Interpretation Exercises I

Código VBII-E0004-P

VIEW:417 DATA:2020-03-20

Example

1
Examine Genesis 31:53 and mark the correct alternative to the interpretation of the text.
Genesis 31:53  The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us. And Jacob swore by the fear of Isaac, his father.

a) The God of Abraham, Nahor and the God of their father is the same God

b) Terah is the father of Abraham

c) The text does not specify who is the God of Abram, Naor and the God of the father of the two.

d) The text says that there are three true Gods

e) Laban who pronounced that text

          The text does not clearly specify who the God of the people in question is, does not say that Terah is the father of Abraham, nor does it say that Laban pronounced that verse, so we have the alternative c that best fits the interpretation of the text

          We have in Gen 31:53 the meaning [Abraham's worshiping Being (God), and Naor's (Being or being) worshiping (God being or being), worshiping (God being or being) of their father, judge between us]. The ancient Hebrew language does not make uppercase and lowercase alphabetic differentiation as we have in Latin writings, nor does it occur in differentiation texts (God - God) as we do, in the case of Gen 31:53 the translator decided to determine that Naor, brother of Abram and Terah Abraham's father served the true God (YHVH), Nahor, Terah and Abram had already died by the time Laban spoke this text. Necessarily the Bible did not forcefully report that Nahor and Terah were servants of the true God. Let us look at the text of the Patriarchs and Prophets. 
"The call from Heaven first came to Abraham while he lived in" Ur of the Chaldeans "(Gen. 11:31), and in obedience to it he moved to Haran. Up to this point his father's family accompanied him; together with their idolatry, they joined the worship of the true God. There Abraham remained until Terah's death. Only his father buried, the divine voice told him to continue. home and its idols. " PP 127
          We can accept but not determine with certainty that Terah died having [his (Being or being) of worship] the true God, but already with Naor the situation is clearer because it says that "they clung to their home and their idols." being that the true God is not produced by human hands Naor did not have for God, the True God. Someone would say that the Bible is wrong in this text, but the Bible did not make mistakes because the words that define both Nahor and Abram are the same, if someone made a mistake it was the translator. Therefore, in the original Biblical text the word True God (by Abraham) and other gods (by Naor) is implied by one who follows the same "God of Abram", which is not implied in the verse for those who follow the gods of Naor.

 

 
2
Examine Genesis 31:53 about Jacob's oath is correct to state
Genesis 31:53  The God of Abraham and the God of Naor, the God of their father, judge between us. And Jacob swore by the fear of Isaac, his father.

a) Jacob swore by the God of Abraham only.

b) Jacob swore by the God of Abraham and the God of naor, the God of their father

c) Jacob swore by Isaac his father.

d) Jacob swore by the fear of Isaac

e) Jacob feared Isaac, his father

Jacob swore by the fear of Isaac, he did not swear by Isaac, he swore by the fear of his father. alternative d

 

 
3
Examine Joshua 24: 2 Shall have, Nahor, and Abraham is correct to affirm
Joshua 24: 2  Then Joshua said to all the people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: In the past, your fathers, Terah, father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods.

a) Terah, Nahor, and Abraham, served the God of Israel.

b) Terah, Nahor, and Abraham, served other gods when they lived after the Euphrates

c) He will have served other gods and is one of the fathers of Israel.

d) Abraham served other gods.

e) Naor is one of the fathers of Israel.

The text does not define who "your fathers" were, says that Terah is the father of Abraham and Nahor, and defines Terah as the parents of Israel, and that when he was beyond the Euphrates he served other gods. It does not define that Abram served other gods, nor that Nahor is Israel's father, alternative c is the correct one.

 

 
4
About the Genealogy of Christ contained below it is correct to state.
Luke 3:23   Now Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was, how he looked after himself, son of Joseph, son of Eli;

Luke 3:24   Eli, son of Matath, Matath, son of Levi, Levi, son of Melchi, this, son of Janai, son of Joseph;

Luke 3:25   Joseph, son of Matathias, Matathias, son of Amos, Amos, son of Nahum, this, son of Esli, son of Nagai;

Luke 3:26   Nagai, son of Maat, Maat, son of Matatias, Matatias, son of Semei, this, son of Joseph, son of Jodá;

Luke 3:27   Jodah, son of Joanan, Joanan, son of Resa, Resa, son of Zorobabel, this one, of Salatiel, son of Neri;

