Askakido left this world in January of 2018. We are so very fortunate to have just a few samples of his deep thinking and instructional wisdom.
0 Comments
According to St.Luke, in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, is the phrase that states: Adam the son of God. RE: Luk 3:38 NKJV "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Question: Was Adam also a son of Man? The phrase "son of man" literally means in the Hebrew in many cases "the son of Adam." Adam was not his own son, therefore Adam was not a son of Adam. We assume that Adam had DNA as he was FORMED of the dust of the earth. Yes, it is an assumption. Granting that assumption that Adam's body was formed to have DNA, and assuming 46 chromosomes, we now ask if the "Rib" or "Piece of Rib" of Adam had DNA? Now wherein did Eve come from? In Genesis, we are told that she was FORMED of a sample of Adam's body, that Rib. It is reasonable to see then that Eve had been formed in part from the DNA sample of that Rib from Adam's body. It is a reasonable conjecture that Eve received in her formational 45 Chromosomes of Adam's DNA... with perhaps only the Y Chromosomes tossed aside or modified into a second X chromosome. In this scenario, Eve became as a Female Clone of Adam. In that sense then, Eve was a God Designed and Implemented, Genetically Modified "daughter of Adam." She proceeded from Adam's body with some modifications... in this scenario. Anyone born of Eve would then be cast as a Son of Adam, a Son of Man. Linguistically speaking, in that Adam is also deemed a son of God, then anyone born of Adam would also be a son of God; not a created son of God, but a begotten son of God. Linguistically, Seth would be deemed a grandson of God, in that Adam was a son of God. Jesus the Christ is not the only begotten son of God, in that sense. Yet, Jesus the Christ is a UNIQUELY begotten son of God, in that it (the conception) was not from the male Seedline of Adam that Jesus came into the flesh, but rather by conception of Mary's Ovum, that conception being done by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the physical manifestation of the Almighty God in the physical realm. The Holy Spirit is Almighty God in action in this physical realm -- Almighty God's power over this physical realm. Is it so difficult to consider that the Almighty God that created the Universe, Life, and Everything, who also created, made and formed Adam and even his body's DNA, could not likewise create something physical in that particular Ovum of Mary? That Ovum was fertilized or conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, an act of creation. One could see perhaps a new 23 chromosome set of DNA to cross with the 23 chromosomes of Mary's Ovum. Cannot HE that created everything there is also have the power to create a simple set of 23 chromosomes and do that creation right inside the very nucleus of that Ovum of Promise? Why must we resort to the Philosophies and "Science" of the Nicene Council's 325 A.D. Science, Theology, and Philosophy to solve the incarnation of Jesus, how it was that Jesus came in the Flesh? The very use of the term "Hypostasis" is as a Philosophical term, and this usage in the Trinitarian formation reflects the Philosophical thinking of the 4th Century A.D. Why do we shackle ourselves with that ancient and broken Philosophy? One meaning of the term "spirit" is that of the spirit of the mind, otherwise cast as "the mind-set." (1) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (2) By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, (3) and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. 1Jn 4:1-3 NKJV Notice that this (written before 99 A.D.) is saying that the Antichrist was even then already in the world. No Christian needs to be looking for the advent of The Antichrist, it has been here long before 99 A.D. We ask, "How did Jesus come in the flesh?" Here, we do not ask if Jesus comes in the flesh, but ask instead, "How?" This John has a particular and immediate audience, even though his words can also extend to speak to us now in 2014, his primary and original audience was pre 99 A.D. Then again, we read: (9) In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only [uniquely] begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Seth was a begotten son of Adam and linguistically Seth was also a begotten grandson of God, in that Adam himself was a son of God. 1Jn 4:9 NKJV In my humble opinion, people have gotten too weird about the uses of the word, "god." The FATHER is ALMIGHTY GOD. Jesus, uniquely begotten of a woman, is HIS Son. Jesus is both a Son of Adam (a Son of Man) and a son of God in the more normal sense. In this writing, we see the Father depicted as “GOD’ and HIS SON depicted as “God.” In as much as the Children of Israel were told that even they were “gods,” we can see or depict ourselves linguistically styled as “a god” or even “gods.” "Hear, O Israel, Y-H-V-H our GOD, Y-H-V-H is Unique." You children of Israel are to have no other gods before HIM -- not even yourselves -- you children of Israel whom Y-H-V-H have called gods. The Nicene Council's decision under the rule of the Pontifex Maximus has it all fouled up and confabulated and keeps many in an hypnotic state, so that they continue to do such sophistry as attempting to count how many angels can stand on the head of pin. GOD is spoken of in Scripture often using "Me," "My," "Mine," "I," "Myself".. the "I." "Me," "Myself" of GOD... this is