Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism

[TCassidy]

However, my thoughts have taken me to consider (prior to your post, btw) the idea of the ongoing action of the present participle is what is concurrent with the ongoing result of the perfect passive verb. In other words, as a result of being born by God, the ongoing result of that birth (the main function of the perfect) is the ongoing faith (present participle) of the person born.

This is where I was going before I got off on the tangent discussing Dr. John R. Rice. The context of 1 John is "overcomers." In 5:1 he is saying that we are overcomers as a result of being born of God, the result of which is the continuing faith necessary to be such an overcomer.

 

[Greektim]

This is where I was going before I got off on the tangent discussing Dr. John R. Rice. The context of 1 John is "overcomers." In 5:1 he is saying that we are overcomers as a result of being born of God, the result of which is the continuing faith necessary to be such an overcomer.

Since both the present and perfect tense-forms have the ongoing state as part of its aspect, then I could illustrate it like this:
~---------------->==============>
Being born has the ongoing result of ongoing believing. The first line represents the perfect verb's resultant ongoing action and the double lines represent both the present participle and perfect verb's ongoing action as concurrent.

Keep in mind this is logical causation not chronological timelines.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't have this book. More of the context would be helpful. But let me give it a go regardless.

This is an excellent book to add to your library. I don't have time to give more context right now.

Some preceding points. This has not only to do with the perfect tense but also the passive voice. The passive voice can and frequently does indicate agency (see Black's It's Still Greek to Me, p. 94). In the case of 1 Jn 5:1, "by God" is the prepositional phrase acting as the agent of the passive verb.

Look again. The prepositional phrase here is with ek, and since when does ek indicate agency? In this verse, you do not have the dative, or upo, or en, which are used for agency. (See Black, p. 94--same page.)

Secondly, while Black does mention the aspectual force of Greek verbs, he still seems to favor tense in terms of time. Maybe a 50/50 for aspect and time. Your quote above expresses this quite well. I am more convinced by the aspectual functions of the tenses (or tense-forms as the late Dr. Decker referred to them). Though I'll admit, it is hard to explain this without using time. In the other thread, I explained a perfect tense more with time than aspect. But that is largely because revmwc wasn't going to understand aspect much less the time function.

My personal view is that in indicative forms time is in play, but not in infinitives or participles. But what point are you making concerning 1 John 5:1? How does this post relate to your OP?

Without the context of what Dr. Black is saying, it is hard to comment. However, my thoughts have taken me to consider (prior to your post, btw) the idea of the ongoing action of the present participle is what is concurrent with the ongoing result of the perfect passive verb. In other words, as a result of being born by God, the ongoing result of that birth (the main function of the perfect) is the ongoing faith (present participle) of the person born.

Please give me a NT example or a quote from a grammar about how a substantival participle acting as the subject of a sentence becomes the result of a passive verb.

 

[Greektim]

This is an excellent book to add to your library. I don't have time to give more context right now.

Money is tight. It'll have to wait.

Look again. The prepositional phrase here is with ek, and since when does ek indicate agency? In this verse, you do not have the dative, or upo, or en, which are used for agency.

Ek can mean the source and cause and means (Wallace, GGBB, p. 371). So in that way, to give birth ek theou is to say that God is the means or cause of one's birth. In that way, it is agency.

My personal view is that in indicative forms time is in play, but not in infinitives or participles. But what point are you making concerning 1 John 5:1? How does this post relate to your OP?

Let's suppose you are correct in the indicative form where time "is in play". Then wouldn't that lend more support to the idea that the verb "has been born" was completed in the past and brings about the the ongoing result of faith?

As to my OP, it doesn't really relate. I was just pointing out something that could call Dr. Black's quote into question among the verbal-aspect proponents.

Please give me a NT example or a quote from a grammar about how a substantival participle acting as the subject of a sentence becomes the result of a passive verb.

I could be snarky and say 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7, but that would get us nowhere. However, I will say that those 2 passages, while sounds nice to say that the new birth from God and "loving" and "doing righteousness" are concurrent, the reality is that such is not all that probable in most people's circumstances. The moment I receive regeneration (whether faith is the cause or result), I have to be put into a situation to love others or do righteousness.

