-
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!
Should we learn Greek?
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
re: Moody's lack of Greek.
When Moody founded his Bible Institute, he chose R. A. Torrey to head it up -- and Torrey clearly had "a good working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew," which languages were then taught (and still are) at Moody's Institute.
Torrey later was called to serve as dean of the Los Angeles Bible Institute (now BIOLA near the sea), and equally offers the biblical languages.
One probably should even draw a parallel with B. H. Carroll, who also know no Hebrew or Greek, but who started Southwestern Seminary to allow others to obtain a knowledge of what he himself did not; equally, C.I. Scofield and the founding of Dallas Seminary for the same purpose.
Those great evangelists of the 19th century were keenly aware of their own lack in this area, and were determined to help raise up a generation of preachers and evangelists that would be better prepared than they.
When Moody founded his Bible Institute, he chose R. A. Torrey to head it up -- and Torrey clearly had "a good working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew," which languages were then taught (and still are) at Moody's Institute.
Torrey later was called to serve as dean of the Los Angeles Bible Institute (now BIOLA near the sea), and equally offers the biblical languages.
One probably should even draw a parallel with B. H. Carroll, who also know no Hebrew or Greek, but who started Southwestern Seminary to allow others to obtain a knowledge of what he himself did not; equally, C.I. Scofield and the founding of Dallas Seminary for the same purpose.
Those great evangelists of the 19th century were keenly aware of their own lack in this area, and were determined to help raise up a generation of preachers and evangelists that would be better prepared than they.
KeithS: " I am seeing very few of you Greek guys pushing for Hebrew classes or claiming how knowing Hebrew helps you understand Scripture. Granted, the thread is about Greek, but shouldn't you be consistent in your views?"
Absolutely. I would like to see churches offer classes in elementary Hebrew familiarity (uning interlinears and analytical lexicons), just as much as I would like to see Greek offered on the same basis.
Absolutely. I would like to see churches offer classes in elementary Hebrew familiarity (uning interlinears and analytical lexicons), just as much as I would like to see Greek offered on the same basis.
Phillip, I apologize for the hijack - Hebrew is really not the issue in this thread and perhaps I should not have introduced the topic (although I think it was in the thread earlier - maybe not).
I also apologize if my remarks seemed negative. They were not meant to be so - only to balance what I viewed as some very biased opinions.
I have read (almost) the entire thread from day one. Lets see...page one started negativity and name calling when KJVO reared its head - no claims of negativity by the OP though. Page two a claim that one cannot be reading the NT without knowing Greek...after all, you only have a translation in English and that just does not cut it - and the OP does not comment except to agree. The remainder of the thread with a few exceptions is similar. (Wondering out loud why my post is subject to the OP's criticism of negativity....)
I never called anyone's Christianity into question - and it is unwarranted of you to say so. I did suggest that some (not necessarily you) leave the impression in their posts that knowing the Greek makes them more capable Christians since they can "study more intensely". I simply suggested that knowing Greek or not knowing Greek does not make one more or less pious nor more or less used of God. In both of my previous posts I stated for the record that I agreed with your original suggestion - that Greek classes be offered. My "negativity" was to balance the crowd proclaiming that Greek should be learned vs. the crowd that says Greek is useless. Both excesses are wrong in my opinion.
Let me go on the record again - your original post - GOOD. Your post on page two where you agreed with Craig that you must know Greek to be able to really read and study the NT because it was written in Greek - BAD.
Now to be fair, I believe you both made statements more as a matter of sentiment than core belief. But you tell me - does this kind of extremism not require balancing??? Do you not find this an extreme view??? Shame on both of you for suggesting by this statement (not directly saying it, mind you) that Greek is prerequisite for the believer in Bible study.
Amen Keith.
And to be fair, I think I have said as much in my posts. Though greek may be helpful for they who want it; it is not NECESSARY to understand Scripture. Otherwise the concept of "translations in the modern tongue" is useless.
