Man, the Male Leadership Role as Directed by God - Part 11
This and the next Hub will be used to personify two words, “heterodox” and “libertine.” Their purpose here will become evident and pertinent to our study.
To begin, why are we using this word “heterodox” in dealing with this subject? First, it is as close to the word “heresy” as one can use without calling it heresy. In doing so, we allow for ignorance on the part of some, yet without intent. Second, it (and libertine) is a standout word, a word not normally used in common conversation, but there can be no doubt about its meaning. And it will cause some readers to “study.”
Heterodox is a two-part word, “hetero - other” and “dox(y) - opinion/doctrine.” We find a form of this word used in 1 Timothy 1:3. Here the Greek word “heterodidaskaleo” (2085) is used meaning “to teach another doctrine.”
The “-dox” portion of our word “heterodox” comes from the Greek word “dokeoo (dokein)” (1380) meaning “to think” and is the base word for the Latin word “dogmat” from which we get our word “dogma.” The Bible, in English, does not use a word heterodoxy. However, the definitions of English words are derived from the original languages of the Bible.
The word etymology of most words in the New Testament is Greek. Greek (Koine Greek) is the primary language of the NT. The NT is the foundation of our faith. In dealing with the Greek of the Bible, we must not confuse it with the Greek of today. They are similar but not the same. There are centuries of history that would have to be covered in order to understand the basis of the Greek of the NT and how it came about. Then we have to understand that it is not the same as the Greek of today. Some of the words of the NT Greek have disappeared over the centures, as has some of the Hebrew of the O.T., by the way.
Koine’ Greek was the spoken "language" of the NT times. It was the “language of commerce.” It was the predominate language of the day across the Roman Empire, an empire of many nations. Latin, the Roman language, was apparently used only by the Romans in matters directly concerning them. Romans, being a conquering people, assimilated many of the conquered people’s ways and language but never lost sight of their own. But, being a “soldier” race, they went off to battle and left the education of their children in the hands of hired teachers or learned slaves, which is most cases were Greek. We have only lightly touched on this language issue as is pertinent to our study. However, language and empires is an interesting study for the historian. It would answer more questions than it poses.
If we were to try to understand the difference in the Greek of the NT and that of today, we might best compare the differences in the English spoken in America to that which is spoken in Australia, for instance. We can converse but there are many words which they Aussies use which are not part of our language. And there are many words we use which have a different meaning in Australia. So we can see that direct translation here might be difficult. That leaves us with a most valuable tool, interpretation by context. Keep that in mind.
Now consider translating words from 2000 years ago into our language. Whereas, when talking with an Aussie, we can say “What do you mean by that?” and get a true translation of meaning from him, this is not possible with Koine’ Greek. Those “Greeks” are gone, no longer around. Therefore, we are obliged to “transliterate,” meaning convert words from Koine Greek to 17th century English, as close as possible, in order to set words to print.
This is what was done with the KJV. However, from the time of the KJV to date, we have consecutive and consanguineal relationships of words, though spelling of a few minuscule words have changed in letter form. So we are able to consult written records and such for definition. Last, we can examine the final by "context" to further illuminate meaning and insure proper translation. This is what the 48 men did when translating and establishing the KJV.
But more importantly, we must understand the word “transmogrify” which is the libertine manner of translation today. Transmogrify means to change the shape or, with words, the meaning in a grotesque manner. To better understand this action, without greater input from our position, let’s compare the words of the Bible from John 1:14 in several of the versions:
King James Version (KJV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
New International Version (NIV)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us.
The Message Bible (MSG)
The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.
Where we find the KJV to be a “literal” translation, that being translated as close as possible from the Koine Greek to English, the last three are what are called equivalency translations. The best way to describe equivalency is “someone reads a writing, then writes what it means to them, or what they wanted it to mean to them.” They would, in most cases, be better termed as “commentaries.”
Yet, Christians are no different from nonbelievers in this area. We are all taught the value of education and educators. So when persons of higher learning (or position) speak, for the most part, their words are accepted largely without question. “They must know what they are talking about, how else did they get where they are?” This kind of indolence on the part of the listener furthers the process which is commonly called “dumbing down.” It might better be called “learning to be ignorant.” The Bible calls it teaching "another gospel."
But there is little opposition to these “new trends” by the believers. The new, charismatic, self-appointed “Apostolic messengers” go unchecked. The Apostle Peter laid it all out quite well when he wrote about this exact subterfuge in 2 Peter 2:1-22. The Apostle Paul warned us not to be a part of this process, 2 Timothy 2:15-16.
Yet, here is where the libertine works, making his or her own “translation” of the words of the Bible, while not changing every word immediately. They attack again and again winning small victories and acceptance. They know what the serpent knew, what we should know. “One does not have to change every word in order to change the meaning.” A little change here and there, a couple of words, even a nuance, is enough to change the over all meaning, eventually. In time there will be enough words changed to establish a question as to the meaning of other words in a section of the Bible. This brings about a change in the context and a certain confusion as to direction.
All this is planned confusion, 1 Corinthians 14:33. People do not take well to change, but they deal even worse with conflict. And this how the “libertine” develops it’s “heterodox.” These "well educated, loving" folks want to move us away from that which is fundamental (a bad word in the church today) with a new way of thinking, a new way of living. And it feels good. But this thinking is not scriptural. It is “anathema," "accursed,” 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9.
But let’s not lose our point here. We are not challenging the Bible “versions” at this time. We are defining the twisting of words and thought processes that lead to new doctrines. What is left is a new, enlightened thought process. It is no longer scriptural doctrine, but humanist philosophy. Enough said on this subject of “heterodox” at this point.
Next time we’ll look at the “libertine,” the person who does the twisting.