Therefore, those 2 passages necessitate that a nominative substantival participle of a perfect passive verb becomes resultant WHEN the verb indicates causation. And that has been my point above. It is not simply the syntax of 1 Jn 5:1 indicates regeneration causes faith. It is that the word choice in all 3 verses along with the syntax necessitates the conclusion that 5:1 teaches regeneration causes faith.

Still looking through grammars. Although if there is none, then I can smell a dissertation coming

 

[John of Japan]

I'm giving a Greek test right now, so have some free time as the students suffer through it. Biggrin

Money is tight. It'll have to wait.

Ek can mean the source and cause and means (Wallace, GGBB, p. 371). So in that way, to give birth ek theou is to say that God is the means or cause of one's birth. In that way, it is agency.

Again, this does not deal with the grammar of the participle. I fully agree that regeneration is from God. That does not prove that faith is caused by the regeneration or even subsequent to it in 1 John 5:1.

Let's suppose you are correct in the indicative form where time "is in play". Then wouldn't that lend more support to the idea that the verb "has been born" was completed in the past and brings about the the ongoing result of faith?

No, I don't see that. There is no cause and effect between a perfect active indicative and a substantival participle acting as the subject. Period.

As to my OP, it doesn't really relate. I was just pointing out something that could call Dr. Black's quote into question among the verbal-aspect proponents.

Okay, if you won't take the esteemed Dr. Black (oh, the irony! ; I'll look for the context of my quote after class), let me give you some other quotes to the effect that the substantival participle derives its time from the main verb.

"Though the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time, yet its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context" (A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, Dana and Mantey, 229-230).

"(a) Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that the participle has tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning this was all that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown by the articular participle. Thus in Mk. 6:14, VIwa,nhj o` bapti,zwn, it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the general description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. It is actually used of him after his death." (A. T. Robertson, accessed through BibleWorks.)

I could be snarky and say 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7, but that would get us nowhere. However, I will say that those 2 passages, while sounds nice to say that the new birth from God and "loving" and "doing righteousness" are concurrent, the reality is that such is not all that probable in most people's circumstances. The moment I receive regeneration (whether faith is the cause or result), I have to be put into a situation to love others or do righteousness.

Again, the syntax in those verses does not say that. I interpret it as saying that righteousness and loving are signs that regeneration has occurred. To make your point you must find grammar where the perfect tense is causative of a substantival participle which is the subject of the sentence.

Therefore, those 2 passages necessitate that a nominative substantival participle of a perfect passive verb becomes resultant WHEN the verb indicates causation. And that has been my point above. It is not simply the syntax of 1 Jn 5:1 indicates regeneration causes faith. It is that the word choice in all 3 verses along with the syntax necessitates the conclusion that 5:1 teaches regeneration causes faith.

I believe I pointed out that in 2 Tim. 2:23 gennaw is causative of quarrels, but "quarrels" is in the accusative. But you are trying to say that gennaw is causative to a participle in the nominative, are you not? How do you prove that without a Biblical example other than these in 1 John?

Still looking through grammars. Although if there is none, then I can smell a dissertation coming

Go for it.

 

[Greektim]

I only want to deal with this quote because the rest of the stuff we've been talking about is secondary.

Again, the syntax in those verses does not say that. I interpret it as saying that righteousness and loving are signs that regeneration has occurred. To make your point you must find grammar where the perfect tense is causative of a substantival participle which is the subject of the sentence.

I think you just proved my point.

My case is not that on the grammar and syntax ALONE that demands the causation I'm seeing. The main thrust of the causation comes from the idea of being born. That is the beginning stage or step. The word itself implies resultant actions. You implicitly agreed in your statement above when you say, "righteousness and loving are signs that regeneration has occurred [perfect tense I see]." In other words, how does one know that he has been born of God (one of the main ideas in 1 John)? If he is loving and doing righteousness. Or to say it another way, what does being born by God cause to happen? Loving and doing righteousness.

