Hebrew 2:16

I don't see a real problem with the NIV rendering.

HankD

 

OK askjo, I'm waiting.

 

Askjo, we all know you are not really interested in exposition. You are trying to sling mud on the Bible, in accordance with your KJV-only presuppositions. What's your point? Stop playing games and come out with it.

 

Ransom, it's clear that Askjo has no interest in exposition. Notice that he says to "compare these mv's" to explain the verse. That's completely unnecessary. All one needs to do is open any translation, in any language, and read THE ENTIRE CHAPTER (not just a single verse) to get the context of the full message. Having done this, you will get the same message: That Jesus gives aid, not to angels, but to the decendents of Abraham.

If Askjo truly has an interest in exposition, he would have no problem comparing the KJV to its source texts to discuss translational issues.

 

I guess either you're refusing to read, or simply failed to read, my post. Whether one reads any of these translations, or reads them in comparison, the message is the same: that Jesis gave aid, not to angels, not to decendents of Abraham. What's your point? I already know what you're going to say, but I'll wait for you to say it first.

 

I already answered your question. Now, answer mine. What DO YOU SAY Hebrews 2:16 tell you?

 

Hi askjo,

You quoted the following KJV Hebrews 2:16

Actually it should have been quoted this way

Italicised words are the system whereby the KJV translators indicated words which are not in the original koine.

While I prefer the KJV rendering because I am strongly Trinitarian, the KJV rendering is an interpretation on the part of the translators probably because it fits in with the context.

However these italicised words are NOT part of the original text. The KJV translators knew that and indicated as much.

Also in the margin they included the following:

So, you see the KJV Hebrews 2:16 in line text is somewhere between functional and dynamic equivalence on the part of the KJV translators (IMO).

HankD

 

There are parallel phrases throughout the passage that tell you what that means. The descendents of Abraham are exactly equivalent to "the children which God hath given me" and "his brethren" and "the people".

Christ became human because the children (or "his brethren" or "the descendents of Abraham" or "the people") he was saving were human. His purpose was to save believing human beings, not angels.

 

In passages like Hebrebs 2:16 we can see that the subtle changes made by the MVs affect many nuances found in God's Word, the KJV.

Askjo, stay with the old book that God has blessed throughout the ages and leave the <attack on Bible deleted> for today's "enlightened" Christians.

[ September 22, 2004, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Show me what nuances are affected in this particular passage. What is clear in the KJV that isn't clear in the MV's?

 

russell55: "Show me what nuances are affected in this particular passage. What is clear in the KJV that isn't clear in the MV's?"

Although I have no idea where Askjo is trying to go with this issue, I would refer everyone back to my original post in this thread, in which I suggested the MVs (including some of the formal equivalance MVs) have missed the boat in interpreting this phrase, and that the interpretation implied by the KJV (reflected in its added italicized words) is indeed the correct one in context.

Adam Clarke to the contrary (who in my opinion tries to straddle both sides of the fence), the issue remains the meaning in context of the underlying Greek word EPILAMBANW. That word normally does *not* mean "to help" but "to take hold of" (as stated literally in the KJV translators' own footnote).

This meaning is clearly demonstrated in the 17 other NT occurrences as well as the ca. 30 LXX occurrences of EPILAMBANW (I can list these if desired; the OT examples range from Moses taking hold of the two tablets of stone before smashing them [Dt 9:17] to a woman grabbing a man's testicles during a fight [Dt 25:11]), in both of which the root meaning is obvious.

But, given the context of Hebrews 2, the incarnation is clearly in view, and the proper linguistic NT parallel is found in 1Tim 6:12, 19. There, Timothy is commanded to "lay hold on eternal life" and that others "may lay hold on eternal life" -- the meaning of EPILAMBANW in that context is *clearly* "totally assimilating" or "totally identifying" with the object stated in the genitive. Such strongly appears to be the case in Heb 2:16, and if so, the KJV got it right, while most modern translations -- dynamic as well as formal equivalence -- simply missed (and continue to miss) the boat.

I suspect the initial cause of this tendency was Thayer's lexicon, which *did* suggest the meaning "to help" as possible in this context. However, the *only* biblical or pseudo-biblical case of such a meaning to which Thayer could appeal was the apocryphal Sirach 4:11 -- and even that passage could be read simply as "taking hold" rather than "helped". In addition, Thayer also had a bias, being a Unitarian, and this might also explain why he would be reluctant to allow an incarnational meaning at Heb 2:16.

In short, my opinion is that the MVs clearly need to reconsider their "help" translation in this passage, and to look at the verb from an incarnational Christological perspective.

 

Psalm 74:22-23 (HCSB)

22 Arise, God, defend Your cause!
Remember the insults
that fools bring against You all day long.
23 Do not forget the clamor of Your adversaries,
the tumult of Your opponents that goes up constantly.

 

You're refusing to answer my question. What do YOU say the verse says? YOU are the one making a claim. So tell us, what do you say this verse says?

 

You're correct. What you miss, however, is the 1611's use of the phrase. To "take upon" or "take hold of" in Elizabethan contexts is to offer assistance. In other words, to give aide. Askjo is no doubt trying to make a big deal about the KJV reading the Jesus takes on the "nature of", but in today's English, we would say
give assistance". It's NOT an error in a translation, either in the KJV or elsewhere. It's an issue of the evolution of language text and use over time.