and there, and it's being reinforced, but for the purposes of memorization, so that's great to do, but for the purposes of memorization, you want to stay with the same translation. So for consistency for your kids, just do that as they're growing up. NASB is fine.

ESV is fine. Okay, Deuteronomy chapter 32 verse 8. Ah, you know what, I didn't want to answer two questions from the same person, but I started all right. Deuteronomy 32 8, sons of God or sons of Israel. So let's go over to NetBible.netbible.org. Let's go to Deuteronomy chapter 32. Let's scroll down to verse 8. When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the people according to the numbers of the children of Israel. That's what you read in most English translations, meaning that God said, okay, Israel, you get this place here, this your land, everybody else, you get this, this, this, this.

Or is it according to the number of the sons of God, as the NET says, according to the number of the heavenly assembly, a teaching that Dr. Michael Heiser has brought to many people's attention in recent years. So when you go to Hebrews 1, Hebrews 1 seems to reflect a text saying sons of God versus sons of Israel. You have evidence for this in ancient translations, and you have evidence for this in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So this could well be the original reading. And if you click on note 14 to this, you will see in the NET Bible, Hebrew, the sons of Israel, the idea perhaps is that Israel was central to Yahweh's purposes, and all the other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel, as I said, and it gives background to it. Then it says, the Qumran fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls has sons of God. Well, the Septuagint, so the Greek translation from the Hebrew reads, angels of God, presupposing B'nai El, sons of God, or B'nai Eilim, sons of God. And they say, NET, sons of God is undoubtedly the original reading, the Masoretic text and the Septuagint have each interpreted differently, etc. So in other words, that when God divided the lands, that each country has an angelic leader over it. You know, you read in Daniel 10 about the Prince of Persia, for example. So when God divided the land, he did that accordingly. Jewish tradition would strongly argue for sons of Israel. NET says it's clearly a heavenly assembly. That's one of those you have to dig deeper and come to your own conclusion on.

I could argue either way on that, actually. Okay, Matthew, could you please help me understand what the proper translation of Exodus 21 verses 22 through 25 should be? I'm frustrated as both sides in the abortion debate offer their own obviously correct but very different translations. Thank you, sir. So let's go over, and we're doing this together, to Bible Gateway. Okay, biblegateway.com. I'm going to type in Exodus 22, 22 to 25, but I'm going to type in, let's see, oh, let's find the NRSV, the New Revised Standard Version.

Here we go. And we go to Exodus 21. When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the woman responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you should give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So what would this be saying? That the miscarriage is not a death, that there's a fine to be paid, but it's not a death. But let's say something happens, the pregnant woman herself is injured and dies, then it's life for life. So the pro-abortion people would argue, you see, this is saying, based on the Hebrew, that if a miscarriage is caused, it's not an actual death because there's only a fine, that's only penalty. Okay, let's look up the identical verse in, okay, let's say the New King James. If men fight and hurt a woman with trials so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you should give life for life. So this is quite a difference, is it not? This is Matthew's whole point. It is quite a difference. Is it a miscarriage which is not considered losing a life because the baby in the womb is not an actual life, so it's just a fine?

Or if the baby dies, then in fact, baby dying in the womb, that is punishable by death. What's the answer? You cannot be 100% dogmatic, but the evidence, the most natural reading of the Hebrew, very, very strongly points to the way you have it in the New King James. Now, the reason I read NRSV is that's a liberal translation, New King James conservative.

Isn't that interesting how things come out? Let's go, though, over and go to the NetBible. Again, netbible.org, it's a great place to go to get the background notes and information. So if men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, you click on the note there, it says the line has occasioned a good deal of discussion, but then it gives you the support for this reading. So Matthew, you can confidently say it's talking about not a miscarriage, but a premature birth with no other harm or issue.

But if there is harm, if the baby dies that's born prematurely, if there's a miscarriage, if there's an injury because of it, the baby's born with a serious defect because of this, then there's payment accordingly. So you can't be 100% dogmatic, but you could say the Hebrew very, very strongly points in this direction and the NET notes will give you some backdrop to that. All right, let's see.

Do I have time for a quick question? Kimberly, what on earth do we consider the message Bible to be? I kind of feel like I shouldn't even capitalize Bible. It is helpful for a particular type of people. It's a paraphrase. It's Eugene Peterson's brilliant paraphrase. Many times I think he nails it and other times, oh, that's not what it's saying.