So here is my main point. If the semantics of the word gennao imply a sequence of time or logic (depending on the context), then causation is part of the text. Where the grammar and syntax comes in is that you have identical phrasing in 1 John 2:29 & 4:7 as you do in 5:1. If you have love and righteousness as a result of being born by God (as you implied), then the same would be true of "believing" in 5:1 here the same exact grammatical and syntactical structure is present.

Once more, I'm not saying that the grammar and syntax demands causation. I am saying (1) that the meaning of gennao implies it and (2) the grammatical and syntactical structures of 2:29 and 4:7 are identical to 5:1. If 2:29 and 4:7 say that spiritual birth causes the action of the participle, the same would be true in 5:1.

Therefore, 1 John 5:1 teaches (whether John's point or just assumed in his discussion) that regeneration is the causative factor in each person who believes.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is an example where the perfect tense is definitely not causative of a substantival participle:

John 18:37--"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."

BYZ John 18:37 Ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι, καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.

Analysis: The perfect passive indicative did not cause Jesus to bear witness grammatically by itself, but it took εἰς τοῦτο to show that. Furthermore, the purpose of “having been born” is indicated by εἰς τοῦτο, but 1 John 5:1 does not have this phrase.

And by the way, gennaw occurs 21 times in John's writings, but not one single usage has a meaning other than to bear life. There are no usages which mean to produce anything other than a child. As I've already pointed out, the figurative usage of producing strife does occur in 2 Tim. 2:23 with the accusative, but no one has addressed that yet. If 1 John 5:1 is meant to show gennaw as producing faith, why is it in the nominative and not the accusative?

 

[John of Japan]

I only want to deal with this quote because the rest of the stuff we've been talking about is secondary.

I think you just proved my point.

Um, no. Example: speaking English with an American accent may be a sign that I'm an American, but it does not follow that being an American causes me to speak with an American accent, since many Americans speak with other accents.

My case is not that on the grammar and syntax ALONE that demands the causation I'm seeing. The main thrust of the causation comes from the idea of being born. That is the beginning stage or step. The word itself implies resultant actions. You implicitly agreed in your statement above when you say, "righteousness and loving are signs that regeneration has occurred [perfect tense I see]." In other words, how does one know that he has been born of God (one of the main ideas in 1 John)? If he is loving and doing righteousness. Or to say it another way, what does being born by God cause to happen? Loving and doing righteousness.

Then you need to go back and change your OP, and we will then discuss the semantics of the passage rather than the syntax. Concerning the semantics, note what I just posted about gennaw in John.

Concerning my post proving your position, I don't see that. I have not agreed about causality. Let me put it this way. I know an evangelist who deals with people doubting their salvation by questioning them about their view of salvation. If they understand completely what salvation is, he believes that means they are saved. I agree. The understanding of salvation is not caused by regeneration, but simply a sign that it has occurred.

So here is my main point. If the semantics of the word gennao imply a sequence of time or logic (depending on the context), then causation is part of the text. Where the grammar and syntax comes in is that you have identical phrasing in 1 John 2:29 & 4:7 as you do in 5:1. If you have love and righteousness as a result of being born by God (as you implied), then the same would be true of "believing" in 5:1 here the same exact grammatical and syntactical structure is present.

Once more, I'm not saying that the grammar and syntax demands causation. I am saying (1) that the meaning of gennao implies it and (2) the grammatical and syntactical structures of 2:29 and 4:7 are identical to 5:1. If 2:29 and 4:7 say that spiritual birth causes the action of the participle, the same would be true in 5:1.

Therefore, 1 John 5:1 teaches (whether John's point or just assumed in his discussion) that regeneration is the causative factor in each person who believes.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't have this book. More of the context would be helpful. But let me give it a go regardless.

... (snipped)

Without the context of what Dr. Black is saying, it is hard to comment. However, my thoughts have taken me to consider (prior to your post, btw) the idea of the ongoing action of the present participle is what is concurrent with the ongoing result of the perfect passive verb. In other words, as a result of being born by God, the ongoing result of that birth (the main function of the perfect) is the ongoing faith (present participle) of the person born.

Here is the quote again with the whole paragraph. Other than that I don't think more context will help you.