I don't know how else to state the obvious.
In HIS service;
Jim
And to be fair, I think I have said as much in my posts. Though greek may be helpful for they who want it; it is not NECESSARY to understand Scripture. Otherwise the concept of "translations in the modern tongue" is useless.
I don't know how else to state the obvious.
In HIS service;
Jim
Lacy Evans
New Member
Dr Bob,
I have thousands of books. Paul valued his books. (I probably "value" them a bit too much if the truth were told.)
However is it so incredible that we could hold the position that a saved man with a Bible, and the abiding Holy Spirit has all he needs? I believe it with my whole heart.
Lacy
That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking if a man has an English translation and nothing else (HS excepted) that he can understand every word and nuance and meaning.
I've found that patently untrue. Some words in English pale when viewed in comparison to the Greek. Tenses and linear action are woefully shown in English compared to the original language. Added words or phrases, not in God's word, are in such English versions.
That's my argument. We have all we need with the Bible and the Spirit, but we are limited when we have a translation of the Bible and the Spirit.
Thoughts?
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Greek is not a prerequisite for being a pastor, but it well could be.
Without it, a man can still proclaim the word of God. But with it, he can probe below the veneer of the superimposed English to actually see the life teeming in the depths of the Greek...rather than being shackled by the only choice of accepting an unknown translators choice of words. So much of the Greek just does not translate into English, or does so rather clumsily...like a figure skater in size 18 combat boots.
A basic working knowledge of biblical Greek can only serve to help a man of God in his study, preperation, and delivery of the word of God.
In Christ,
Trotter
Without it, a man can still proclaim the word of God. But with it, he can probe below the veneer of the superimposed English to actually see the life teeming in the depths of the Greek...rather than being shackled by the only choice of accepting an unknown translators choice of words. So much of the Greek just does not translate into English, or does so rather clumsily...like a figure skater in size 18 combat boots.
A basic working knowledge of biblical Greek can only serve to help a man of God in his study, preperation, and delivery of the word of God.
In Christ,
Trotter
I would say that a very spiritual, prayerful person using a very good translation of scripture possessing an excellent understanding of the language (rhetoric and diction) used in the translation and who thoroughly cross-referenced every passage before interpretation, could come close.
Knowing Greek, using commentaries/concordances, or comparing versions... is just a good short cut.
Knowing Greek, using commentaries/concordances, or comparing versions... is just a good short cut.
If God gives you(anyone reading this) the ability and the opportunity to learn Greek, especially KOINE Greek, I would recommend you take it. However, if we all could learn Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic, we would be having mss debates rather than discussions of English translations, right?
That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking if a man has an English translation and nothing else (HS excepted) that he can understand every word and nuance and meaning.
I've found that patently untrue. Some words in English pale when viewed in comparison to the Greek. Tenses and linear action are woefully shown in English compared to the original language. Added words or phrases, not in God's word, are in such English versions.
That's my argument. We have all we need with the Bible and the Spirit, but we are limited when we have a translation of the Bible and the Spirit.
Thoughts? </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________
My FIRST thought;
1Co 2:1
¶ And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6
¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1Co 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Co 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 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.
1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
In ENGLISH this translates to ;Yes! we have all we need. A saved man, his Bible and the Spirit of God is all one needs. Period. Learning the Biblical languages may be a nice thing to add, but it is NOT necessary. I submit, that one is adding to Scripture if one thinks he needs anything other than his Bible and the Spirit of God. For is it not He who said, "God hath revealed them to us by His Spirit?" Or, is God limited to the Greek? Is He not also the Author of all languages on Earth? You think not? See Gen 11.
I am not espousing the idea that study of Biblical languages is useless. Just that they are not necessary. Or, do you also think one in a Chinese home church MUST also have the luxury you have? I think we Americans have gotten smug.
In HIS service;
Jim
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
One big problem, Jim. A whole lot of those who claim they don't need nothing but their bible and the Spirit listen to any "spirit" that happens to raise its head...usually the "spirit" of error.