Luke 3:28   Neri, son of Melqui, Melqui, son of Adi, Adi, son of Cosan, this, of Elmadhan, son of Er;

Luke 3:29   Er, the son of Joshua, Joshua, the son of Eliézer, Eliézer, the son of Jorim, the latter of Matath, the son of Levi;

Luke 3:30   Levi, son of Simeon, Simeon, son of Judah, Judah, son of Joseph, this son of Jonan, son of Eliakim;

Luke 3:31   Eliakim, son of Melaah, Melea, son of Mená, Mená, son of Matatá, this, son of Nathan, son of David;

Luke 3:32   David, son of Jesse, Jesse, son of Obed, Obed, son of Boaz, this, son of Salah, son of Naasson;

Luke 3:33   Nahson, son of Aminadab, Aminadab, son of Admim, Admim, son of Arni, Arni, son of Esrom, this, son of Perez, son of Judah;

Luke 3:34   Judah, son of Jacob, Jacob, son of Isaac, Isaac, son of Abraham, this son of Terah, son of Nahor;

Luke 3:35   Nahor, son of Serugue, Serugue, son of Ragaú, Ragaú, son of Faleque, this son of Éber, son of Salá;

Luke 3:36   Salah, son of Cainan, Cainan, son of Arfaxad, Arfaxad, son of Shem, this, son of Noah, son of Lamech;

Luke 3:37   Lamech, son of Methuselah, Methuselah, son of Enoch, Enoch, son of Jared, this, son of Maalalel, son of Cainan;

Luke 3:38   Cainan, son of Enos, Enos, son of Seven, and this son of Adam, son of God.

a) Naor is Abraham's grandfather

b) Nahor is Abraham's brother

c) Terah is the father of Abraham of Naor

d) Abraham's brother named Nahor is one of Israel's fathers.

e) He will have found the name of Naor beautiful.

The text says "Isaac, son of Abraham, this son of Terah, son of Nahor;" Abraham is Naor's grandson. alternative to

 

5
It is correct to say about translations (here you can use all the knowledge of the scripture)
Version: King James Version
Genesis 00:24   She answered him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.

Version: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Genesis 24:24   She answered: I am the daughter of Betuel, son of Milca, whom she gave birth to Nahor.

Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Genesis 24:24
   She replied: - I am the daughter of Betuel, son of Milca and Naor.

a) Updated Almeida is correct and with more information but the part "which she gave to" is not easy to interpret

b) Revised and updated is correct because Naor is the son of Milca.

c) In today's language, it has more information than the other two

d) All three translations have the same meaning, without any ambiguity.

e) He will have found the name of Naor beautiful.

          After these things were passed, news was given to Abraham, in these terms: milca has also given birth to sons your brother Nahor: Gen. 2:20
We see that ARA generates ambiguity when using "which she gave birth to Naor" giving the impression that Naor is the son of Milca, in the TLH we see that it is easy to understand that "Betuel, son of Milca and Naor." but we see that "e de" in TLH is less informative than "which she gave to", ie AA is more complete than TLH because it contains an action verb that TLH does not contain which is "which she gave". See that in the Bible the more information the better the interpretation when using several texts, in other words, the TLH is good for interpreting a verse only but when interpreting texts together and concatenated it leaves no connection information. Many times when reading the scriptures we come across texts that we do not understand, because it speaks of something that is not explained, when we read in another part of the scriptures we find the answer. TLH extracts the incomplete part of a text that would be completed by another, often causing texts that were previously linked for understanding to be separated by the link factor that was extracted. See that by an "s" the text can change a lot "Now, the promises were made to Abraham and his descendant. He does not say: And to the descendants, as if speaking of many, but as of one: And to your descendant, that is Christ. " Gal. 3:16. So the alternative to is the correct one.

 

 
6
It is correct to say about translations (here you can use all the knowledge of the scripture)
Updated version: João Ferreira de Almeida
Genesis 3:15 I   will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; it will hurt your head, and you will hurt its heel. Genesis 17: 7 I will   establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you in your generations, as a perpetual covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Galatians 3:16   Now Abraham and his descendant were promised; he does not say: And to his descendants, as speaking of many, but as of one: And to your descendant, who is Christ. Genesis 22:18   and in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice. 