the only true Trinity there. Not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus also has an "I," a "Me" and a "Myself" -- He has a trinity. And you also have an "I," a "Me" and a "Myself" -- you have a trinity. Cast aside that Nicene Council's decision... on that was set forth by the power of the Pontifex Maximus... and enforced by the power of the Sword... commanding to Kill all who would not confess to that Nicene Trinity formulation. Jesus Christ, our Lord, told none of his disciples to kill anyone. HOW WE GOT THE PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE Chapter One in “Essays in Biblical Research” In our quest for understanding of the Word of Truth, there are three scriptures that I would like you to take a look at. These three will be the beginning of our study on the integrity of the Word of God. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2nd Timothy 2:15 (KJV) “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” We would like to think that these three verses are simple, and that we have learned everything that can possibly have to say the first time we read them. We would like that, but it is not so! It is quite possible that this is the first time you have ever seen these grouped so closely together. As workmen of the scriptures, as those who endeavor to re-search the scripture, that is to search them again and again, there is one important thing that we must know first. The Bible tells us what that one thing is, right there in 2nd Peter 1:20-21. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Let’s take a closer look at this verse and see what it says in a greater depth than just a quick scan will tell us. Let’s search this scripture again and again until we are sure we have extracted every bit of meaning out of it that we possibly can. In doing so, we will learn far more than the average “lay person” knows about this verse. For instance, what does the word “prophecy” mean? Looking in Webster’s Dictionary we find the "meaning.” 1. he function or vocation of a prophet, specifically the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose 2. an inspired utterance of a prophet 3. a prediction of things yet to come We see two different types of prophecy in these meanings, the declaration forth, i.e., the forth-telling of divine will and purpose and the fore-telling or telling ahead of time what will come to pass. Remember these two types of prophecy, because the distinctions become very valuable in any study dealing with the topic and discussion concerning the Holy Spirit, i.e., the study from the scripture of the ways, means, and methods of how the Spirit works, at least what has been revealed about that to us by the Spirit in the Bible, the Word and Will of God. So, remember: 1. forth-telling, to tell it forth and 2. fore-telling, to tell it ahead of time, before it comes to pass. It is an interesting exercise all on its own to go through the scriptures and identify which prophecies are which type. What else can we find in that verse when we search it again? The question: Which prophecy, out of all prophecies from all sources that prophecies come, which prophecy is this verse speaking of? Don’t guess – you don’t have to. This verse answers that question in itself, the prophecy OF THE SCRIPTURE. Now, is all the scripture fore-telling? No. Is all the scripture forth-telling? No, but the greatest majority of it is forth-telling, speaking forth the divine purpose and will of God. Both types of prophecy are found in the scripture. But the prophecy this verse is concerned about (no matter which type) is: the prophecy of the scripture. Here it is the scripture we are concerned with, not, for instance, the oracles of Diana of the Ephesians. So, what prophecies does this verse pertain to? Those prophecies found in the scripture. Seems a simple thing, but it does need to be said. What about the word “scripture” found here? It is understood to mean all the holy writings, the Bible. Consider that the word used here (2nd Peter 1:20-21) in the Greek manuscripts is graphes; the same word that we get the English “graphics” from. Engravings and writings are both graphic forms of communication. Speech is an audio or oral form of communication. Okay, so far, now what about the word “private?" What does it mean? Check Webster’s Dictionary even if you think you already know. This checking and checking of definitions is at the heart of biblical research. I will assume that you are checking it. In the Greek manuscripts the word used here, is the Greek idias. In every other place this Greek word has been used in the Bible (in the KJV and many other English translations) with the exception of I Corinthians 12:11, it has been translated in the sense of “its own, her own, his own, one’s own." These two exceptions are somewhat suspect as far as translating Greek into English is concerned. Why not be consistent here? It would be very accurate to translate idias as “one’s own” here instead of “private;" and would make the essence of the verse clearer, and more readable. To see what I mean, try this on for size: 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Reads a little easier, doesn’t it? Why did they use “private?" That is a good question – like the question why did they use the word “severally” as a translation of the Greek idias in I Corinthians 12:11. One has to ask, and wonder why the King James translators were that inconsistent – especially when it only serves to cloud the meaning.
