Greek; Enhancement or hinderance?

Simple: Education is better than ignorance.

 

Agreed. But would be more specific. Knowledge is better than ignorance. I know a lot of people who have the formal education, and seem to not have learned, or chosen not to have learned, anything that challenges their preconceived notions.

Our freind who started this post has made it clear on other threads he rejects knowledge that might cause him to rethink his positions. But he deserves an answer.

The facts are, and they are facts that cannot be changed, is that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Greek is a very specific language. English is not. Knowing the meaning of specific Greek words, such as love, helps us in our efforts to interpret the various translations correctly. If we do not know the meaning of words the NT writers chose to use, how do we know we are properly understanding the text?

One last thought. It seems some are offended at the efforts of others to teach them, when it is clear that instruction, based upon knowledge is neccessary. Sad for them. They will perpetuate ignorance in their zeal, doing immeasurable damamge in their wake. Worse is the intentional disregard of one of the Proverbs simplest injunctions,which is to get knowledge.

 

Jim, are you implying that the early English translators including the KJV translators
did not enhance their understanding of the Scriptures by learning Greek?

KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of
the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Paine, MEN BEHIND THE KJV, p. 84). Lancelot Andrewes, a leading KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (PATTERN OF CATECHISTICAL DOCTRINE, p. 59). In his preface to his 1537 New Testament, William Tyndale wrote: "I had taken in hand to look over the New Testament again, and to compare it with the Greek, and to mend whatsoever I could find amiss." Tyndale was in effect the primary or principal translator of the KJV since
much of his translating remains in the KJV.

In his 1583 book that defended the view of Bible translation held by the early English translators, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589)
wrote: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried" (DEFENCE OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGUE, p. 44). In the preface of
another book, Fulke wrote: "The dissension of interpreters [word used by Fulke and the KJV
translators for translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (CONFUTATION OF THE RHEMISH TESTAMENT, p. 26).

 

Example 1 - We all know that scripture is "God breathed". How do we know this? English scripture translations don't say that. We know this because we understand that the word in Greek (translated "inspired") contextualy means "God-breathed".

Example 2 - Jesus' dialogue with Peter on "Do you love me?" In the English alone, it's impossible to comprehend the meaning of what Jesus is trying to say to Peter. In the Greek, we get the full picture. Jesus askes "Do you agape (love unconditionally) me? Peter replies "I phileo (love as a brother) you. Peter didn't get it, and so Jesus asks again, and Peter replies again. Finally, Jesus lowers himself to Peter's level of comprehension, and asks, "Do you phileo (love as a brother) me? Peter replies firmly "yes". When reading the passage in English alone, one does not comprehend the full scope of the dialogue that Jesus is having with Peter.

 

Interestingly enough, one of the few if not the only literal translations of this is the NIV. So much for that foolishness that the NIV is a bad, horrible translation. It translates this verse literally.

Your John 21 explanation is suspect. It is well known that the distinctions between agape and phileo are not hard and fast and at times they are interchangeable. The Bible doesn't say that Peter was grieved becasue he was using different words. The Bible says Peter was grieved because it happened three times. In other words, the scriputral testimony has nothing to do with the words in question, but rather with three times it happened. Your position is a very common preaching point; it just isn't the point of hte text.

 

Peter was grieved because he saw Jesus as simply repeating himself, Jesus was repeating himself because Peter wasn't hearing what Jesus was asking. The Greek is clear that, after Jesus changes his verbage, and asks Peter if he loves (phileo) him, using the same word that Peter was using, does the questioning stop. That's significant, and that significance is lost in the translation to English. Even if your presumption about phileo and agape are correct, the fact that Jesus changes his verbage here when he does is significant, and that significance is lost in the English.

Excellent point on the "God-breathed" issue and the NIV.

[ January 06, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Jim,

I'll leave the debating to others but you pose an important question, IMO. Here's my take:

It isn't necessary to take a course or learn Greek and Hebrew for the Christian to gain an accurate knowledge of the scriptures, provided he is willing to use Strong's, Vine's, and perhaps a few other reference books, to look up the words.

The KJV, ESV and NASB are all reliable translations that communicate the infallible, inspired Word of God. Nevertheless, the difficulties of translating the original manuscripts into English should be addressed by the serious Christian. Although not inspired or infallible, God has provided us with wonderful tools to do just that.

Further, God did not write scripture with the highly educated in mind. He wrote it to the ordinary person, in an ordinary way. Nowhere is education more overrated than in Christianity - education can help, but it can also hurt. The things of God are spiritually discerned and some of the most knowledgeable and mature Christians are people with little or no education who are simply willing to look something up in a book.

 

True, but scripture was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, not English, which is why it behooves each person to have basic understanding of those languages. The best that a person can do when studying a translation is to understand the translation. Even Jim has said that he uses a strong's concordance. Strong's references the definition of the original language (though it lacks the contextual usage). So, even though Jim doesn't think it important to study the Greek, he's studying the Greek.

 

"He wrote it to the ordinary person, in an ordinary way."
"
He did? All of it was written in an age when illiteracy was the norm.
On top of that, even the most recent texts in the Bible are 19 centuries old and the cultural gap between early 21st century Western Civilization and the different Biblical civilizations is significant.

 

The way into any culture is through the language. When you learn the language you also learn the nuances of the meaning of words in their context. If one studies Hebrew and Greek he will notice that a large percentage of the structure in the NT follows a Hebrew pattern written in Greek. It is much like what a person would do who is from another country learning English.