The Context Of Scripture

[Franktalk]

You keep parroting that mantra, but have yet to sufficiently address the issue raised in the OP.

Context does add flavor to scripture like salt to food. And it may give a historical feel for some verses. But the core message comes through without the historical context for the most part. I do enjoy the history and the context but I don't use that to find the truth of scripture. Truth comes from God and we get that through the spirit. Since man interprets the Bible many ways then man does not get truth from scripture. Some times a prophet can tell us the Godly interpretation. These I find very valuable.

The message may be timeless but that doesn't mean that the mode of expression is. Oh well, at least I have George Steiner's "After Babel" to keep me company during my handbasket excursion.

Enjoy your reading.

Perhaps the most frequently encountered method is obscurantism. I would have you look it up, but unfortunately you correctly despise all such carnal manifestations of man's finite and impefect wisdom as dictionaries are.

I enjoy most of man's knowledge I just place it in context like you are telling me I should do with scripture.

That would mean something if I trusted you.

You should trust the Holy Spirit and not me. I could lead you to destruction but the Holy Ghost will lead you to truth.

I take it that you trust absolutely the historical reliability of the Letter to Aristeas?

Since the letter is not inspired writing I will let man describe the importance of the letter. You can get a flavor of the accuracy of the letter here:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1765&letter=A

I would love for you to show that Jesus did.

Sure:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

I will not defend this at all except to state that the Eastern Orthodox to this day use the Septuagint as their Old Testament. The Latin has lots of issues but like I said before the message still came through. To fully go over all of the history would derail this thread. If you don't trust the eastern leg of the early Church then nothing I will say will matter to you anyway.

Sometimes it gets the context right, more often than not it doesn't.

So we differ in opinion.

Where do you find anything about scripture in there? I find this reference of yours beautifully ironic, seeing as how this thread is about context.

Also, take a look at this. http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

This thread is about context. What can be more important in context than the witness to truth? Where some see scripture and they dive in to the detail to the point of losing the message some step back and let the spirit guide them to truth. In the proper context scripture leads to God. But God is not buried in scripture. God is alive and His Spirit wishes to know each of us. Scripture is a bridge to a relationship with God. Where in scripture does it say that you are to have a relationship with scripture? Yes we are to know scripture and we will be held accountable for knowing prophecy. This was clearly stated by Christ as He entered Jerusalem and declared the judgment on the city. But to know God is to commune with Him.

Our spirits have witnessed most of the history of the earth and most of the Biblical past. So when we die we will be our own witness to the actual events in the Bible. So we will be our own perfect translators because we were there. This is why the Word will be a witness in heaven ( 1 John 5:7 ). But it is not on the earth. I have placed the proper context of 1 John 5:7-8 here for you and I get mocked for it. I think it is very important to place the context of scripture as to its meaning before any check into its history. See how quickly you jumped to a conclusion that I did not reference scripture properly. But I take the whole of scripture to place any one verse in context. So the knowledge of all of known scripture helps to place each part of scripture in proper context.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Franktalk

[jo1952]

Why then in a modern day revelation are we expressly commanded to study history?

Perhaps one of the reasons is so that we don't repeat it.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

Context does add flavor to scripture like salt to food. And it may give a historical feel for some verses. But the core message comes through without the historical context for the most part.

The corse message is extremely simple. God is in control. The writers though didn't waste so much parchment for nothing. Context becomes important if we want to deepen our shallow interpretations.

I do enjoy the history and the context but I don't use that to find the truth of scripture. Truth comes from God and we get that through the spirit. Since man interprets the Bible many ways then man does not get truth from scripture. Some times a prophet can tell us the Godly interpretation. These I find very valuable

.

The Spirit still works with man in all his limitations so I see no reason why the Spirit should exert itself to teach us things which are in our grasp to learn.

Enjoy your reading.

I am. Steiner has much to say regarding interpretation, expression and translation that is thought provoking.

I enjoy most of man's knowledge I just place it in context like you are telling me I should do with scripture.

