Just wondering if doctrinal discussion encompasses discussions in theology and the philosophy of religion and like that? 
Does this allow for theological overlap?
- Thread starter TimGoodwin
- Start date
Hello, Tim, and again - welcome to CFS.Just wondering if doctrinal discussion encompasses discussions in theology and the philosophy of religion and like that?
A general answer to your question is a qualified 'Yes' as long as any of the 8 items on the list of topics which can not be discussed at CFS are not brought into the discussion.
Thank you for the question.
`
Do members ever engage in discussions about the origins of the Old Testament, including its various versions and translations? For example, do they explore word-for-word authentic translations compared to modern versions like the KJV or NLV? Are there conversations about how the text should be arranged chronologically and the reasoning behind such arrangements? Is it acceptable to study and discuss manuscripts such as the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and early Greek and Latin codices?
Please feel free to start a discussion on any of these topics and see where the membership takes it.
Intense debating is not allowed at CFS, so if strong Belief System differences of opinion crop up and generates tension or anger, the Staff will review content and take action under our Rules. CFS is a Friendly haven for persons who are tired of the demeaning and bickering that takes place at other forums, so think carefully about possible outcomes before posting.
`
Intense debating is not allowed at CFS, so if strong Belief System differences of opinion crop up and generates tension or anger, the Staff will review content and take action under our Rules. CFS is a Friendly haven for persons who are tired of the demeaning and bickering that takes place at other forums, so think carefully about possible outcomes before posting.
`
Hello ModeratorTeam;
If I may add...
Hello Tim, as the ModeratorTeam encourages our members, please feel free to start the conversation. Keep in mind there are many members growing in their study of the Bible and will be intrigued reading these thread / post topics. It's important to approach the verbs fundamentally as we strive to keep it in the realm of learning from one another.
God bless you and thank you, TimGoodwin.
If I may add...
Hello Tim, as the ModeratorTeam encourages our members, please feel free to start the conversation. Keep in mind there are many members growing in their study of the Bible and will be intrigued reading these thread / post topics. It's important to approach the verbs fundamentally as we strive to keep it in the realm of learning from one another.
God bless you and thank you, TimGoodwin.
Thank you for the advice, and I understand. My faith is strong, and I am deeply rooted in Christ's teachings. I simply aspire to unravel ancient history, especially history related to Christian scripture. Breaking down the different variants and cross-referencing the scriptures to arrive at the closest word-for-word translation is something I truly believe is helpful in my walk with Christ. Knowing how people spoke and wrote two, four, or even five thousand years ago sets the stage for some very interesting translations. It does not change the overall end result, meaning, or teachings but simply brings me closer to understanding how they thought, felt, and so on. It's actually very exciting!
We have a member Origen who might take up your interest, but for the most part, textual examination takes a thorough knowledge of the original languages which many of us don't have, otherwise we would most likely be working with a Translation Committee.
Tim such discussions do happen from time to time. You did mention the Old Testament what be your outlook on the Septuagints and Masoretic text. Prim
Good question. One's Hebrew and the others Greek of course but as to my outlook on any of the devices or variants for translation it's what is required for the job at the time. I use each as needed. DSS and Aleppo are helpful sometimes and then there are whole variants that are for the earliest works only and some just for the later works. Really depends. There are over 35 I work with. Some are the:Tim such discussions do happen from time to time. You did mention the Old Testament what be your outlook on the Septuagints and Masoretic text. Prim
Masoretic Text (MT)
Septuagint (LXX)
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)
Samaritan Pentateuch
Vulgate (Latin)
Peshitta (Syriac)
Targums (Aramaic)
Old Latin (Vetus Latina)
Coptic Manuscripts
But those are only a few. So, you see it depends, there are no feelings or particular outlook about it at all, they are only tools.
Hi Tim,
I haven`t looked into any of those and am pleased that you will give some guidance that.
Now, one thing I have noted in regard to different translations is that often a person`s (or rather people`s) theology guides their interpretation. Whereas what is needed is that the original word, whether Hebrew of Greek should be written and not the interpreter`s choice of what that word meant.
For example - In Hebrew and Greek where the word is `Holy Ones,` (Hebrew: `quodos,` sacred, holy. Greek: `hagio,` also sacred, holy) it is often translated `saints,` when it could also be `angels.`
Thus, as I`m trying to point out more scriptures are necessary to know which word it should be. The interpreters have jumped the gun and written what they believe instead of the actual Hebrew or Greek meaning.
In that case, you may find this author/book interesting...Encountering the Manuscripts (an introduction to new testament paleography & textual criticism) by Philip Comfort. even though he deals with mainly the NT, I find his work captivating.