{Thayer's Lexicon has it as idia epilusis, rather than what is seen in my Nestles-Marshall’s Interlinear as idias epilusews – which is the same thing that the GNT-V gives, and the GNT-V show no other variant used here. This is a place that one would really have to check all the manuscripts to see where perhaps both Thayer’s, Strong’s, and Bullinger’s got it apparently incorrect.} Using one of the keys to understanding the scriptures, we can rightfully substitute the meaning of a word in the place of that word, and not change the meaning of the sentence. Sometimes by making such a substitution we make things clearer. Sometimes it serves to amplify, to crank up the volume of what is being said, especially if it is something we have heard a hundred times. Let’s try out what we have learned so far, using only the substitution technique. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (Amplified) “Knowing this first, that no forth-telling nor fore-telling of the writings is of any one’s own interpretation, for the forth-telling and fore-telling came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Reads a little different, and more or less forces us to see a bit deeper into the verse. This is known as an “amplified or expanded translation according to usage." Sometimes, it is incorrectly termed a “literal translation." Remember that phrase: an amplified or expanded translation according to usage. I will use it frequently. Now, what is the subject of this sentence, this verse? Is it prophecy or the scripture that is being written about? “No prophecy is of any one’s own interpretation” is the simple sentence. The subject is “prophecy” and not the “scriptures." Remember this. Now, what about this word “interpretation?" Think you know what it means? Look it up anyway. Don’t take it for granted, remember we are not just causally reading this time around, but re-searching the Scriptures, which we believe to be the word of Truth. Here from Webster’s from interpret:
“Interpretation” is the act of doing any of the above. Remember that the subject of this verse is prophecy? We learn from this verse that originally, in olden times, prophecy was spoken, and we presume it was spoken in Hebrew, Estrango Aramaic, Greek and/or other languages. We English speaking folk, as a rule, understand none of these languages, unless we have studied them and learned them as an extra language. Therefore, we do need an interpreter as given by the 4th meaning above. In the Greek, to Greek speaking people, this verse would of necessity take on one of the other three meanings, because they have no need of someone to interpret the words of the Greek into Greek like we would need some one to interpret the Greek into English. Such linguistic interpretations of written materials we call translations, but those linguistic interpretations which are of a spoken language we call interpretations. The King James Version of the Bible is only one such interpretation, only one such translation. Now, if this verse said, “No scripture is of any one’s own interpretation," then we would have a deep problem. Now, we of course understand that initially prophecy was spoken, but we found that scripture is a written form of communication not a spoken one (unless it is read out loud). Why would we English reading – hearing – folk have a problem if the scriptures were not of any one’s own interpretation? Because then we could not “legally” interpret it as a translation from its written language into English, and as far as we know no Scripture of “olden times” was written down in English. If the scripture cannot be interpreted (translated) in this fashion, then we are left without hope of ever understanding it, not even John 3:16 as in the Greek it reads: “ontws gar hgaphsen o Qeos ton kosmon, wote ton uion ton monogenh edwken, ina pas o pisteuwn eis auton mh apolhtai all exh zwme aiwvion.“ It is apparent and needful that this interpretation from one language into another is not the kind of interpretation that is meant by this verse, as then only the Greeks or Greek speaking people’s could ever learn enough to read the book. See why it is important to find the subject of this sentence? It makes a big difference. Sounds like a reading for comprehension class doesn’t it? Well, in a big way it is! So, in light of the above arguments, what meaning of the word “interpretation” can be used to help us understand what is said here? We do have to choose a meaning or we will know nothing and even less than when we started. But, we need to choose the right meaning – if you thought the subject was “the scripture,” and if you picked meaning number two, you would be in for a real surprise. Why? Because if we use the meaning “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance, to construe” as our choice, then what are we doing? We are interpreting this verse of scripture in the light of our own (one’s own) individual belief or judgment. That belief being that we can interpret this scripture! This is illogical, but exactly what it would mean if the scriptures were the subject of the sentence. And a circular trap, because we have been told already that it is not one’s own interpretation, that it is of no one’s own conception, based on his own individual belief or judgment; therefore, we cannot judge or decide which meanings this