In Sunday school this morning, we were finishing up our study of Ezra and got to Chapter 10 Verse 15.

Reading my NASB translation it goes like this:

Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah opposed this, with Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supporting them.
Ezra 10:15 NASB

One of the ladies objected because her KJV reads:

Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
Ezra 10:15 KJV


The main difference was "opposed" vs "employed".

I looked at a handful of different translations and they read "opposed" and a Bible commentary I have talks about opposing.

Honestly this isn't a huge deal, but to me the KJV has a completely different context than the NASB or the other versions I looked at.

I wish I knew Hebrew to figure out the original context and meaning.

Any thoughts?

The Brenton Septuagint translation says "Only Jonathan the son of Asael, and Jazias the son of Thecoe were with me concerning this; and Mesollam, and Sabbathai the Levite helped them."

The KJV is based on the TR. It's not nearly as accurate as other Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I would prefer the NASB over the KJV.

I intentionally left out that this lady feels that translations other than the KJV are not translated properly.

She was very kind in her dismissal of other versions, but to dismiss other translations in light of new discoveries since 1611 is dangerous in my opinion.

The 1985 JPS Tanakh reads "...remained for this purpose, assisted by..."

H5975 seem to be much more likely to be "to affirm" than "to oppose "

So, score one for the KJV?

Honestly I can see either position in relationship to the verses directly preceeding verse 15. But affirm or oppose in verse 15 makes a huge difference. I'm not trying to say what I have is right, I just want to know what is right.

k2aggie07 said:

---

So, score one for the KJV?

---

Seems like it

leakypipes said:

---

I intentionally left out that this lady feels that translations other than the KJV are not translated properly.

She was very kind in her dismissal of other versions, but to dismiss other translations in light of new discoveries since 1611 is dangerous in my opinion.

---

What new discoveries? Especially regarding this verse.

The Alexandria manuscripts? I know that is really about the New Testament anyways regarding the KJV. Not that it would necessarily affect this verse from the Old Testament.

My apologies if that wasn't clear from the earlier response.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ezra/10-15.htm

The base Hebrew word was Strong's 5975: amad - which means to take a stand.

The different times that particular word was used in the Bible are
here: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/amedu_5975.htm

I don't think it's crystal clear either way based on the word used, which has a lot of different meanings, but I'm not an expert on Hebrew, either.

However, I see that there is good evidence that support an interpretation of "took a stand against"

Thank you!

leakypipes said:

---

The Alexandria manuscripts? I know that is really about the New Testament anyways regarding the KJV. Not that it would necessarily affect this verse from the Old Testament.

My apologies if that wasn't clear from the earlier response.

---

I believe Erasmus and KJV translators had access to Alexandria manuscripts, but rejected them for being corrupted. But as you said, that's a matter of the Greek text, not Hebrew.

The KJV was probably the best english translation for a certain period of time in the English language until a few points:
1. We didn't speak that language anymore. 1611 English is not the dialiact that we speak today so we loose meaning and depth.
2. The information age has greatly improved the speed and availablilty ancient texts.
3. The science of intrepretation has improved due to step 2.

Buster Ag nailed the way to do a word study. We can look up the word in an interlinear bible tool, we can then look up that word every time it's used to get all of the interpretive options and then see what is the most probably option given its context.

Other scripture is often the best resourse for interpreting a passage. I'm a fan of the NASB and using an interlinear tool when needed. I like the one on Biblestudytools.com

Interpreting scripture is not a science.

Quote:

---

Interpreting scripture is not a science.

---

In the U.S. students spend about 12 years of school learning the science of the english.

• What is the main idea of the passage?
• What are the authors reasons for writing that chapter?
• How does section 1 relate to section 2?
• How do you define a word?
• How does one use context to find the meaning of a word that could have multiple meanings?
• What is the verb tense?

What's sad is that most people have learned the science of interpretation but check their brain at the door when it comes to the Bible. I agree that there is a Spiritual side of scripture that in which God reveals Himself in extreemly deep ways through the texts, but careful study is applauded within the texts.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15

just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all hisletters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15

hermeneutics - the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

Scripture is not literature.

So longer answer. There's a series of problems with how you write about scripture, and how you think about understanding.

For starters, science is about making falsifiable predictions, systematic observation and testing, and improving or modifying the predictions. It is inherently empirical and descriptive. It cannot make truth valuations, because at no time can any theory be proven true, only empirically affirmed or falsified. What's more, a dataset can be potentially be proven by multiple theories. It is limited to making if-then statements and has a built-in limited grasp: if X+Y then Z, where Y is an unknown number of uncontrolled variables, and the "then" statement requires at least some measure of repeatability and determinism (yes, yes, QM gets complicated, but whatever).

From there we get descriptive knowledge. To that extent, I suppose you can read scripture as "science" and walk away with sets of statements. Call this textual analysis. Modern "theological" schools are full of people doing this. There is a good reason we do not look to them to explain the scriptures to us; namely, the scriptures are not literature, they're not "evidence", and they are not datasets to be modeled.

Instead, understanding scripture...or more accurately, understanding anything metaphysical...requires the ability to experience and express what goes beyond our expectation of simplistic empirical causality. To experience that there is more than what we initially or superficially perceive, if nothing more than because we underexperience reality.

Scripture speaks about God, about the Divine, about metaphysical truths. Scripture speaks to the unknowable, the super-essential. It speaks about things that are outside of our physical realm, and therefore unobservable. Right away we should immediately throw up the warning flag against "science". In modern parlance, we've entered the realm of philosophy. We must use a different methodology because we're doing something different.

Scriptural interpretation is not science. Scripture is not literature. We need different tools, different skills, and a different approach, because what is being attempted is different.

Instead scripture is understood in the context of revelation, experience of spiritual things, and expression of these experiences that are beyond our normal comprehension in an effort to make the unknowable known. Scripture and true theology uses words and images to describe things things beyond normal speech and imagery. It uses symbols to bring things beyond comprehension into a shadow that is attainable for us.

So while true theology makes use of rhetorical devices such as symbolism, similes, and metaphors, it is to call on these as tools, to use what we know to help us understand what the enlightened person knows by experience and we do not. In this regard, apophatic language - the tool of negation - is perhaps the most important tool. I heard once that theology is an affirmation with a negation to positive effect.

This is not science, this is not grammar, because the truth that is being expressed is nowhere to be found within the text. In fact, when we're talking about God, the truth that is being expressed does not simply exist in our reality at all, is beyond being and non-being. God is beyond both knowing and unknowing, because both of these concepts are within our ability to grasp.

The ability to know God is beyond our understanding of knowing and not-knowing, because we can know and not-know things in the created order. He is what St Maximos describes as supernonknowable, and we have a God-given capacity to know the unknowable through supernonknowing. We can comprehend Him in His complete Unknowability through His knowable Energies, because of His actual Incarnation. But this is grace, not science, and certainly not learned or acquired through our own efforts -- any more than the old testament prophets prophesied through their own volition.

The only way to gain this knowledge is through grace, and through grace we can understand things that transcend language and understanding. Scripture transcends knowledge in this way, and if we wish to understand it this is how we must approach it.