Should pastors be required to know original Biblical languages?

[Yeshua1]

You have a disconnect in understanding plain English. You need to start at the ground level, and that would be the NIrV.

I enjoy the Nas/esv, but thanks for suggestion!

 

[Yeshua1]

When Harvard started you had to know them

yes, as both of them were founded in order to have pastors and bible teachers trained up for Christian service, so even accountants required to be skilled in original languages...​

 

[Yeshua1]

There were good reasons why to take Greek and Hebrew in seminary, one of which is to "thoroughly equip" the pastor to be able to combat outsiders or even those inside the church (as I have experienced!) who might claim certain false doctrines based on a supposed "exegesis" of the original languages.

Case in point: the JW's misinterpretation of Jn 1:1 and how to refute their claim that no definite article in the final clause makes Jesus only "a god". How does the unequipped pastor really reply to such in a convincing manner?

your example highlights that the Greek/Hebrew enables the pastor to bring out nuances just not there in the English translation in certain places!

 

[Yeshua1]

The current NIV has been published for nine years. Your pastor could not possibly be unaware of its inclusive language. I doubt it caught him by surprise. If so, he isn't as educated as you claim. Is it, or is it not, his primary translation in the pulpit? Another question, does your church have a pew Bible? If so, what is it?

He has been aware of it since first came out, its just that the 1984 niv was our pew bible, so just kept the new Niv as its update....

 

[Yeshua1]

You're not following along. I told Y-1 that students back then of those two institutions were not required to teach those two languages. He made the claim and I asked for proof.

I did not mean to teach, but that all students were required to learn them, regardless if studying to be pastors or not!

 

[Yeshua1]

All copies of documents come from originals. So are you arguing 0% of God's orginal words is left? You seem to think it makes no difference if any of it was changed.

none of the English translations are 100 % accurate to those originals, but good news is that they do not need to be to have an infallible version!

 

[rlvaughn]

Think it is, 2 Timothy 2:15

A bishop then must be [able to] study in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, to show himself approved as a pastor unto God...

Yes, thanks. I had completely overlooked that text!

 

[George Antonios]

Oh, really?

Oh, yes.

 

[George Antonios]

ONLY in the world of the KJVO!

Easy accusation.

 

[Yeshua1]

A bishop then must be [able to] study in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, to show himself approved as a pastor unto God...

Yes, thanks. I had completely overlooked that text!

why should we limit them to just being to use and understand the English translation though?

 

[Yeshua1]

Easy accusation.

The kjvo are the only ones that hold to inspiration afforded to even english translations!

 

[rlvaughn]

why should we limit them to just being to use and understand the English translation though?

No one is limiting anyone from reading more than just English. The point is to limit your adding to God’s word. It simply does not say what you want it to say.

 

[rsr]

Think it is, 2 Timothy 2:15

Surely you know that "study" in the KJV doesn't refer to what we think of as "study" today.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is limiting anyone from reading more than just English. The point is to limit your adding to God’s word. It simply does not say what you want it to say.

I think that I stated they should, not that they must!

 

[Yeshua1]

Surely you know that "study" in the KJV doesn't refer to what we think of as "study" today.

the basic principle still applies....

 

[37818]

none of the English translations are 100 % accurate to those originals, but good news is that they do not need to be to have an infallible version!

There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Now the whole reason for textual criticism is to recover the original readings of textual copies where known variants are in evidence. Inerrancey has to do with God's word, not any variant from God's word, whether do to changes in copies or errors in translations.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Now the whole reason for textual criticism is to recover the original readings of textual copies where known variants are in evidence. Inerrancey has to do with God's word, not any variant from God's word, whether do to changes in copies or errors in translations.

originals were Inerrant, and credible translations would be infallible...

 

[rlvaughn]

I think that I stated they should, not that they must!

Then why suggest that is part of God’s qualifications for pastors.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I think this is a good question and a great thread topic...
Please, let's not let this devolve into a KJV/KJVO conversation.
This is about pastors studying the Original languages.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Someone with 4 classes in Greek is going to do a better job?
Teams of true expert translators give us our Bibles. You can take what is equal to an elementary knowledge of Greek and do better than they did?

I get so annoyed by the crowd who insists on higher degrees.

Original language study is not about retranslating an English translation of the Bible.
I affirm the value of studying them.
What's wrong is the misuse of such knowledge. But that isn't exclusive to original languages either. All education can be abused.
Also, this is not always about higher degrees. One can study the original languages informally, at home, in the office etc.
I got my degree online. Most of the materials I used, (and all the materials for Hebrew and Greek courses) were available to any Joe Schmoe who had a coupla' hundred bucks and a desire to learn.

Anyone who has studied the original languages knows that sometimes a word can have nuances of meanings which add some depth to what is written and translated. I am not talking about preachers regularly opening their bibles and acting like the word used "SHOULD BE ______" That annoys me to death. I have nowhere near the qualifications to question the abilities of the professionals who translated the ESV, KJV, NASB etc.....and neither do 98% of pastors who like to say: "The word should be ______". However, when different translations disagree (as they sometimes do) a knowledge of the originals weighs in on whether I agree with one particular translation's rendering vs. another's etc.etc.

Furthermore, studying other languages forces one to understand even English grammar better.
It is an extremely valuable tool.
One thing you cannot suggest IMO is that (used appropriately) someone with no knowledge of original languages is better equipped than someone with decent working knowledge.
One of them only has wrenches and pliers, the other also has a socket set in his toolbox.