I have seen too many who stand up behind the pulpit and slap their bible and yell at the top of their lungs...and are dead wrong about the scripture quoted, what it means, and what its application is. It is called PRIDE. It is called IGNORANCE. It is called FOOLISHNESS.
In Christ,
Trotter
Trotter;
I have no doubt that what you say is true. One need only consider the antics of fellows like Oral Roberts to see that one! Be that as it may, it still doesn't negate the clear Scriptural principle as I posted it. You did not even touch the Scripture I posted in support of that point. It is not taken out of context. I included the entire context for all to see.
The error of your arguement AISI, is that you are willing to assert that because there are abuses, (I will even admit there are RAMPANT abuses) then that in itself precludes the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I admit that it is a problem when some yahoo says "Thus saith the Lord..." when the Lord didn't say any such thing. But that is not the same as the fellow who prayerfully and humbly relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding the words of God. Not the same at all! Jack Hyles over stepped the bounds of Scripture just as surely as the SBC'er who says that God used evolution in creation. They are BOTH wrong! But just because Jack Hyles or the evolutionist SBC'er are wrong, it does not follow that ALL KJVo's are wrong nor are ALL SBC'ers evolutionists.
That's just plain common sense. I suspect that THAT is a commodity sadly lacking in our "Baptist" circles today, to EVERYONE'S detriment.
In HIS service;
Jim
I have no doubt that what you say is true. One need only consider the antics of fellows like Oral Roberts to see that one! Be that as it may, it still doesn't negate the clear Scriptural principle as I posted it. You did not even touch the Scripture I posted in support of that point. It is not taken out of context. I included the entire context for all to see.
The error of your arguement AISI, is that you are willing to assert that because there are abuses, (I will even admit there are RAMPANT abuses) then that in itself precludes the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I admit that it is a problem when some yahoo says "Thus saith the Lord..." when the Lord didn't say any such thing. But that is not the same as the fellow who prayerfully and humbly relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding the words of God. Not the same at all! Jack Hyles over stepped the bounds of Scripture just as surely as the SBC'er who says that God used evolution in creation. They are BOTH wrong! But just because Jack Hyles or the evolutionist SBC'er are wrong, it does not follow that ALL KJVo's are wrong nor are ALL SBC'ers evolutionists.
That's just plain common sense. I suspect that THAT is a commodity sadly lacking in our "Baptist" circles today, to EVERYONE'S detriment.
In HIS service;
Jim
Let me go on the record again - your original post - GOOD. Your post on page two where you agreed with Craig that you must know Greek to be able to really read and study the NT because it was written in Greek - BAD.
Now to be fair, I believe you both made statements more as a matter of sentiment than core belief. But you tell me - does this kind of extremism not require balancing??? Do you not find this an extreme view??? Shame on both of you for suggesting by this statement (not directly saying it, mind you) that Greek is prerequisite for the believer in Bible study. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You do not owe any appologies on a debate thread, that's what we do here, disagree!
And, I will also disagree with your statement above. Let me copy what was posted by Craig and myself:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip:
I propose that it would be a good idea for churches to teach members who wish to do "intense" Bible studies the Koine Greek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig:
I believe that the very first step in studying the Bible should be reading the New Testament, and if you can't read Greek, you can't read the New Testament—all you can read is a translation of it! And from my point of view—that just doesn’t cut it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip:
Craigbythesea, you and I certainly agree on this one. I'm with you brother!
------------------------------------------
end of second page post.
Now, if you will read the entire post you will notice that my first statement is that someone ought to study Greek to do an "intense" study of the NT since "after all" it WAS written in Greek.
Craig confirmed what I said and indicated that a "first" step in study of the New Testament would be studying Greek. (Remember, the whole point was intense study, which was already set up at the first of the thread.)