You're missing a big point there. So use it in a secondary way to see how Eugene Peterson expresses biblical truths, often beautifully and in very pithy ways, sharp sayings, and often it's like, ah, that's not what the Hebrew Greek says. So it is a paraphrase. And again, when we say like the passion translation or the message Bible, it can be misleading or the living Bible, these are all paraphrases. What about someone, English is their second language?

Well, good news for modern man. That's a very dynamic translation, but it's not a paraphrase. Or something on a slightly higher level, NLT, new living translation. That is a very close paraphrase. I mean, it's the line between dynamic translation and paraphrase.

I would have someone read the NLT. If English is a second language or even older, the good news for modern man, but the message, no, no, that's a paraphrase that's giving you Eugene Peterson's take. 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 back to The Line of Fire.

This is Michael Brown. I cannot believe the way time has flown by on this broadcast. I mean, I'm used to it flying by, but I'm I'm amazed it's flown by the way it's flown by. As I'm just answering questions that were posted earlier in the week on Facebook, specifically about Bible translations, Bible translations of individual verses and words. Lunkim asked your reflection on the legacy Bible translation which is going on in Master's Seminary and John MacArthur's guidance. Okay, I have not looked at any of the articles in great detail or listened to Pastor MacArthur speak about it in great detail. What has troubled me is the idea that the pastor or teacher kind of stands between you and the scripture.

That, yes, you have the Bible, but then you need the pastor or the teacher to explain it to you. Now we appreciate gifts that are in the body. We appreciate those with teaching gifts. I myself am involved in Bible scholarship and teaching. It's part of my calling and have been for decades, almost all my believing life. I benefit by the the teaching gifts and the work and study that others have done.

I learn from them. But one of the whole issues with getting the Bible translated into English was to get it in the language of the people so they could read and understand for themselves. Look, the whole argument against doing that was that the Bible would be dangerous in the hands of laity, that only the clergy could understand it. There's even the argument that if the average person read the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, you know, that pluck out your eye, chop off your hand if it's causing you to sin, that you know, what are people going to do with that? And one of the arguments against it, you know, I believe it was one of the English leaders, said, well, there are obviously a lot of people reading that and they haven't gouged their eyes out and cut their hands off. In other words, they understand it's a figure of speech. So that's what has concerned me in some of the statements, as if, yes, we have the translation, but then you must have the pastor and the teacher to expand on the text or expound on it to really understand it.

That's an overstatement. Every one of us. Here, 1 Corinthians. Who did Paul write 1 Corinthians to? To the Corinthians. To the believers to read it for themselves. The same with the other letters. You read it and say, let the leader read it, and then they'll tell you what it says.

Notice all of you read it. So obviously that's the purpose of a new translation, but it's just a concern I had from some of the things that I have read and seen. Mark, why is Deiminizomai translated demon-possessed if demonized is more accurate? Did all the translators really get it wrong since possession isn't in the original Greek? Why does every translator agree with possession? Mark, it's a very interesting question.

Just in terms of the usage of the word, if you theologize, if you eulogize, we can use the eyes part of a word, part of speech. So demonize, someone coming under demon demonic power. And they could be relative.

It could be more severe, less severe. And then we have all of our issues. You can be demon-possessed, but not demon, excuse me, if you're a believer, you can be demon-oppressed, but not demon-possessed. And sometimes we're talking about the same Greek word. The reason that some would talk about possession, this person was demon-possessed rather than demonized, would be that there are verses that indicate someone was under control of demons, or the demon was in the person. Then the demon left the person. So they were inhabited by demons. Sometimes the Greek will talk about having an unclean spirit. So it's the larger concepts, and then you drive demons out. So this demon is, here, you've got the Canaanites, they possessed the land, and Israel drove them out because they possessed the land that Israel is to have. The same way demons possess people's bodies and minds, and we drive them out in the name of Jesus.

So it's a larger conceptual thing. In terms of actual meaning of a word, I really prefer to translate demonize. I actually hardly would ever use the term demon-possessed for years. And then I came across an article online that gave a very spirited argument for demon possession in terms of being the right way to translate, and here are the reasons for it.

I thought, okay, at least they have legs to stand on. There are reasons behind it. But to me, just the most basic rendering of the Greek into English, and one that would indicate there are different levels of coming under demonic power, is demonize. Your final question, why does every translator agree with possession?

