Acts 17:11
These (from Berea) were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

This verse has at least two important points. The first is that we should receive the word (preached) with all readiness and the second is that we should search the scriptures daily to see if what we have been told is so. These guide-lines have driven me to study more than ever. 

In the preface of my King James version of the Bible I am told that the Scriptures were " ... translated according to doctrine."  That being the case I find it necessary to put doctrine aside when I study and to study as much of the received text as I can rather than just taking the English text for granted.

When a closer look is taken at the English translation of the Bible it becomes apparent that many of the Hebrew and Greek words were transliterated into English (transposed, they were not in the English language) rather than translated. The translators used English words that they felt best fitted in with the context of the subject in question. This meant that although the one Hebrew or Greek word was used consistently by the God-inspired writers, the translators would translate that word several different ways.

It's not hard to look for examples of this happening. For example the word 'sheol' in Hebrew was translated into English as 'grave' 31 times, 'pit' 3 times and 'hell' 31 times. When Jacob died he was buried in 'sheol', and because he was good the word was translated 'grave'. When the ground opened up and swallowed wicked Israelites in the wilderness 'sheol' was translated 'pit'. When evil kings died they went to 'sheol' translated 'hell'. According to the Scriptures, regardless of who died they all went to the same place - 'sheol'. This method of translating can perhaps be justified in some circumstances. For example, if a king sent a messenger into another country and that messenger was to represent the king, we could accept it if he was called an ambassador. Whether the word 'messenger' or 'ambassador' was used could be seen as irrelevant as the word did not change the description of the person. Maybe the word 'ambassador' would make for easier reading. The word would be chosen in regard to the context it was used in.

But what would happen if the word used was very relevant? What if an incorrect word was chosen that changed the meaning of the original word, and worse still, one that might challenge church doctrine? --- 

In my study I find it necessary to put aside church doctrine in every case before I begin to read the Word.  I believe that if the interpretation that the church has arrived at came through he Scriptures then I should be able to arrive at the same conclusion every time.  This however is NOT the case.

Where are the dead?
The Church
One God
Is Jesus God?
God's Sovereignty
Man's Destiny
Daniel
Satan and Sin
The Purpose of Law and Grace
Angels
Israel and the throne of David
Food
Christmas
Amusing
Revelation
The rich man and Lazarus
Who is the fourth man?
Where to look in the Bible

•  •