I am just wondering if anyone knows where I can could take course on Greek and/or Hebrew online?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greek/Hebrew
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
I assume you mean for free?
http://sententias.org/2011/08/17/how-to-get-a-theological-education-through-itunes-u/
http://sententias.org/2011/08/17/how-to-get-a-theological-education-through-itunes-u/
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Why oh why is this in the Fundamental Baptist section?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not? Contrary to the opinion of many, most Fundamentalists are not against learning the original languages. And please not my use of the word most.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Granted that... it still doesn't follow that this is the appropriate place for such a thread. The same is said of the Calvi and Armi forum. Most Calvies and Armies are for learning the original languages. But it still wouldn't fit there either.
My gut tells me he is looking for a bias or skew towards a worldview or theology that fits closer to his. IOW, Mounce is out.
Ignore your gut. It was probably just telling you not to eat so much pizza.
Jordan is a fundamentalist so he wanted recommendations from fundamentalists. Not a big deal--the mods can always move the thread if they want to.
As for Mounce, I don't like his text much, but it has nothing to do with my theology, which would not prohibit using him. (In fact, I did for one year.)
The Greek and hebrew texts a
Why would the theological viewpoint though taint a study of the greek/hebrew, for it would still be the same texts and same rules to learn and use regardless, correct?
Look at the Greek lexicons compiled by those who practice infant baptism. They defend their denomination's teaching on baptism by twisting the word "baptidzo" all our of shape and trying to apply it where it does not belong. Such bias must be considered, and rejected when using those reference materials. Just as commentaries reflect the denominational bias of the writers.
As one of my seminary professors used to say, "Eat the fruit but spit out the pits."
Greektim
Well-Known Member
The point is, many in the fundamentalist camp refuse to learn from anybody with a view they deem liberal or too aberrant from their own. Militant separation and all.
that makes some sense, but the plain truth is that Greek and hebrew rules apply to all, regardless of their viewpoints... now how they use that information does indeed go into their mindset!
that makes some sense, but the plain truth is that Greek and hebrew rules apply to all, regardless of their viewpoints... now how they use that information does indeed go into their mindset!
Look at the Greek lexicons compiled by those who practice infant baptism. They defend their denomination's teaching on baptism by twisting the word "baptidzo" all our of shape and trying to apply it where it does not belong. Such bias must be considered, and rejected when using those reference materials. Just as commentaries reflect the denominational bias of the writers.
As one of my seminary professors used to say, "Eat the fruit but spit out the pits."
Would even those greek lexicons that are considered to be the standard ones do that?
Tim, as you seem to deny your position in the "fundamentalist camp" allow me to ask: which of the 5 fundamentals of the faith do you now deny?
That would depend on what you mean by "standard" and the doctrinal presupposition of the person evaluating that particular lexicon.
I do not consider the scholarship of any man to be "inspired." All such reference books are just that: for reference. As a helpful guide. But never as an absolute authority.
Just look at Strong's Concordance and Lexicon by James Strong. It was considered the "standard" for many many years, and is still so considered by some on the Baptist Board. But it has been proven incorrect in many areas in the past 4 or 5 decades.
Don Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies points out some of the errors found in Strong's. But some here still consider it the "standard."
Yet, all the while Strong's was considered by many to be the "standard" - right beside it on the book shelf was Young's Analytical Concordance and Lexicon, which is far, far superior to Strong's.
So, ask me about a specific lexicon and I will give you my opinion, but I hesitate to assume I know which lexicons you mean when you say "standard."
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Not sure that I would say "deny my position" in the fundy camp so much as abandoned it.
I adhere to the 5 solas of the reformation.
And to which fundamentals are you referring? Fundies can't even agree among themselves. Are there only 5? And fundamental for what? Salvation? Christian doctrine? What?
What I object to from the fundamentalist movement is not doctrine so much as worldview and practice. It was born out of a response to liberal modernism of the post enlightenment rational period. Since liberalism had entrenched academic institutions, fundyism took the opposite approach: unacademic modernity, seeking certainty over truth, simplifying theology to the point of simplistic theology. That is not to say that they were stupid. It is to say that they looked (and still do) at the academic institution as unfit (thus their disdain for accreditation). As a result, you have the Bible college movement, which is simply the dumbing down of theological education. It is this whole mentality of fundamentalism that I abandon.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
While true, for fundies, it is a matter of association. They don't want their well poisoned by liberal scholarship no matter how good. And the continuum of liberal theology is flattened to say that if they aren't with us, they are liberal. Leave the baby in the bath water. That's is their m.o.Yeshua1 said:
1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.
2. The substitutionary atonement.
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4. The inspiration of the Scriptures.
5. The second coming of Christ.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Evangelicals believe this, but they aren't fundamentalists.
So really you have 6 since #1 is typically separated. And I believe in the VB, but I'm not sure it is a fundamental seeing as how it barely is discussed in Scripture. But that is for another thread.
A fundamentalist is one who believes the fundamentals.
To my understanding, the main difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals would be on how they view separation, as those in Fundy camp almost always would tend to not get involved with other christians outside the camp...
So if a group or person disagreed with ANY major doctrinal point, would not deem to to fellowship with, to work with...
- Status