Tim I do think wise to evaluate so many Old Testament versions and translations. More so the Septuagint when it comes to the messianic prophecies and virgin birth of Christ. Namely because it was translated from Hebrew to Greek from Almah to Parthenos which said virgin and not merely a young maiden. The translators of the Septuagint were all Jewish . They had no qualms about the Septuagint nor the word virgin being used . The Jews were happy with the translation. That was of course until Jesus turned up hundreds of years later. And since than some 2000 yrs later the screaming has never ceased from the Jewish ones. It is also noted from some of the early church fathers such as Origin that around the 2nd century AD that all of a sudden all these new Greek translations of the Old Testament started turning up such as Throdotion, Aquila of Sinopri. and Symmanchus and other readings also that were foreign and not trusted by the church due to their temperings with many of the Messianic prophecies. Your thoughts on the importance of the Sepuagint greatly appreciated . Yours Prim
Tim I do think wise to evaluate so many Old Testament versions and translations. More so the Septuagint when it comes to the messianic prophecies and virgin birth of Christ. Namely because it was translated from Hebrew to Greek from Almah to Parthenos which said virgin and not merely a young maiden. The translators of the Septuagint were all Jewish . They had no qualms about the Septuagint nor the word virgin being used . The Jews were happy with the translation. That was of course until Jesus turned up hundreds of years later. And since than some 2000 yrs later the screaming has never ceased from the Jewish ones. It is also noted from some of the early church fathers such as Origin that around the 2nd century AD that all of a sudden all these new Greek translations of the Old Testament started turning up such as Throdotion, Aquila of Sinopri. and Symmanchus and other readings also that were foreign and not trusted by the church due to their temperings with many of the Messianic prophecies. Your thoughts on the importance of the Sepuagint greatly appreciated . Yours Prim
Iâd be careful with translations of ancient texts, especially something like Genesis 1:1â3, because weâre dealing with copies of copiesâand even those are often educated guesses. The truth is, we donât have the original writings from ancient times. Back then, people didnât have alphabets or dictionaries like we do today. Writing wasnât about crafting precise, word-for-word sentences. It was a mix of symbols and oral storytelling, with the focus on conveying ideas, not exact details.
For example, in Egypt, they used hieroglyphsâthose stunning, detailed symbols we see on monuments. These werenât practical for everyday use, though. One symbol could stand for a whole idea, a sound, or even a word, depending on how it was placed. Egyptians also had hieratic, a more practical, cursive script they used on papyrus for things like government records or religious texts. But even with hieratic, the goal was to capture concepts, not every single detail.
In Mesopotamia, the Sumerians and Akkadians worked with cuneiform, pressing wedge-shaped marks into clay tablets. It was a sophisticated system for its time, used to write laws, myths, and records, but it wasnât precise either. A single symbol might mean a word, a syllable, or even an abstract idea. Famous works like the Epic of Gilgamesh were written this way, but they were edited and copied over centuries, so what we have today is far from the original version.
Elsewhere in the world, writing systems were still emerging. In South and Mesoamerica, early cultures like the Olmecs used proto-writing systems, mainly for ceremonial purposes. In North America, indigenous peoples relied on oral storytelling, petroglyphs, and symbols carved into rocks to preserve their histories. In Australia, Aboriginal cultures used Dreamtime stories and rock art, deeply tied to their spiritual traditions. Across Africa and Asia, early forms of pictorial writing and proto-alphabets were just beginning to develop, often used for trade or rituals rather than detailed storytelling.
The bottom line is that writing 4,000 years ago was in its early stages. There was no standardized alphabet, no way to create precise records like we do now. People relied on symbols and oral tradition, and much of what was written has been lost over time. Even the materials they used, like clay tablets or papyrus, havenât always survived. What weâre left with today are fragmentsâpieces of a much bigger puzzle. And this is why we canât achieve a perfectly accurate, word-for-word translation of ancient texts. The methods they used simply didnât allow for that kind of precision.
What we might call âtrue writingââwhere individual sounds were represented in a structured systemâdidnât appear until much later. Around 1500 BCE, the Proto-Sinaitic script, an early form of the alphabet, began to take shape. By about 1000 BCE, the Phoenicians had developed a true alphabet, which became the foundation for the Greek and Latin alphabets we use today. This system made writing much more accessible and consistent, but even then, it took centuries for written language to fully capture the complexity of spoken word.
When it comes to texts like Genesis, the challenge is bridging the gap between the original events or oral traditions and the written versions we have now. Oral storytelling wasnât a static process. Stories evolved with each retellingâdetails might be added, some aspects emphasized more than others, and the narrative adjusted to fit the audience. By the time these oral traditions were written down, they had already changed, shaped by cultural, theological, and even political influences. Scribes would also interpret and adapt the text to their own understanding, introducing variations and commentary along the way.
This is why the original descriptions of events, like the creation story in Genesis, are inevitably different from the versions we read today. Itâs not a flawâitâs simply how stories survived in a time when writing was just beginning to emerge. For us, this means approaching these texts with faith and trust, focusing not on the exact words but on the deeper truths they were meant to convey. When we pray and reflect, we can connect to the heart of these stories, even if the words themselves have shifted over time.
For example, in Egypt, they used hieroglyphsâthose stunning, detailed symbols we see on monuments. These werenât practical for everyday use, though. One symbol could stand for a whole idea, a sound, or even a word, depending on how it was placed. Egyptians also had hieratic, a more practical, cursive script they used on papyrus for things like government records or religious texts. But even with hieratic, the goal was to capture concepts, not every single detail.