verse should have. Do you get the picture? What? Help, the mind cries out. Well, thank God, there is a way out of that trap, and that is to remember that “prophecy” is the subject of this verse. But the same trap awaits us again when we try to understand or “interpret” the prophecy. This verse, as it is written in the King James Version, definitely says we can not interpret the prophecy, not even in light of our individual beliefs or judgments. Not even using Webster’s first meaning will rescue us from this dilemma. What to do now? Go to the Greek texts! The Greek word used here (that the King James Gang translated “interpretation”) is the Greek word epiluseos. Here, we need a Greek to English dictionary at the very least. It helps very much also to have at our disposal a list of every single verse in the scripture that uses this word epiluseos so we can learn from the various contexts and usages what this word means. Epiluseos comes from the Greek word epiluo and turning to my Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon (though any Greek/English dictionary or lexicon will give essentially the same meaning) I find the following basic meaning given for this word epiluo (the verb) and epiluseos as “a loosening, an unloosing,” in other words, the act of “letting something loose." Now what does that mean? My Thayer’s Lexicon indicates that this is the one and only place that epiluseos is used throughout the whole Bible – so not much help there. What now? Well, let’s try it on for size anyway: 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (amplified) “Knowing this first, that no forth-telling nor fore-telling of the writings is of any one’s own letting loose, for the forth-telling and fore-telling came not in old times by the will or man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This verse has the prophecy (forth-telling and fore-telling) as its subject, not the scriptures (writing) as so many would have you believe. The scriptures may well be of no one’s own “interpretation,” but you could not prove that from this verse; you’d have to use a different verse to prove that proposition. Okay, now that we have found that the word “interpretation” is not an accurate way to interpret/translate epiluseos and that a “letting loose” is, what does that phrase “a letting loose” mean? Since it is used only one time in the Bible, it would be an idea to check how it is used in the secular Greek writings. There is one other place, however, we could check of the Bible, and that is in the Greek Translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament called the Septuagint or LXX. {This is something as of this writing we have yet to do, check the LXX for the presence of epiluseos in its text.} But let’s hold off until we have the rest of the verse handled; maybe it will become self evident what is meant by this “letting loose." 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (amplified) “Knowing this first, that no forth-telling nor fore-telling of the writings is of any one’s own letting loose…” In this verse, the first preposition “of” is in the possessive sense, literally “the scripture’s prophecy," the prophecy belonging to the scriptures. The next preposition “of” is also used in the possessive sense. {Need to really check the Greek on this second preposition.} Who or what here does the possessing, and what is possessed? Grammatically, from the Greek texts the prophecy does the possessing, the “letting loose” is what it possesses. So, we have the sense that “no scripture’s prophecy is of its own (the prophecy’s) letting loose.” In other words, the prophecy did not let itself loose all on its own, but instead “holy men of God spoke, moved by the Holy Ghost." We saw that one of the definitions of idias is “its own,” so we have not fudged here in translating idias as “its own” for this reason, and because both “prophecy” and “its own” are neuter in their gender use in this place. The rendering of idias down into “one’s own” – yet another neuter gendered rendering – is the only other possible way we could translate idias in this place without violating the sense of the Greek grammar that was used in the Greek text for this verse. {Whether to render idias as “its own” or “one’s own” here is a question yet to be answered, and it is an important question to answer.} {We have reached one of those forks-in-the-roads that require us at some time to make a judgment or decision to travel either down the right hand path or the left hand path, in this sense a judgment whether to render idias as “its own” or “one’s own." The two current possible renderings are:
We can see from the second possibility that we have produced a problem with the use of the word “any,” as it is awkward to state in English, “any its own." So, we must ask of the Greek text if there is indeed a single Greek word there used that is to be translated as “any." If there isn’t, and there is no other good reason for using “any,” then there would be no scriptural basis for inserting it into our English interpretation of the Greek text. In fact, doing so in such a case would tend toward producing an error in interpretation when one can only use the English interpreted translation. Up to this point, I have not shown you the Greek text of this verse, here it is from the Nestle/Marshall Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Zondervan, First printing 1975, 2nd Edition: “touto prwton ginwskontes*, oti para profhteia grafhs idias epilusews ou ginetai” And the literal word by word English translation provided by Nestle and Marshall of this verse is rendered as: “(2) this (3) firstly (1) knowing, that every prophecy of scripture of [its] own solution not becomes” Here, we could do a word by word study of this Greek text version and the given corresponding English interpretative translation, but that is beyond the scope of this essay. But we do see that the word here, para, is translated by Nestle/Marshall as “every,” which we can also understand as “any,” so we see that the KJV’s use of “any” is substantially based on the existence of a corresponding word in the Greek of this verse. In other words, it was not a word that the KJV translators and interpreters merely supplied to around out and smooth out their translation, so that it was not in awkward and unfamiliar language. Nestle/Marshall also translated epilusew as “solution” rather than “letting loose." This is a very interesting way to translate epilusew and perhaps provides us with some further information about the various meanings of this scripturally unique word. *Note: the Microsoft Word 2003 Symbol font set while producing a Greek font has its own problems, and a better font set needs to be used in this writing to accurately reflect the Greek text. The MS-Symbol font set, for instance, does not have the symbol or letter that is used in the Greek writing for a “final” sigma (which looks a bit like an English “s”). Nor does this font set keep words together upon an automatic newline operation. All sigma’s (s) at the end of a word should really be rendered in their final form like an ‘s’. This situation needs to be corrected for the final publication of this document. – Askakido.} Well, if the prophecy is not of any of its own letting loose, that is to say, if the prophecy didn’t get loose by itself, who let it loose? The prophecy didn’t just get off of its chain or jump the fence (so to speak) and go running around on the loose all over the neighborhood. How then did it get here, who let it loose? The scriptures must tell us (if we are to know) how the prophecy got loose, how it got here. And it does, right in the next verse. 2nd Peter 1:21 (KJV) “for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice the subject is “prophecy” again, and not “scripture." Before we get to the scripture’s answer of how it came, it first tells us a sort of when. When did the prophecy it is referring to come? “In old time." The Greek is better served here by the translation of pote, as “at any time." However, the prophecy did not come at any time by the will of man. Never did the prophecy come by man’s willing it. The verb “came” is past tense, referring to the past. Man did not will it into being, and man did not make it up, instead it was given by God. It did not come by man’s own personal “letting loose” (letting his mind run free). This verse tells us when and how the prophecy of the scripture DID NOT come. However, it also DOES tell us how it did come. “...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” That’s right “holy men of God” spoke. They did what? They spoke. But wait a minute, don’t men will to speak, don’t they decide if and when and how they are going to speak? Well, of course they do. But they don’t always have an idea ahead of time just exactly down what it is they are going to say. They spoke, they did not engrave pictures, nor stone, nor write down words, nor did they write words automatically. They simply spoke with their mouths. They spoke words. You see the Word of God is first a spoken word. It can then get transcribed into writing, as it is being spoken – by either the speaker himself or by someone taking dictation; i.e., writing down what he is saying, as he is saying it. How did they speak? With their mouths; they spoke words. They took a breath, opened their mouths, made sounds with their vocal chords and moved their lips, tongues, and throats. They did the speaking. The language they spoke was one they already knew, perhaps the one they grew up with, or one they had learned as a second language. How did they know what to speak? This verse tells us that. Look closely, remember, re-search. The words, “as they were,” are (in the KJV) in italics to indicate that these words are not in the Greek manuscripts, but have been provided by the King James translator-interpreters. As such, they may or may not have been properly supplied, they could, in fact, be misleading. Check them out! Whenever you see italics in the KJV Bible, check it out, preferably from a Greek manuscript or a Greek/English interlinear Bible. The word “moved” here is the Greek word pheromenoi. It is time to consult Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon again. We find it basically means “to bear," to carry some burden, to be driven, to rush, to move to, to apply; to bring in by announcing, to announce, to bear, as in “to bring forth or produce," to bring forth into speech. Thayer’s states this word also means, “being inwardly prompted." Seeing the meaning “to bring forth or to produce,” especially to bring forth speech, to produce speech, is to manifest speech. The deepest meaning here is that