You have drawn a chalk circle cutting you off from all things which don't fit with your view of scripture, and never the twain shall meet.

You should trust the Holy Spirit and not me. I could lead you to destruction but the Holy Ghost will lead you to truth.

Thank you for stopping me in time.

Since the letter is not inspired writing I will let man describe the importance of the letter.

You have been describing it.

You can get a flavor of the accuracy of the letter here:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1765&letter=A

I've already studied it from far better sources that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.Basically, it isn't accurate history but an attempt to recast the Septuagint as a (then) modern Sinai.

[volgadon]

Sure:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

I will not defend this at all except to state that the Eastern Orthodox to this day use the Septuagint as their Old Testament.

None of this shows that Jesus himself used the LXX. Indded, a good portion of the examples are expressly not quotes by Jesus.

The Latin has lots of issues but like I said before the message still came through.

The Vulgate has different assumptions than the LXX, so that is a step further away from the context.

To fully go over all of the history would derail this thread. If you don't trust the eastern leg of the early Church then nothing I will say will matter to you anyway.

My wife was Eastern Orthodox and I served my mission in a militantly Eastern Orthodox part of the world. Several of my investigators were former priests and I've read Zakon Bozhiy a few times, so while I don't claim to be an expert, I at least have a decent grasp of Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

So we differ in opinion.

I thought that much was obvious.

This thread is about context. What can be more important in context than the witness to truth? Where some see scripture and they dive in to the detail to the point of losing the message some step back and let the spirit guide them to truth.

WHereas still others prefer to use all tools at their disposal.

In the proper context scripture leads to God. But God is not buried in scripture. God is alive and His Spirit wishes to know each of us. Scripture is a bridge to a relationship with God.

Which really doesn't mean that one should exclude the context of scripture from study. Personally, I've found that my study of the historical, geographical, and philological contexts have led me to a deeper appreciation of God.

Where in scripture does it say that you are to have a relationship with scripture? Yes we are to know scripture and we will be held accountable for knowing prophecy. This was clearly stated by Christ as He entered Jerusalem and declared the judgment on the city. But to know God is to commune with Him.

Where does it say that one shouldn't get to know scripture in all its facets?

Our spirits have witnessed most of the history of the earth and most of the Biblical past. So when we die we will be our own witness to the actual events in the Bible. So we will be our own perfect translators because we were there.

Which, if true, hardly helps in the here and now.

This is why the Word will be a witness in heaven ( 1 John 5:7 ). But it is not on the earth. I have placed the proper context of 1 John 5:7-8 here for you and I get mocked for it.

By completely failing to mention that most of it is not an integral part of the scripture but a later gloss?

I think it is very important to place the context of scripture as to its meaning before any check into its history.

Russian says it best. Odin drugomy nye myeshayet- one doesn't interfere with the other.

See how quickly you jumped to a conclusion that I did not reference scripture properly. But I take the whole of scripture to place any one verse in context. So the knowledge of all of known scripture helps to place each part of scripture in proper context.

I don't feel the need to labour for hours over the self evident.

[mfbukowski]

You needn't look further than "historia" itself.

I don't know about Polish, but Russian still uses "istoriya" for "history" and "story."

AND you get bonus points for being a folkie!

[Franktalk]

Also, how does current understanding of Scripture differ from those in Adam's time, or Moses', or Christ's, or Lehi's, or Joseph Smith's?

Scripture is more open today than it has ever been open. As the last days approach some scripture that has been hidden from our understanding will open. So this is a wonderful time to study scripture. Those who have access to technology have at their fingertips the world's knowledge. This is a two edged sword. Anything not scripture can be wrong and can lead to false doctrines. We must always be on guard to check against scripture any writings of man.

For those who search out a matter in scripture they will get many gems of understanding. But we can get too buried in scripture so we lose our first love. This is clearly not acceptable to Christ.

So a balanced approach is best and always trust the Holy Ghost to guide you.

[shalamabobbi]

[Franktalk]

To all.

It is not common knowledge that the Septuagint is a better translation of the Old Testament compared against the Masoretic.

"Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls

It is also not common knowledge that the Dead Sea Scrolls came in two date ranges. Some pre-Christ and some Post-Christ. They show that the Hebrew Text was changed between the two time frames. It took the Dead Sea Scrolls to settle the issue about the Septuagint. But like most things opinions do go all over the place.

Here is an example of the difference.

Amos 7

1Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.

Amos 7

7:1 Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.

Guess which one is the Septuagint. Since we are talking context we should first make sure content is correct.

[mfbukowski]

You needn't look further than "historia" itself.

I don't know about Polish, but Russian still uses "istoriya" for "history" and "story."

Thanks goodness. It's in Spanish. I thought you were going to tell me that Eydie Gorme was a Commie Pinko Russki or something.

[volgadon]

To all.

It is not common knowledge that the Septuagint is a better translation of the Old Testament compared against the Masoretic.

Probably because that has yet to be satisfactorily shown, never mind that the Masoretic Text is not a translation.

"Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The DSS are also very close in many instances to the Masoretic Text, and in some cases they differ from both the MT and the LXX. YOur source is oversimplifying the issue.

Here is an example of the difference.

Amos 7

1Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.

Amos 7

7:1 Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.

Guess which one is the Septuagint.

The one anachronistically inserting Gog into the text. Since Amos was preaching repentance to the people in order to avoid imminent danger of annihilation brought about by their wicked conduct, that should be your first clue that the original context of Amos' vision was not an eschatological prediction. The Masoretic Text (and, as far as we can tell, the DSS too) presents a natural disaster created by God- a sawrm of locusts in the early spring. This endangered all of the crops, and thus, the people's livelihood. Thanks to the Gezer Calender we have independent evidence of what lekesh meant. This was the late-sowing, which took place in winter time. The "king's mowings" (gizei ha-melech) were the first harvest, which was given to the king as tax. The second crop was kept by the people. This is the lekesh threatened by locusts.

The LXX seems to have had difficulty understanding the archaic words and changed them to mean locusts coming from the east, and that among them was one that represented Gog. At the time of the LXX, Gog was a symbol of Israel's enemies, particularly in the future. Joel's prophecy of the locusts was naturally associated with him, and it is through this association of locusts as Gog's minions that the LXX translatin of Amos 7 was formed. The Hebrew text uses a different word for locusts than in Joel, but both were translated identically into Greek.

Most importantly, the disaster in Amos' vision was revoked!

Since we are talking context we should first make sure content is correct.

And you have done a great job of showing the perils of relying too heavily on the LXX.

Edited September 7, 2011 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Thanks goodness. It's in Spanish. I thought you were going to tell me that Eydie Gorme was a Commie Pinko Russki or something.

Way to let the cat out of the bag!

[jo1952]

Probably because that has yet to be satisfactorily shown, never mind that the Masoretic Text is not a translation.

Actually, the Masoretic Text IS a translation of a translation, etc; from ancient Hebrew to the Masorites who re-wrote the Hebrew text and actually changed the Hebrew characters; then it was translated into Latin, then to English (though even this is a simplistic overview).

Just looking at the historicity of both the LXX (from ancient Hebrew into Greek into English) and the Masoretic Text, indicates to me that the LXX is much more likely to be a more accurate version.

Regards,

Jean

[Franktalk]

Probably because that has yet to be satisfactorily shown, never mind that the Masoretic Text is not a translation.

Really, then why do we call it the Masoretic text? If it was no different than lets say the Leningrad Torah or the Samaritan Torah. A content shift due to man is a translation. You can define it differently if you wish.

[volgadon]

Actually, the Masoretic Text IS a translation of a translation, etc;

Nonsense. They didn't even translate the Aramaic portions of the Bible.

from ancient Hebrew to the Masorites who re-wrote the Hebrew text and actually changed the Hebrew characters;

You can hardly blames the Masoretes for a change in the shape of the letters when this was taking place during the 2nd Temple period, before Christ even. If changing a script is bad then what do you say about changing a language as well? The Septuagint itself rewrites the Hebrew text too, such as chnging Amos' statement that he is not a prophet to mean that he wasn't a prophet. The Masoretes did sometimes change the text, but their main work was sorting out an authoritative text and vocalising it.

then it was translated into Latin, then to English (though even this is a simplistic overview).