 Version: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Genesis 3:15 I   will put enmity between you and the woman, between your descendants and their descendants. He will hurt your head, and you will hurt his heel. Genesis 17: 7 I will   establish my covenant between you and me and your descendants throughout their generations, a perpetual covenant, to be your God and your descendants. Galatians 3:16   Now the promises were made to Abraham and his descendant. He does not say: And to the descendants, as if speaking of many, but as of one: And to your descendant, which is Christ. Genesis 22:18   All the nations of the earth will be blessed in it, because you have obeyed my voice.

Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Genesis 3:15
   I will make you and the woman enemies of each other, and so will be enemies of your offspring and her offspring. It will crush your head, and you will sting the heel of her offspring. Genesis 17: 7   The covenant that I am making forever with you and your descendants is as follows: I will forever be your God and your descendants' God. Galatians 3:16   For God made his promises to Abraham and his descendant. When the Scriptures say that God made his promises to Abraham "and to his offspring", they do not mean that they are many people, but one, that is, Christ. Genesis 22:18   Through your descendants I will bless all the nations of the world, for you have done what I have commanded.

a) TLH is correct because the alliance is with " with your descendants" and not with "your descendants" as referred in ARA and AA

b) AA is correct because it talks about the descendant or descendant as one does not use "descendants" but only one, and when it says " your descendants and their descendants" it speaks of Christ and Satan, and when it says "I will put enmity between you and the woman "talks about the church (the children of God) and you (the children of Satan) .

c) TLH is correct because it says " your offspring and her offspring will be enemies ", and uses the plural "enemies" to imply that there are several people fighting, which differs from ARA and AA because they say " your offspring and the his offspring ", as implying that (offspring) Christ and (offspring) Satan.

d) TLH is correct because it says " your descendants I will bless all the nations of the world " using "descendants" as several and not as it says in AA " and in your descendants all the nations of the earth " using "descendants" as one only.

e) The TLH is correct in Gal's verse. 3:16 is that this is wrong, this verse should be abolished as it goes against the TLH translation.

           We see that AR is the best way to analyze the descendant "Christ" (descendant), we see that whoever hurts the heel is Satan, and who hurts the head is Christ. The pact is with the (descendant) and not with the children of Abram. The land is blessed by the "descendants" Christ, and not by " his descendants" as it is said in TLH because the TLH version doctrinally contradicts itself in Galatians 3:16 and the other texts. AA is also a good version of this text but AA is not as clear as RA when we relate Genesis 3:15 with Galatians 3:16

 

7
It is correct to say about the texts (here you can use all the knowledge of the scripture)
The priest replied, The sword of Goliath, the Philistine, whom you struck in the valley of Elah, is here wrapped in a cloth, behind the ephod; if you want to take it, take it, because there is no other here but it. And David said, There is no other like this; lady. I Sam. 21: 9

 There was yet another fight against the Philistines in Gobe; and El-Hanã, son of Jaaré-Oregim, the Belemite, killed Goliath the Gitee, whose spear the rod was like a weaver's organ. II Sam 21:19

a) David didn't kill Goliath, David only hurt him. Goliath was killed in another fight by El-Hanã

b) David killed another Goliath that had nothing to do with the Goliath that El-Hanã killed, the two Goliaths were totally different.

c) The Goliaths were brothers of the same family.

d) Goliath is the name of the Goliath family, like the surname we have today, Pedro da Silva, and João da Silva, one person can kill Mr. Silva (Pedro), and another person kill Mr. Silva (João) ., each person killed a Mr. Silva.

e) Goliath is the name of the Philistine god, as Daniel was called Beltssazar, (who was a Babylonian god) so everyone who fought as a leader of the Philistines was called Goliath.

Reading the text below

 There was war again with the Philistines; and El-Hanã, son of Jair, killed Lami, brother of Goliath, the Gitee, whose spear had the rod as a weaver's organ, II Chron 20: 5

We have that El-Hanã killed the brother of Goliath who was called Lami, as in alternative C, see that alternative D is a deduction and not a clear "so says the Lord", if alternative D is correct the text in II Sam 21:19, I Sam 21: 9 and II Chron 20: 5 are correct, but if alternative D is wrong II Sam 21:19 was spelled wrong.

   Here we come to a standstill, we do not have a clear "so says the Lord" saying that Goliath is a family name, that is, one can be called Goliath and another Lami, nor do we have a clear "so says the Lord" saying that Goliath is not family's name.