Well, it's not going to be every translation. Again, so we'll do our little test here. We'll go to Bible Gateway. I will grab, let's see, Matthew 4 23.

Okay, make that 4 24. So Jesus, seeing his sickest family throughout all Syria, they brought to him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases, and those who were demon-possessed, right? So that's Matthew 4 24 in the New King James.

So now I click on the bottom of that box there, and it's going to bring it up in a bunch of other translations. So, amplified, which is expanded, those under the power of demons. Let's see, CSB demon-possessed. CEB, those possessed by demons. Complete Jewish Bible, those held in the power of demons. So my esteemed colleague David Stern rendered that differently. CEV, some of them had a lot of demons. Okay, that's obviously simplified. Okay, let's see, ESV, those oppressed by demons.

So it's got to change there. HCSB, demon-possessed. ISV, some had demons. No, I'm sorry, ISV is the demon-possessed. The, let's see, another demon-possessed. MEV, possessed with demons, etc.

NET, those possessed by demons. It is overwhelmingly the way things are translated. It's either one of two things. It's either a tradition that dies hard, or there are lexical reasons that are deeper than what I'm conveying. So when you see it that frequently, it does raise a question.

You think, okay, let me look at that. And then again, if I'm just trying to dig, I don't have any software, I don't have any Bible software, I don't have any Bible dictionaries or anything like that. So my go-to place to try to get to the root of this, then, is going to be netbible.org. And does it have, here, it's got a note, those possessed by demons. The translation has adopted a different phrase order here than in the Greek text.

The Greek text reads, people brought to most suffer with various illnesses and afflictions, those possessed by demons, etc. Okay, so it's just talking about word order. It's still the saying it does mean possessed by demons.

Hey, it's debatable, and you've got to dig and look at the lexicons and come to your own conclusions. Joanne, won't you really know what the Bible is saying? Okay, the JPS translation is the best translation of the Old Testament into English by Jewish scholars. It's wonderful to read, it's an excellent translation, but in many places, I would interpret it differently. If there's an option between a Christian reading and a Jewish reading, you get the Jewish reading there.

So it's excellent. I would not make it my only Old Testament Bible. As for the Jewish annotated New Testament, Amy Jill Levine and Mark Svee Brettler were the editors overseeing the annotation. It's not their translation.

I believe it uses the NRSV. So the NRSV is a good translation, but I would still prefer other evangelical translations to that, be it NIV, be it ESV, be it NASB, be it NET, be it ISV, be it CSB. So it's good. It's not going to lead you into error, but there are some key points here and there where I would differ with the rendering. So you might want to use those along with one of the other translations that I mentioned, or New King James or MEV, one of the more conservative evangelical translations, and then compare.

That would be a healthy thing to do. Dennis, I'm told there are two primary words for anger in the Old Testament. The word most often used for God's anger doesn't really mean anger in the sense of wrath or bitterness, but instead more like disappointment. Is that true? No, it's not true.

It's not true. There are ways where God can express his disappointment, his sadness, his pain, his grief. The words of anger, there are various words for anger.

In my mind, I wouldn't just think of two. There are quite a few that I'm thinking about, the vocabulary for anger. But some are talking about the flared nostrils or anger.

That's the actual imagery. Even one of the words for anger comes from nostrils because of the flared nostrils of anger. Some clearly mean wrath, and that's the right way to translate them. So no, the angry words are angry. They're angry words, and God does express his anger towards sin and his anger towards sinners in very, very strong terms. Yeah, so whoever told you that was mis-in-formed.

Ah. Heidi, did God actually hate Esau? Is the verb miraculously translated rejected? It's right to translate hate, but it's right to understand what it means. It does mean hate in terms of utter rejection. It doesn't mean hate in terms of yuck, yuck. I don't even want to look at you.

I despise you. It doesn't mean that because where it says Jacob have I loved Esau if I hate it, that's Malachi 1. There's some of the nations of Israel and Edom.

So within those nations, there were people God favored and loved and those his anger was upon in both nations. So it ultimately means rejected, but the word the word should be translated hate and just explain. And maybe you have a footnote in terms of what it means.

Hey, with that, we are out of time. Hope that you're enriched and blessed. Digging the word. These are words of life given to us. That's correct. Another program powered by the Truth Network.