Not only is your overview simplistic, it is wrong, pure and simple. The Vulgate and the KJV are not the Masoretic Text.

Just looking at the historicity of both the LXX (from ancient Hebrew into Greek into English) and the Masoretic Text, indicates to me that the LXX is much more likely to be a more accurate version.

You have to ignore the numerous rescensions of the Septuagint as well as the fact that it had to make more judgement calls about the meaning of the text than the Masoretic Text because at least the MT remained in Hebrew. You might not know what an APRKST is but you can leave it be in the same language.

[volgadon]

Really, then why do we call it the Masoretic text?

Wow, do you realise that Masorah refers to the transmission of a tradition, not a translation?

If it was no different than lets say the Leningrad Torah or the Samaritan Torah.

Both are in Hebrew and the Leningrad Codex is part of the Masorah.

A content shift due to man is a translation. You can define it differently if you wish.

In which case the Septuagint is far more radically a translation.

[mfbukowski]

Old Chinese saying:

He who takes on volgadon about Hebrew stuff is gonna get his clock cleaned.

That's a loose translation.

[Franktalk]

And you have done a great job of showing the perils of relying too heavily on the LXX.

And you have shown a complete lack of understanding of prophecy. Might want to read this a few times.

Luke 24:44-45

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The understanding came from God and not a study of ancient customs. In this you do err.

[jo1952]

Nonsense. They didn't even translate the Aramaic portions of the Bible.

So you admit they did translate the Hebraic portions.

You can hardly blames the Masoretes for a change in the shape of the letters when this was taking place during the 2nd Temple period, before Christ even. If changing a script is bad then what do you say about changing a language as well? The Septuagint itself rewrites the Hebrew text too, such as chnging Amos' statement that he is not a prophet to mean that he wasn't a prophet. The Masoretes did sometimes change the text, but their main work was sorting out an authoritative text and vocalising it.

Thank you for clarifying that the Masoretic Text IS, in fact, a translation, though you earlier claimed that it was not.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Old Chinese saying:

He who takes on volgadon about Hebrew stuff is gonna get his clock cleaned.

That's a loose translation.

If I might offer to re-translate the Old Chinese saying:

Volgadon thinks that he who takes on Volgadon about Hebrew stuff is gonna get his clock cleaned.

That's a tighter translation.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

And you have shown a complete lack of understanding of prophecy.

Is that the best you can do?

Might want to read this a few times.

Luke 24:44-45

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Which frequently requires imaginative interpretation, which has its place of course, but it isn't the original context.

The understanding came from God and not a study of ancient customs. In this you do err.

The understanding of a certain message, but that isn't the issue here.

Edited September 7, 2011 by volgadon

[volgadon]

If I might offer to re-translate the Old Chinese saying:

Volgadon thinks that he who takes on Volgadon about Hebrew stuff is gonna get his clock cleaned.

That's a tighter translation.

Regards,

jo

Ego cogito ergo sum, yippee!

[volgadon]

So you admit they did translate the Hebraic portions.

No, I was saying that they didn't even translate the portions which aren't in Hebrew, let alone translated Hebrew from Hebrew to Hebrew to Hebrew.

Thank you for clarifying that the Masoretic Text IS, in fact, a translation, though you earlier claimed that it was not.

Umm, no. You can reach that interpretation from what I said, but it does required a concentrated effort at completely disregarding my words and meaning. The MT is not a translation.

[mfbukowski]

Ego cogito ergo sum, yippee!

OK dude, now you're on MY turf!