In Mesopotamia, the Sumerians and Akkadians worked with cuneiform, pressing wedge-shaped marks into clay tablets. It was a sophisticated system for its time, used to write laws, myths, and records, but it wasnât precise either. A single symbol might mean a word, a syllable, or even an abstract idea. Famous works like the Epic of Gilgamesh were written this way, but they were edited and copied over centuries, so what we have today is far from the original version.
Elsewhere in the world, writing systems were still emerging. In South and Mesoamerica, early cultures like the Olmecs used proto-writing systems, mainly for ceremonial purposes. In North America, indigenous peoples relied on oral storytelling, petroglyphs, and symbols carved into rocks to preserve their histories. In Australia, Aboriginal cultures used Dreamtime stories and rock art, deeply tied to their spiritual traditions. Across Africa and Asia, early forms of pictorial writing and proto-alphabets were just beginning to develop, often used for trade or rituals rather than detailed storytelling.
The bottom line is that writing 4,000 years ago was in its early stages. There was no standardized alphabet, no way to create precise records like we do now. People relied on symbols and oral tradition, and much of what was written has been lost over time. Even the materials they used, like clay tablets or papyrus, havenât always survived. What weâre left with today are fragmentsâpieces of a much bigger puzzle. And this is why we canât achieve a perfectly accurate, word-for-word translation of ancient texts. The methods they used simply didnât allow for that kind of precision.
What we might call âtrue writingââwhere individual sounds were represented in a structured systemâdidnât appear until much later. Around 1500 BCE, the Proto-Sinaitic script, an early form of the alphabet, began to take shape. By about 1000 BCE, the Phoenicians had developed a true alphabet, which became the foundation for the Greek and Latin alphabets we use today. This system made writing much more accessible and consistent, but even then, it took centuries for written language to fully capture the complexity of spoken word.
When it comes to texts like Genesis, the challenge is bridging the gap between the original events or oral traditions and the written versions we have now. Oral storytelling wasnât a static process. Stories evolved with each retellingâdetails might be added, some aspects emphasized more than others, and the narrative adjusted to fit the audience. By the time these oral traditions were written down, they had already changed, shaped by cultural, theological, and even political influences. Scribes would also interpret and adapt the text to their own understanding, introducing variations and commentary along the way.
This is why the original descriptions of events, like the creation story in Genesis, are inevitably different from the versions we read today. Itâs not a flawâitâs simply how stories survived in a time when writing was just beginning to emerge. For us, this means approaching these texts with faith and trust, focusing not on the exact words but on the deeper truths they were meant to convey. When we pray and reflect, we can connect to the heart of these stories, even if the words themselves have shifted over time.
Very enlighten.
Agreed which is why there is so much confusion and arguments over Old Earth and Young Earth Creation beliefs.
As for the Creation story in Genesis, I do not believe that we can make a blanket statement that âGenesis is narrative,â because not all of Genesis is written as a narrative.
To validate your thesis, most conservative biblical scholars agree that Moses was involved in the writing of Genesis, perhaps by gathering written or oral materials from earlier times. Moses was also the author of Psalm 90, which includes..........
"For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. "(verse 4)
The immediate context of Psalm 90:4 is creation. Is that literal, poetry, or prophesy?
I would be concerned if this meant not appreciating -
1. That God by His Holy Spirit wrote His word through men.
2. That God oversaw that His word was not only written as He desired but that it remained intake throughout all the centuries.
Utterly amazing and impossible for man to have done. Only God could preserve His word.
Since All Scripture is 'authored' by the Holy Spirit it would stand to reason that the Holy Spirit is the best interpreter of His Word (provided we have the original texts); and since we don't have the originals; comparisons, evaluations, excluding certain mss. etc., of the current existing manuscripts is of the utmost importance in attempting to determine the originals.
Last edited:
Excellent points.
May I add that when Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16 literally, that all Scripture is θξĎĎÎ˝ÎľĎ ĎĎÎżĎ (theopneustos), or âGod-breathed,â it does not mean that the human authors were âinspiredâ but that the Scripture itself, the product was, as we have been taught to say, âinspired.â
Then 2 Peter 1:21 (ESV)
"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
This speaks of the process.
John MacArthur is relying on this tradition when he explains.............
"As those godly men were carried along by the Holy Spirit, He superintended their words and used them to produce the Scriptures. As a sailing ship is carried along by the wind to reach its final destination, so the human authors of Scripture were moved by the Spirit of God to communicate exactly what He desired. In that process, the Spirit filled their minds, souls, and hearts with divine truthâ mingling it sovereignly and supernaturally with their unique styles, vocabularies, and experiences, and guiding them to produce a perfect, inerrant result ".
Source: (Strange Fire, 2013, p. 223).
But I think that we must consider the possibility that Moses drew upon existing oral traditions passed down through generations as Timgoodwin is suggesting. The stories of creation, Adam and Eve, and the early patriarchs may have been preserved within the Israelite community, transmitted from father to son, from generation to generation, however the work of the Holy Spirit would NOT be diminished in that process.
I am thinking, 'preservation' by the Holy Spirit would be part of that process.
Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.