of an operation of the gift (holy spirit) given by God (The Holy Spirit), in other words an operation of the Spirit of God, which produced the evidence (manifestation) by speaking forth a word of knowledge and/or a word of wisdom; i.e., speaking words by revelation from God. Check out Galatians 1:11-12 and II Timothy 3:16. However, the usage of “being inwardly prompted” is the better rendering and the one I will use. The Words, “Holy Ghost,” are here in the Greek as pneumatos hagion and should be rendered perhaps as “Holy Spirit." Pneumatos is “spirit” and agiou is “holy." “...for the forth-telling and fore-telling came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake being inwardly prompted by the Holy Spirit.” Put these two verses together and we get: 2nd Peter 1:20-21 (amplified) “Knowing this first, that no forth-telling nor fore-telling of the writings came of its own letting loose, for the forth-telling and fore-telling came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake being inwardly prompted by the Holy Spirit.” And all of this from a technique we learned in grade school perhaps, that of finding the definitions of the individual words, choosing the appropriate meaning from a set of meanings, one that is appropriate to the topic and context of the sentence as a whole. Of course, in the case of understanding this verse we did have to resort to finding the definition of a few Greek words to get us out of an apparent contradiction that would have led to a circular reasoning trap – in computer programming we would call such a circumstance an infinite recursive loop. This is just one example of how the scriptures interpret themselves in the verse right where they are written without very much outside help. Some 85% to 90% of all the scripture can be handled this way. One discovers rather quickly that the “standard” KJV translations are not all that great, newer translations make up for many of its shortcomings. In this case, the KJV translation gave us what was in effect an apparent contradiction by its word choice in translating from the Greek. We had to resort to the Greek for another look at the translators’ work, did they do as good a job as can be done? I have taken the liberty of including my paper, entitled, “The Keys to Biblical Research” (a rather standard type of work) to give you a list of the tools, principles, and techniques that I use in studying the word of Scripture, as a worker who does not need to be disappointed of his workmanship in rightly dividing the word of Scripture. So, now what first? What is it in re-searching the scripture that we need to know first of all? Simply that the prophecies of the scripture came from God by way of his Holy Spirit in action. They came by being spoken out by holy men of God, as they spoke. They spoke as they were inwardly promoted to speak by the Holy Spirit. This verse in the Greek texts has nothing to say about the “interpretation” of the scriptures! Nor does it have anything to say about the “interpretation” of the prophecy of the scriptures! You will discover that almost every place that a fore-telling type of prophecy is “interpreted” it is done by either an angel, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or God Himself – almost every place, but not all. These verses have nothing to do with “interpretation,” as many have so mistakenly taught, but what about the interpretation? Well, if it is to make it understandable to the person seeking understanding, that is to say, to put it in words he can understand, then the scripture either speaks for itself {meaning there is only one way to interpret it?}; or there is no way to understand it at all. We might as well go see a good movie. It remains that there is only one way, in a sense, to understand the prophecy of the scripture, and that is God’s way – from the very words He chose to have the holy men speak. God chose each and every word, and in the vocabulary of the speaker at that. He chose to have the holy men speak. God chose each and every word to say exactly what He meant, and so the words would mean exactly what He wanted to say. God has a purpose for picking one word over another in a certain speaker’s vocabulary. But we English speaking folk must remember that we are working from a linguistic interpretation of what was written down from what was spoken in another language, and lack of keeping that fact in mind is the source for a great deal of our confusions. It could be said that we would do well to remember what happened at the tower of Babel in this regard and the reasons that are given there for confounding the single language of man. In the next installment of this essay, I will give you the Greek text from the Nestle-Marshall’s Greek/English Interlinear Bible, just to give you a taste of the Greek of those two other verses. Welcome to The Teacher's Corner.
These pages are dedicated to lessons from our teacher, Askakido. Welcome to One Saint, Askakido! |
Askakido's BlogAskakido has been studying the Bible for 50 years. Many of these years have also been spent teaching and ministering. Among teachers and ministers, he rates at top. We are very grateful to have you at One Saint, Askakido. We look forward to each lesson with glee. May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You, Teacher! Archives
February 2024
|