Craig makes an interesting and very true statement, but you have to pay attention. He says that you cannot read the New Testament, but you can read a translation of it. This is not such an off-the-deep-end comment. He is simply stating fact. The original documents were Greek. The original language that God chose was GREEK. Therefore, he was correct, technically, when he said that all others are translations. Now, he might have been more correct and clearer if he had said that all Greek mnuscripts are compilations of what we think are very close to the originals.
Please read the above statements made by Dr. Bob since you made your post and before this post and you will get a little more understanding why some of us feel so strongly towards Greek.
Message slowly getting through? We have MORE than enough in every language to understand the basic truths of the Word of God as translated. Nobody denies that.
But understanding words like love, redemption, propitiation, etc in English is hard enough. Not knowning what they meant in koine Greek is fearful.
I've seen too many arrogant English-only types who sucked doctrine out of their thumbs and led people astray by not knowing facts that a cursory working knowledge of the original language would have told them.
Where did the cults come up with their false doctrines? From thinking they knew what a phrase or word meant, but being self-deceived.
(And no, I am not saying if you don't know Greek you are a cult! I can hear that load coming down the pike!!)
But understanding words like love, redemption, propitiation, etc in English is hard enough. Not knowning what they meant in koine Greek is fearful.
I've seen too many arrogant English-only types who sucked doctrine out of their thumbs and led people astray by not knowing facts that a cursory working knowledge of the original language would have told them.
Where did the cults come up with their false doctrines? From thinking they knew what a phrase or word meant, but being self-deceived.
(And no, I am not saying if you don't know Greek you are a cult! I can hear that load coming down the pike!!)
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
I have a simple point to make after following this debate...actually several points.Before I do I'll freely admit that I don't read greek or hebrew and only have a High School education.As they say in the sunny south(where I'm proudly from),I ain't no genuis...but I do have(thank God) some common sense.I will add that in my studies I do look up Greek and Hebrew words ocassionally in my Strong's Concordance just to see if the meanings differ any from english to the "original" languages.I haven't found any profound differences in the translation to english over the years nor anything that made me feel "more enlightened".JMONow to my points:
Everybody is always making a big "to do" about the fact that God "chose" the Greek and Hebrew languages to use as THE languages of inspiration.It is a fact that He did indeed have those He used in penning HIS ORIGINALS to use the Greek language in the NT and the Hebrew in the OT.
Common sense should tell all of us that He would NOT have used ENGLISH as the language of choice in THOSE DAYS for the prime reason that it was NOT the prevalent language of the day.Very few people would have understood it due to the FACT that most of them spoke and wrote in either Hebrew or Greek.
My other point(from what I know of dispensational truth AND bible and Early Church History) is that the OT was written in Hebrew under the old dispensation of LAW to primarily the nation of Israel...and the NT was written in the new dispensation of GRACE to the Jews who understood Greek AND the Gentiles who predominately wrote and spoke Greek.
My final point is...who's to say God might not have chosen ENGLISH to have the originals penned in if THAT had been the predominant language of the day?I'm an english speaker as are most of you.I Thank God that he chose to make sure I had an accurate copy of the Word of God in MY LANGUAGE in my hands to read and study.Greek and Hebrew might be interesting but personally I don't think I'll ever be at any disadvantage if I don't know it.I have the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide and he can and will give me all the understanding I can handle in the LIVING language I was born to speak and write....ENGLISH.
Thank you very much and you can now continue the "debate"...lol
Greg Sr.
Greg Sr. If he had the NT written in English and I spoke something else. I would probably be studying English. For the reasons Bob mentioned above.
It is DIFFICULT to understand what Dr. Bob is referring to by the nuances in Greek that are not in English; so unless you have studied some Greek you cannot appreciate what you are missing.
I think that is part of the misunderstanding here.
It is DIFFICULT to understand what Dr. Bob is referring to by the nuances in Greek that are not in English; so unless you have studied some Greek you cannot appreciate what you are missing.
I think that is part of the misunderstanding here.