Thanks for taking the time to respond. We can get a little heated and passionate around here, as you see. I count myself in that number as I've participated in heated exchanges myself. So, I'm thankful that you are sticking with it and giving us your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will McLeod
@Pressing-On: Thats a GOOD question. When this occurs in scripture we must look at the relationship of the two reference words. Keep in mind that the Hebrew does not translate to English "precisely" Bare in mind that we are talking about two different languages with MANY words that are NOT equivalent. Some words CAN NOT be translated ...PERIOD. So in such a case we must revert to the "spirit" or "direction" of the scripture.
Example. I heard a young man say to another young man one day. "gnarly Dude". The other one replied, "I'm stoked".
Now lets think about this. These are "western world phrases and words". Slang or figurative. Usually found in coastal areas among surfers or in the suburbs of middle America with skateboarder and the like.
If a Hebrew asked me to translate the word "gnarly" or "stoked"......Well I couldn't. There is NO equivalent. I would have to "CHANGE" the word entirely. Then translate it to a similar word in Hebrew.
Now Websters states that "gnarly" is: difficult or hairy. Well thats not what he's saying. What he meant was "cool, awesome, appealing or good." We know what was meant BUT not the Hebrew man. LOL
Same with "stoked".
[B]Do you see how quick we get lost in the 'word phrase' game? It takes time to build or capture INTENT and MEANING.
In short: to answer your question, wear meant re: (logical) according to; upon; the occurring of events. These are the "common word" (ground) commonality for drawing a conclusion to the meaning of the word WEAR. Which was interpreted to English almost PERFECTLY.
Lastly; THE BIBLE WAS INTERPRETED ALMOST PERFECTLY INTO ENGLISH. ORDAINED OF GOD HIMSELF. NO NEED TO FRET. WHAT YOU HAVE IS WHAT YOU GET!
People get into trouble when they try to "REVERSE" translate the BIBLE. ITS NOT POSSIBLE. Many words were added and deleted to arrive at the most precise meaning and intent of the writer.
|
I do understand this, but I have seen something else and you could possibly respond to that as well. I have seen conversations, articles, etc., posted with lengthy text of both Hebrew and Greek - I am not referring to your earlier post here, just a general observation - after it was all said and done, I look in the Strong's or on E-sword and in a nutshell the definition, while shortened, bears out the same as the lengthy study.
I did have someone tell me not to focus too much on the word "wear" in that passage as it can't be proved to mean anything other than what it says, so I will keep that in mind. I just don't recall running into a definition such as that, which does a 180, on the normative definition and find no merit. So, I'll have to think about this.
What arrested my attention, in that passage, is when it tells a man not to put on a woman's garment. I think that in society we find women wearing some things that belong to a man. But we find it out of the norm if a man would don a woman's articles of clothing.
It is true in Bible days that clothing was similar, but there was still a distinction. One place I read said, the robes were longer for women, the woman's robe always provided sleeves, the woman's robe was looser so as to be modest. So, I get that, we must have distinction and modesty in our culture.
Anyway, back to the man wearing the woman's garment - I thought that I would find out if I could identify what was going on here. The action verb to me was "wear". Something they were doing was wrong. So, I looked it up and found that out of 10 times the word is used in the OT, the word "wear" in
Deut 22:5 was a totally different meaning, on the surface. When it was defined as "to exist as, be or become", it seemed logical to conclude that the passage was speaking of homosexuality being that it is not - still - normal for a man to wear a woman's clothing.
When I was a new convert I was very offended that the word "peculiar" was equated to me! LOL! When I looked that up, I found that it did not mean all that Webster's Dictionary was telling me. Hence, my lesson as a new convert - go to the Greek and Hebrew and not Webster to understand the Bible.
Quote:
GOD is NO fool. He knew that everyone would not be a Bible Scholar. Thats why we read, for the most part, the Bible literally. Not in every verse, but across the board. GOD does NOT desire for us to be confused. Who's that author? Thats right......the devil.
GOD BLESS IN JESUS NAME
Will
|
I agree that God knew that not everyone would be a Bible scholar. I believe we know enough about salvation and living a decent and good Christian life to make heaven, without knowing the depths of every root word.
To study to show ourselves approved of God takes that even further for someone that hungers and thirsts. We can get tangled up here if we are not doing that in a sincere and prayerful manner.
I'm still searching through my Strongest Strong's to find that error. If I didn't mark it, I'm going to kick myself! LOL! I have one of the author's address written in front with no reference to the error. Arghhhh!
Hybrid Mode