"A participle with its complement may be used to modify the action of the head verb. The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb; a future participle generally indicates an action following that of the head verb. However, tense must be inferred from the context, and often a variety of interpretations are possible. Likewise, the significance of the participial clause is determined by its relation to the head verb and the context" (David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113; emphasis in the original). This is followed by several examples.

Therefore, once again, in 1 John 5:1 the substantival participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle.

 

[Greektim]

"A participle with its complement may be used to modify the action of the head verb. The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb; a future participle generally indicates an action following that of the head verb. However, tense must be inferred from the context, and often a variety of interpretations are possible. Likewise, the significance of the participial clause is determined by its relation to the head verb and the context" (David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113; emphasis in the original; underline added).

So what grammatical structure do you suppose he is talking about? I don't think he is addressing substantival participles but rather ones that are dependent and probably adverbial. Otherwise, there participle wouldn't have a complement. So this quote (seemingly) doesn't really address the main issue raised. Maybe give some of the examples too?

 

[John of Japan]

So what grammatical structure do you suppose he is talking about? I don't think he is addressing substantival participles but rather ones that are dependent and probably adverbial. Otherwise, there participle wouldn't have a complement. So this quote (seemingly) doesn't really address the main issue raised. Maybe give some of the examples too?

I think this quote is completely applicable. I've asked several times for you to give sources that say what you are trying to say, that belief in 1 John 5:1 is subsequent to regeneration. No offense, but you have not given any grammar sources in the whole thread.

I've asked if the believing is caused by regeneration, why is the participle in the nominative. You've not answered. I gave the sole NT use where gennaw is indisputably causative but the noun is accusative, and you never commented.

I've pointed out how there is not a koine word "believer" so that the substantival participle is used for that. This means the nominative participle is simply the subject of the sentence, and as such exists at the same time as the main verb. You've not answered that.

Honestly, I feel I've proved my position but you have not proved yours.

 

[Greektim]

I think this quote is completely applicable. I've asked several times for you to give sources that say what you are trying to say, that belief in 1 John 5:1 is subsequent to regeneration. No offense, but you have not given any grammar sources in the whole thread.

Forgive me, John, but I disagree. If the quote is referring to adverbial participles, then that does not bear too much on what we are dealing with here.

I've asked if the believing is caused by regeneration, why is the participle in the nominative. You've not answered. I gave the sole NT use where gennaw is indisputably causative but the noun is accusative, and you never commented.

I have answered, just indirectly. Since the verb is passive, the participle has to be nominative so it can receive the action of the verb. If the verb were active and God were the noun (God birthing), then the participle would be accusative. However, I believe an active voice verb would render the causation differently and therefore be inconsistent with John's thoughts. For example, to say "God gave birth to the ones who do righteousness" would seem to imply that doing righteousness is what caused God to give birth. Put it in the passive, and you have the exact opposite. Therefore, the passive voice verb and nominative participle receiving the action are extremely important here.

I've pointed out how there is not a koine word "believer" so that the substantival participle is used for that. This means the nominative participle is simply the subject of the sentence, and as such exists at the same time as the main verb. You've not answered that.

Honestly, I feel I've proved my position but you have not proved yours.

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I feel that I have been quite clear. I think this point is irrelevant. Your only proof is Dr. Black. But he didn't address this situation but dependent adverbial participles (again from what I can tell).

As for not answering points, you have not addressed that my argument is not solely based on grammar and syntax. It is also based on the meaning of the words used. And when those same words are used in the same grammatical structure, you get the same results. That has been my argument.

But I'll go one step further. You have a hard time seeing gennao as causative. But I think the word implies causation in every instance throughout 1 John. First of all, the perfect tense is always used, because present or future would be absurd and aorist isn't John's style nor does it communicate the ongoing effect of the verb. And in every case, it is the causative factor resulting in something else.

1 John 3:9, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God."

Why can't he keep on sinning? "because he has been born of God." Causation

1 John 5:4, " For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith."

This one is trickier, but the present tense "overcomes" or "is overcoming" seems to imply the result of having being born from God.