[Franktalk]

The one anachronistically inserting Gog into the text. Since Amos was preaching repentance to the people in order to avoid imminent danger of annihilation brought about by their wicked conduct, that should be your first clue that the original context of Amos' vision was not an eschatological prediction. The Masoretic Text (and, as far as we can tell, the DSS too) presents a natural disaster created by God- a sawrm of locusts in the early spring. This endangered all of the crops, and thus, the people's livelihood. Thanks to the Gezer Calender we have independent evidence of what lekesh meant. This was the late-sowing, which took place in winter time. The "king's mowings" (gizei ha-melech) were the first harvest, which was given to the king as tax. The second crop was kept by the people. This is the lekesh threatened by locusts.

The LXX seems to have had difficulty understanding the archaic words and changed them to mean locusts coming from the east, and that among them was one that represented Gog. At the time of the LXX, Gog was a symbol of Israel's enemies, particularly in the future. Joel's prophecy of the locusts was naturally associated with him, and it is through this association of locusts as Gog's minions that the LXX translatin of Amos 7 was formed. The Hebrew text uses a different word for locusts than in Joel, but both were translated identically into Greek.

I have read this analysis before. It gets funnier each time I read it.

[jo1952]

Ego cogito ergo sum, yippee!

Daniel 12:5-13

5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Even Daniel did not understand what he was told to write. Therefore seeking historical textual context study is not going to help us understand what he wrote - since he didn't understand it either. However, inasmuch as the Prophet Joseph Smith promised that in the latter-day many things would be revealed to our understanding which were before sealed up (and certainly the meaning of Daniel's prophecy was sealed), then its meaning will not come forth until these latter days. I do not believe that either God or Joseph meant that it would be as a result of our studying historical contextual content through which these meansings would be made clear. I believe, rather, that Father will reveal their meaning through the Power of the Holy Ghost - which is how ALL revelation of truth is revealed; not through the efforts of scholarly men.

Now, I don't put down scholarly efforts in general. However, when they think that through their own private research that they can uncover the spiritual mysteries and messages of God and the Kingdom of Heaven which can ONLY be revealed by the Holy Ghost, then I must stop and question their personal interpretations. I actually think it's a great idea to study not only Hebrew but Hebrew culture as well. They add flavor and a sense of being able to identify with the people when we understand their culture; thus we can understand better the significance of what their traditions meant...giving greater life and insight to scripture. I love to review the history of the peoples of both the OT as well as the NT. I think, though, that the messages taught in the Bible are timeless. The message we are to receive is the message which will be revealed to us WHEN Father determines that we are ready to receive it. Then that revelation is given to us by the Holy Ghost. If we are only receiving "revelation" from man, then the Holy Ghost will trump man every time. The guidance and witness of the Holy Ghost is greater than man.

I would prefer to see the knowledge which man has acquired through his studies to be presented as information only - thus allowing each individual to do what he will with that knowledge. I do not think this knowledge has any place in being presented as truth of the message which God was trying to teach us. I thirst after knowledge - but only in as much as it helps to affirm what the Holy Ghost has already taught me. If it clashes, then I do not automatically turn to man's interpretation. I re-evalute every aspect of my study, including an abundance of prayer and humility and sincerity in seeking the truth.

In this respect, then, historical context runs second in importance, as I believe the Holy Ghost can preserve and reveal the message which God intended without needing a perfect education in the Hebrew language. The Holy Ghost will reveal to us personally in the language we are accustomed to whatever message Father tells Him to reveal to us, when we are ready to receive. Now, Biblical context is another matter. The entire Bible as a whole should not conflict itself. If it does, then I believe it is our personal interpretation which needs to be re-evaluated. There are also parts of the Bible I do not yet understand; but am confident that is because Father does not think I am yet ready for it. As more gets revealed to me, it has yet to then conflict with any of the other thousands of pieces of scripture which I already do understand. It is an awesome and wonderful journey; it is more evidence to me that God knew what He was doing. He even made accomodations for the precious things which have been lost; which, in due time, will be revealed to us in the latter-days.

Why do people think that as soon as someone disagrees with them, the other person automatically thinks that the person who will not agree with them is ignorant and unlearned? I suppose this will always surprise me. However, it could not be farther from the truth.

Regards,

jo