    But if we say that Goliath is not a family name, we say that 2 Sam 21:19 was misspelled. And if we say that Goliath is a family name, we say that II Sam 21:19 was spelled correctly. As the golden rule is a clear "so says the Lord" so silence is gold about whether or not Goliath is a family name.

    Now with certainty both who were killed were brothers, therefore accepting alternative C

 
8
It is correct to say about translations (here you can use all the knowledge of the scripture)
"BEHOLD, THE LORD COMETH WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF HIS SAINTS." JUDE 14.

Version: João Ferreira de Almeira Revised and Updated
Judas 1:14 As for these, Enoch also prophesied, the seventh after Adam, saying: Behold, the Lord came among his holy myriads.
Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Judas 1:14 It was Enoch, from the seventh generation from Adam, who long ago prophesied this about them: "Look! The Lord will come with many thousands of his angels.
Version: João Ferreira King James Version
Judas 1:14 For these Enoch also prophesied, the seventh after Adam, saying, Behold, the Lord has come with his thousands of saints,

a) "ten" means "many"

b) A better transliteration of the verse is "Judas 1:14 As for these, Enoch, the seventh after Adam, also prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord comes with his holy myriads."

c) The translations are different "ten" does not mean many means "ten" and "saints" means "saints" and not angels, so the Portuguese version is right and the English version is poorly transliterated.

d) The translations are different "ten" does not mean many means "ten" being that "ten thousands" is better transliterated to Portuguese as "myriads" and "saints" means "saints" and not angels, so the English version is right and Portuguese is poorly transliterated.

e) Both are correct, because the word of God is of particular interpretation.

Alternative and this is wrong because "knowing this first: that no prophecy of Scripture is of particular interpretation." II Pedr 1:20, we see that "ten" means "ten" and "saints" means "saints", so the texts are different , but which one is right, for that we have to look for subterfuge in the originals.

jude-01-14 eprofhteusen de kai toutois ebdomos apo adam enwx legwn idou hlqen kurios en agiais muriasin autou (Westcott-Hort)


ten thousand murias ; by extension, a "myriad" or indefinite number:
hagios # 3461
something or someone holy (something tremendous) sacred (morally, physically pure without guilt, or religious, ceremonially consecrated).
For both transliterations to cooperate in the same verse the best translation would be

Jude 1:14 As for these, Enoch, the seventh after Adam, also prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with his holy myriads.

in AR we have an almost perfect transliteration for Portuguese, if it weren't for the term "came", which denotes past "erchomai" it is only used in the present sense, it is not used nor in the future "will" as in NTL, myriads is the word which encompasses the meaning of "murias", and "hagios" has its meaning transliterated in the word "santo". It should be noted that if the choice of "hagios" refers to the holy angels, it must be determined by the one who reads and not by the one who transliterates the text. Here the ambiguities are in the slight interpretative tendencies as in NTL that uses "will" refer to a future, deducing that even being  "erchomai"used only in the present, he preferred to play for the future referring to Christ's return, since AR and AA uses "came" as the past which seems to inform that it is the first coming of Christ. If we happen to take a clearer interpretation of just the verse, we would have Enoch this in a prophetic vision, as at the present time "erchomai" seeing the Lord coming (present action). In other words, Enoch sees the action, not saying he will come, because he is saying in the first person and in full action, nor saying "came" in the same sense. What transliterates has to do without an interpretive concept, even if it is a correct interpretive sense, the transliterator's opinion cannot occur, that is, "erchomai"it has to be felt present, as the lexicon refers, "hagio" and "murias" on the same thought. Remember the deductions are from the reader and not the transliterator.

Therefore, alternative b is the one that best fits.
 

 

1.3.8. Caring for the scriptures.

    It should be noted that little care is taken to analyze the scriptures, both words, text interpretation and translations can take us totally out of biblical doctrines. See how contradictory the TLH is to say that " Through your descendants I will bless all the nations of the world ", which is totally contrary to the doctrine that it is through Christ " and in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed" AA, that is, the closer the translation is to the original, the more united the texts are. The more distant from the original the more contradictory they become, to the point of having to choose a text. In other words, in TLH if we accept Gal. 3:16 we must abolish Gen. 2:18. At AA Gal. 3:16 perfectly matches Gen. 2:18.  





FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags

Interpretation of text, bible, exegesis, hermeneutics, textual logic