1 John 5:18, "We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."

Why do we not keep on sinning? Same as 1 John 3:9. Causation

Here is Schreiner's take (“Does Regeneration Necessarily Precede Conversion?״ available from http://www.9marks.org/ejoumal/does-regeneration־necessarily-precede-conversion)

First, in every instance the verb “born” (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing. Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (1 John 3:9), and loving God (1 John 4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ.​

 

[Greektim]

Here is something, though again I'm not staking my entire argument on it.

While talking about the passive voice, there is always a discussion of agency. In our 3 passages, God is always the ultimate agent (I use "agency" here even though the preposition is about the source, however the source of our birth is also the agent of our birth, so...). That is why the participles is in the nominative. So it can receive the action of the passive voice verb from the ultimate agent or source "from God".

Secondly, Wallace does speak of a "causative/permissive passive" (GGBB, 440-441). He says, "The causative/permissive passive... implies consent, permission, or cause of the cation of the verb on the part of the subject. This usage is rare, usually shut up to imperatives." Now I realize that this is neither an imperative and is rare. However, this could be a rare exception in 1 John. I think all things considered, this has to be on the table as an option.

 

[John of Japan]

Forgive me, John, but I disagree. If the quote is referring to adverbial participles, then that does not bear too much on what we are dealing with here.

It isn't.

I have answered, just indirectly. Since the verb is passive, the participle has to be nominative so it can receive the action of the verb. If the verb were active and God were the noun (God birthing), then the participle would be accusative. However, I believe an active voice verb would render the causation differently and therefore be inconsistent with John's thoughts. For example, to say "God gave birth to the ones who do righteousness" would seem to imply that doing righteousness is what caused God to give birth. Put it in the passive, and you have the exact opposite. Therefore, the passive voice verb and nominative participle receiving the action are extremely important here.

Yes, the subject receives the action of the verb. That does not mean in this case that the verb caused the subject to be what it is any more than if it were a ball hit by a bat. The bat did not cause the ball, but acted upon it.

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I feel that I have been quite clear. I think this point is irrelevant. Your only proof is Dr. Black. But he didn't address this situation but dependent adverbial participles (again from what I can tell).

No, the quote is about participial clauses in general, not strictly adverbial clauses. Buy the book!

As for not answering points, you have not addressed that my argument is not solely based on grammar and syntax. It is also based on the meaning of the words used. And when those same words are used in the same grammatical structure, you get the same results. That has been my argument.

Yes, I have addressed the semantics of gennaw, over and over. You have ignored my clear example of gennaw used figuratively meaning "to cause."

But I'll go one step further. You have a hard time seeing gennao as causative. But I think the word implies causation in every instance throughout 1 John. First of all, the perfect tense is always used, because present or future would be absurd and aorist isn't John's style nor does it communicate the ongoing effect of the verb. And in every case, it is the causative factor resulting in something else.

Are kidding me? Of course it indicates causation, but only of life. For crying out loud, it means "to be born." Check your lexicons. I've quoted Friberg, you've quoted none. Correction: I just realized I quoted Gingrich from BibleWorks, thinking it was Friberg.

But here's Friberg:
"genna,w fut. gennh,sw; 1aor. evge,nnhsa; pf. gege,nnhka; pf. pass. gege,nnhmai; 1aor. pass. evgennh,qhn; (1) literally; (a) of men father, become the father of (MT 1.2); (b) of women bear, give birth to (LU 1.13); (c) passive, of both men and women be born (of) (GA 4.23); (2) figuratively; (a) of God's part in Jesus' resurrection (AC 13.33) and his messianic exaltation to the position of highest honor (HE 1.5) (officially) become father of, publicly acknowledge; (b) passive, of the spiritual new birth be born, be regenerated (JN 3.3); (c) of the influence of a leader on his disciples become a father of (1C 4.15); (d) as producing a result give rise to, cause (2T 2.23)"

So Friberg agrees that only figuratively does it mean "cause."

1 John 3:9, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God."

Why can't he keep on sinning? "because he has been born of God." Causation

Oh, come now, this is a completely different syntax from 1 John 5:1. And the meaning is "born of God," not "born so it caused...."

1 John 5:4, " For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith."

This one is trickier, but the present tense "overcomes" or "is overcoming" seems to imply the result of having being born from God.

