Greek and Hebrew specialty

[Jim1999]

I just love the arm-chair linguists. The get a Strong's or Young's Concordance and they are instantly a specialist in Greek and Hebrew.

I had four years of Greek and Hebrew in seminary, and I wouldn't begin to label myself fluent in either language.

A language is not understood by one word or even two words. There is context, idiom and common usage in the particular setting.

Cheers,

Jim

OK, now I got that off my chest....carry on.

 

[Chemnitz]

my sentiments exactly.

 

[Claudia_T]

The way that I feel about the subject of people digging out this Greek and Hebrew is that Jesus said God reveals His things to "babes" and not to those who think themselves to be scholars.

Mt:11:25: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

I think that the reason people use this Greek and Hewbrew alot of times is so they can try to wind their way around the obvious meaning of a Bible verse and make it seem to say whatever they want it to say.

But Jesus said we have to become like little children, simple and just willing to do what God reveals.

Mt:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If we must become scholarly and know Greek and Hebrew then that is saying we cant make it to heaven unless we are the strongest... But thats not God's way, even the weakest can understand the Word of God.

The Holy Spirit is able to teach me.. I just need to be willing to gather up everything I can find on a subject and give every Bible verse it's weight without ignoring what I dont want to hear.

1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I see people carrying on and on -talking to each other- trying to impress everybody with their "intellectualism" when all the while it amounts to a whole lot of philosophical nonsense.

Personally, it sickens me when I see people going on and on trying to find the "Greek and Hebrew" meaning of everything until finally they end up making a plain Bible verse mean exact opposite than what it quite obviously says.

Then they end up having to pervert the meaning of other Bible verses as well to make everything seem to match together, till finally they end up with a distorted pile of rubbish.

Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools


Claudia

[ May 25, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

[J. Jump]

But just because someone tries to understand the original language (which is God's Words) doesn't put them into the wise category and hence remove them from the babes category.

Can we understand the Bible without digging into the original language. Sure we can understand some of it. We can certainly understand salvation by grace through faith, becuase that is a message that even a child can understand.

But if you want to get into the meat and the strong meat of the Scripture I think you need to have somewhat of an understanding of the original languages. I don't think you have to be an expert.

However, I think the more you can learn about the original languages the more it is going to help one's study.

But to say that people that know Greek and Hebrew on the same "wise" folks that Scripture speaks against is taking it to far.

 

[Jim1999]

J. Jump, I think you got the gist of what I was saying. I am certainly not against an intellectual approach to the scriptures. I think we blame the Holy Spirit for far too much.

We also fail when we repeatedly cite a particular passage from a particular version of the word, for example the archaic King James version. We need to understand the archaisms.

In any version we need to understand the idiom of the day; the geographical setting; the cultural setting; and just what the text meant to the original recipient. For this, the original languages help, but understanding is not impossible. There are excellent commentaries, written by language scholars, from which we can compare our understanding in English.

For a better, thorough understanding of the word,

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
The way that I feel about the subject of people digging out this Greek and Hebrew is that Jesus said God reveals His things to "babes" and not to those who think themselves to be scholars.

I agree why don't we all run around and be stupid cause God only reveals things to ignorant people.

 

[DeclareHim]

I strongly second the OP. But at the same time I think education is a good thing.

Claudia
Personally, it sickens me when I see people going on and on trying to find the "Greek and Hebrew" meaning of everything until finally they end up making a plain Bible verse mean exact opposite than what it quite obviously says.

Maybe that's because dead in the KJV when compared to the Greek word in the NT doesn't mean what you want it to mean. And certain passages in your KJV can mean other things in the Original languages which do not support SDA doctrine.

 

[drfuss]

I suspect anyone using the "Greek and Hebrew meaning" approach in making a point here on BB. Too many times, it is a doctrine driven meaning from the Greek or Hebrew rather than an objective meaning. Unless there is someone who is Greek or Hebrew qualified presenting the other side or the issue, I tend to discount any "Greek and Hebrew meaning" points being made.

I find it odd that the many Bible translations missed the real meaning, but these Greek or Hebrew "scholars" know it. This tells me it is only a doctrine driven interpretation, so I discount it.

 

[J. Jump]

I find it odd that the many Bible translations missed the real meaning, but these Greek or Hebrew "scholars" know it. This tells me it is only a doctrine driven interpretation, so I discount it.

This can be a very dangerous way to approach things. One thing that we have to remember is that Bible translation has become about making money.

And if translators were to actually translate some of the words and/or phrases correctly there version would come under serious attack and therefore they wouldn't make any money.

 

[drfuss]

Jump writes:
"This can be a very dangerous way to approach things. One thing that we have to remember is that Bible translation has become about making money.

And if translators were to actually translate some of the words and/or phrases correctly there version would come under serious attack and therefore they wouldn't make any money. "

And I consider the above to be very dangerous. Are you suggesting that only the "scholar's" Greek of Hebrew explanations can be counted on to be correct?

Hmmmm..

 

[drfuss]

Jump writes:
"This can be a very dangerous way to approach things. One thing that we have to remember is that Bible translation has become about making money.

And if translators were to actually translate some of the words and/or phrases correctly there version would come under serious attack and therefore they wouldn't make any money. "

And I consider the above to be very dangerous. Are you suggesting that only the "scholar's" Greek of Hebrew explanations can be counted on to be correct?

Hmmmm..

 

[Chemnitz]

There is some truth to what j.jump writes, bible publishers know that if their translation sounds to different from older more familiar translation it will not sell.

