redflameent wrote:But getting back on topic, I am no bible scholar but I believe in taking out my Strong's concordance and translating the engllish into the original Hebrew and Greek. I have found that the translations given by the references I gave to be somewhat correct. Not only does iit line up with my bible but it lines up in Strong's as well.
The problem I see here is that Bible translations (especially more current ones like the NASB and ESV) are based on better source material than the KJV (which is what it looks like you cited earlier) and put into a contemporary tongue.
Modern translations are written by scholars much like the ones you value. They translate in a way that is true to the original meaning of the text.
Any time you have to go to the concordances to get a meaning other than the one presented by Scripture itself, it's immediately worthy of much skepticism. If a conclusion is only supported by possible meanings for words used, then I have a problem with it. If a conclusion doesn't fit a natural reading of the text at all, then I have a huge problem with it.
The natural reading of Genesis 3-4 doesn't come across in any way to support the notion of Eve having sex with Satan. So yes, I have a big issue with this claim; it doesn't make sense.
Don't get me wrong. I love original languages. I'll go back to them in a heartbeat... which probably explains the fact that I have original language Bibles and lexicons on my shelf. Thing is, I'm a big proponent of common-sense hermeneutics. By this, I mean that I view Scripture to be intended for understanding, so the natural read of a text is very important. Sure, there are literary devices to consider. Some things have double meaning. But most of the double meaning stuff takes place in prophecy and is explained by the Apostles.
On a side note: If you want to get insight into Scripture from sources other than Scripture, then I highly recommend going through esteemed church fathers rather than modern teachers who teach ideas foreign to historical orthodoxy. Start with the Apostles themselves and work up through history. Read up on St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. If you wanna move up to more current stuff, there's always Schaeffer and Lewis (though he has some weird ideas, too; I consider him a better apologist than theologian). If you want today, go with esteemed textbooks used in mainline Christianity Bible colleges and seminaries. Go with Wayne Grudem's
Systematic Theology or check out Norman Geisler's work. As much as I dislike some of the uses of the Message, Eugene Peterson is also a really good theologian.
By the way, there is a ton of love for original language scholarship. Just gotta get outta the mainstream and into the academic journals. I'm a Bible college student myself, and the vast majority of my research papers involve original languages and reading up on scholars who make heavy use of 'em.
Additionally, it is easy to infer from Scripture itself that translations continue to retain the meaning of God's word. In all likelihood, when Paul told Timothy that "we know all Scripture (graphe) is God-breathed (theopneustos)," he was referring to the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. If Scripture lost meaning in translation, then most of human history would be completely outta luck. If, however, Scripture maintained its meaning in translation from Hebrew to Greek, and maintained its Divine nature, then why shouldn't it be the same for Hebrew to English or Greek to English? Indeed, looking into original languages to gain a fuller understanding of something that is there makes sense (think of word plays). Having to go into the original languages to pull something out from a concordance's list of possible meanings that isn't in the translation (assuming a quality translation, of course)? Yeaaaaaah...no. Doesn't click.