I totally agree that being regenerated changes a person. I do not agree that gennaw means "to cause." In all of these passages it means "to be born."

1 John 5:18, "We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."

Why do we not keep on sinning? Same as 1 John 3:9. Causation

It is causation in the sense that we have been changed when we are regenerated, not that the word gennaw means "to cause." And again, this is a different structure that 1 John 5:1.

Here is Schreiner's take

Forgive me, but I'm not interested in Schreiner's take. He's a Calvinist, so it just means he's on your side. I'm not a Calvinist, am secure in my theology, have no need to discuss it with anyone. This is the first time I've gotten on the resurrected Cal/Arm forum, and maybe the last. I got on this thread for a good discussion of the Greek, and I think we've had that, so I thank you for that.

God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

Aha! I kept thinking in the mists of my memory that there was another source concerning the present substantival participle following the time of the main verb. I remember learning this very early on, and sure enough, it is in Machen's NT Greek for Beginners, p. 109--

"Here the Greek uses the present participle because the time of the action denoted by the partciple is the same as that of the action denoted by the leading verb, even though the action denoted by the leading verb here happens to be in past time."

So again, when there is a present tense substantival participle acting as the subject of the sentence, it follows the time of the main verb--not after it, not before it, but with it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I have to say that I am astounded at the amount of Greek knowledge on here. Kudos to you, Brothers GT, JoJ, and TC.


Now, are there any online courses that can be had to help me learn Greek?

 

[TCassidy]

Now, are there any online courses that can be had to help me learn Greek?

I think you can get a Th.D. in Greek from Slidell Seminary. DevilishLaughRoflmaoWhistling

 

[John of Japan]

I have to say that I am astounded at the amount of Greek knowledge on here. Kudos to you, Brothers GT, JoJ, and TC.


Now, are there any online courses that can be had to help me learn Greek?

Why would you need to actually study Greek? There are several guys on the Bible translation forum with no Biblical language training whatsoever, who don't even know a foreign language, who pontificate all the time with great authority. And H. D. Williams of the Dean Burgon Society until lately, even wrote a book about how to translate the Bible with no Greek or Hebrew training whatsoever! Roflmao

 

[revmwc]

I think you can get a Th.D. in Greek from Slidell Seminary. DevilishLaughRoflmaoWhistling

Of course it would be better to get a Bachelor's in Biblical studies from LBU first.
You would get knowledge of the basic Biblical languages.
BACHELOR OF ARTS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES
Four Year Program – Bible & Theology Concentration
Recommended for the student that is interested in more Bible and theological
study; especially as preparation toward a master’s degree in Biblical Studies or
Divinity.
Area
Semester Hours
General Education Requirements ..................................................................32
Orientation .......................................................................2
English ............................................................................12
English Composition I .................. (3)
English Composition II .................. (3)
American Literature ....................... (3)
English Literature/Speech ............. (3)
History .............................................................................6
U.S. History I ................................. (3)
U.S. History II ............................... (3)
Math/Science ...................................................................6
Social Studies ...................................................................6
Bible Requirements .........................................................................................30
Old Testament Survey ................... (3)
New Testament Survey ................. (3)
Personal Evangelism ...................... (3)
The Four Gospels ........................... (3)
The Text Behind Your Bible ......... (3)
Apologetics ..................................... (3)
Acts of the Apostles ........................ (3)
Introduction to the Revelation ...... (3)
Hermeneutics ................................. (3)
Introduction to Missions................ (3)
Bible & Theology Concentration Requirements ..........................................24
Applied Research Project ............................ (3)
Theology/Bibliology ..................................... (3)
Christology/Pneumatology .......................... (3)
Antropology/Hamartiology ......................... (3)
Ecclesiology/Soteriology .............................. (3)
Angelology/Eschatology .............................. (3)
Introduction to Biblical Languages ............. (3)
Historical Books ........................................... (3)
Graduation Workshop .....................................................................................3
Electives ..........................................................................................................39
TOTAL
128

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have to say that I am astounded at the amount of Greek knowledge on here. Kudos to you, Brothers GT, JoJ, and TC.


Now, are there any online courses that can be had to help me learn Greek?

https://billmounce.com/greek