Of course being a Lutheran I am used to seeing bibles translated from a reformed/arminian bias, so I realize their background is going to influence how they tend to render certain words and forms.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you suggesting that only the "scholar's" Greek of Hebrew explanations can be counted on to be correct?

Nope that's not what I'm suggesting at all. Both sides are extreme and I rarely thin the answers are found in the extreme.

Should we be careful of some of the so called scholars? Absolutely. Should we take everything as truth in the translations. Nope. There should be a balance.

 

[Jim1999]

One more word which agrees with my original intention. If the listener does not speak either Greek or Hebrew, what is the point in bringing a linguistic definition forward in a message? For example, one can give the definition of the word without repeating the exact Greek or Hebrew word....just explain the translation at hand.

The big bugaboo for me, however, has been missed. That is the use of a concordance to make one appear to be Greek or Hebrew literate, when all they are is a one word pain in the neck, just like people who quote in full the same verses page after page after page, ad infinitum (that is Latin, you know)...

Cheers, anjoyed reading the various comments and the thread demeanor, thanks,

Jim

 

[BobRyan]

I applaud those who are williing to engage in a little work using a concordance as part of accurately exegeting a chapter "in detail".

It flies in the face of the fallacy of "secret knowledge" and they are often satisified to see that the various Bible translators "knew what they were doing". At the same time it can help you see how "bias" plays a part when 2 or 3 options are available and the pre-conceived notion of the translator is 'helping them choose' without reference to specific context.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hope of Glory]

J. Jump: But if you want to get into the meat and the strong meat of the Scripture I think you need to have somewhat of an understanding of the original languages.

One of my Greek teachers was fond of saying, "How can I teach someone Greek, when they can't even speak English?"

I think that dumbing down our kids is one tool that Satan uses to obfuscate precise readings of Scripture. If you don't know what a participle is in English, how could you understand what one is in Greek?

drfuss: I find it odd that the many Bible translations missed the real meaning, but these Greek or Hebrew "scholars" know it.

Many translations get it right, but those with a particular favorite version reject it. KJVOers might be a prime offender in this regard (they even reject the translators' own notes), but they are not the only offenders.

drfuss: Are you suggesting that only the "scholar's" Greek of Hebrew explanations can be counted on to be correct?

I will trust someone who is an expert in the language before I will trust a theologian with preconceived notions when it comes to grammar, etc. An expert in Greek or Hebrew only will not have an "angle" that he wants to injetct into it.

Jim1999: If the listener does not speak either Greek or Hebrew, what is the point in bringing a linguistic definition forward in a message? For example, one can give the definition of the word without repeating the exact Greek or Hebrew word...

I will do it if there's a compelling reason, and I won't if there's not. For example, when explaining "autoptes", I give the Greek word, because it invokes an image of the meaning. I will use "hagios", because it's a word that my listeners know. I will give "pneuma" and "psuche" to distinguish between the soul and the spirit in the passage.

I would never use the word "holoklEros", as there is nothing beneficial to it.

Jim1999: That is the use of a concordance to make one appear to be Greek or Hebrew literate

Most people don't even understand the difference between a concordance and a lexicon and that the concordance only lists the ways that the words are used in a particular version. Young's is for Young's Literal Translation, Strong's is for the KJV, etc.

Concordances are handy tools, but I prefer the one on e-Sword. But, you have to use them within what they are good for.

(Computers are really amazing: One click and you have done in 14 secongs what used to take hours. I have a program, that even though it's old, will search the NA-27 text for words, and you can modify the search by grammar, w/without words, etc., and it will make a list of every usage in the paramaters within about 3 seconds. That was hours worth of work for me 30 years ago!)

 

[drfuss]

Hope of glory writes:
"I will trust someone who is an expert in the language before I will trust a theologian with preconceived notions when it comes to grammar, etc. An expert in Greek or Hebrew only will not have an "angle" that he wants to injetct into it."

Escept that "experts in Greek and Hebrew" are also theologians and have preconceived notions. If you have any beliefs, it is not possible to be completely objective.

I will still go with the translators rather than someone on the BB using Greek or Hebrew to promote his point.

 

[drfuss]

Hope of glory writes:
"I will trust someone who is an expert in the language before I will trust a theologian with preconceived notions when it comes to grammar, etc. An expert in Greek or Hebrew only will not have an "angle" that he wants to injetct into it."

Escept that "experts in Greek and Hebrew" are also theologians and have preconceived notions. If you have any beliefs, it is not possible to be completely objective.

I will still go with the translators rather than someone on the BB using Greek or Hebrew to promote his point.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

I agree 200%!! I've been arguing the exact same thing over in the versions forum!

 

[Hope of Glory]

Escept that "experts in Greek and Hebrew" are also theologians and have preconceived notions.

Man, that's funny! When I posted that, I had two specific people in mind (that I prefer not to mention because it's a debate of the KJVO caliber) who were experts and not theologians. One thought the Bible was beautifully written and absolutely inerrant, but thought it was a fraud committed by those who wanted to control the masses. I use his reference works periodically, because his knowledge is quite extensive. The other came to a saving knowledge of the Lord because he was an expert and realized that the Bible is inerrant, and what it contained, he applied. (I have second-hand knowledge of those who became experts because they set out to disprove the Bible, and they ended up proving it, but I am not personally familiar with those.)

Both of the former were Jewish and atheists when they started. Both are dead. One died a professing Christian, the other a professing atheist.

Do I use their reference works primarily? No. But, they are quite helpful occasionally, particularly on biblical references in the secular world and how they apply to Scriptures.