To What Extent Should The Biblical Languages Shape Our Theology?

[J. Jump]

Does anyone think Baptists are heading in the direction of the old Catholics. In as much that some seem to state or at least imply that you need to know the original languages in order to understand the Scripture?

I don't think it is absolutely necessary, but the problem is folks take the English translation and apply 21st century meanings to words when that may or may not be the meaning of the word in 1611, etc.

That's why I think it is important to at least try to get an understanding of where the English words have been and maybe how that differs from today. I think it is more valuable to go to the original words and understand their meanings which will help in the English translations.

Are we in danger of falling to a two-tier Christianity where many are made to feel unable to study the Word for themselves and so they leave it to the "experts"

We are not in danger of this. This already exists. Very few folks that I have seen want to think for themselves. Study of Scripture is left up to the pastor/SS teacher and they will teach me what I need to know. And if they say it it is as good as gold.

What we need are more Bereans. But that just takes too much time and time is a valuable commodity and Bible "study" doesn't seem to fit in .

I believe in study, I believe it is valuable to study the original languages, but there have just been posts recently which seem to elevate study of the original languages to a higher plain than they deserve.

My thought on this is that it can only help for me to grow more and more familiar with the original langauges. I am by no means and expert, but my plan is to continue to plug away.

Do you have to know the original langauges to study Scripture. No. But I don't think you can take an English translation and do nothing but read it and come away with a correct understanding in all the doctrines. Our English language has just changed too much over the last 400 years in some VERY key areas.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[npetreley]

I believe there is a danger and tried to point that out during my recent debate about ME. It seems to me that the only way the ME proponents could make their case was to try and prove what the Bible "really" said by quoting the greek in minute detail. Thereby, making it impossible for the average reader to understand the plain reading of the text or even to verify their interpretation of the greek language.

The problem went much deeper than quoting the Greek in detail.

1. They fail to look at the subjunctive in terms of the surrounding grammar (in this case, the hina clause).

2. They fail to face the consequences of making blanket statements like "the subjunctive always means something is possible, not definite". That unfounded assertion causes Christ to lose His guaranteed pre-eminence.

3. They focus exclusively on the subjunctive in a passage and ignore the fact that the passage also says "he will do it", which is not at all conditional. This, at the least, should be a hint that subjunctive does not always mean it must only be possible and not definite.

4. They ignore the fact that "hope" is not necessarily conditional, but can also mean "joyful expectation".

I could go on, but in short, their exegesis is so flawed as to be laughable.

 

[Brother Bob]

Amen Amy; thats my .02 cents worth.

 

[J. Jump]

I believe there is a danger and tried to point that out during my recent debate about ME. It seems to me that the only way the ME proponents could make their case was to try and prove what the Bible "really" said by quoting the greek in minute detail.

Amy that's not entirely true. We showed you using the English word itself as well. However you and others wouldn't believe that and so we just added even more evidence, and you wouldn't believe that either.

There is no danger in going back to the original words. Anyone can make a false doctrine and they don't need the original langauges to do that. We see a false doctrine being promoted and it's because folks won't go back to the originals or at least do some study on the use of the English word, which is what I said in my last post.

 

[TCGreek]

There is no danger in going back to the original words. Anyone can make a false doctrine and they don't need the original langauges to do that. We see a false doctrine being promoted and it's because folks won't go back to the originals or at least do some study on the use of the English word, which is what I said in my last post.

1. We finally found a point of agreement. I never thought it would happened, but it has.

2. I just think the use of the biblical languages should be tempered with good scholarship, which is not at the expense of true learning.

 

[Amy.G]

The problem went much deeper than quoting the Greek in detail.

1. They fail to look at the subjunctive in terms of the surrounding grammar (in this case, the hina clause).

2. They fail to face the consequences of making blanket statements like "the subjunctive always means something is possible, not definite". That unfounded assertion causes Christ to lose His guaranteed pre-eminence.

3. They focus exclusively on the subjunctive in a passage and ignore the fact that the passage also says "he will do it", which is not at all conditional. This, at the least, should be a hint that subjunctive does not always mean it must only be possible and not definite.

4. They ignore the fact that "hope" is not necessarily conditional, but can also mean "joyful expectation".

I could go on, but in short, their exegesis is so flawed as to be laughable.

And this is part of the problem. When all is said and done, in whom do I put my trust. Even among those here on the BB who have done much study in the greek, there are differences in interpretation. Which one of these do I trust? In the final analysis, I have to put my faith in God to lead me into all truth, and put my trust in the translators of the Bible. This is one reason I believe it's good to use several versions because each one was translated by a different team of men more knowledgeable than me in the original languages, yet they all contain the same doctrine of the gospel of Christ from Genesis to maps. They are all the word of God. If I cannot trust all these hundreds of men and don't have the faith that God will reveal truth to me, then I need to put down my Bible and spend the next 5 years studying the greek for myself. Even then, could I trust even myself in getting it "right"?
It all comes right back to faith in my God to teach me. And yes, I believe that God used and called Godly men to do the translating, from the KJV to the NLT.

Praise God for His word and His Spirit to understand it!

 

[Charles Meadows]

I just think the use of the biblical languages should be tempered with good scholarship, which is not at the expense of true learning.

TCGreek is very correct here.

I have made comments on this forum before about the dangers of language study. I hope I have not offended anyone by them.

I am not intending to:
a. Question anyone's skill.
b. Imply that we should not study languages.

I do think it is important to realize that:
a. Language study is very complex.
b. God obviously did intend for His word to be understood well in non-original languages.

Let me give an example...

Imagine two friends are talking about their marriages:

Bob: Yeh I'm lucky in that I genuinly like my wife.

Steve: That's great. Hey do you want to get lunch?

Bob: Yeh, sounds good!

Steve: Do you like pizza?

Bob: I LOVE pizza!

Steve: Hey Bob did you go to that meeting yesterday?

Bob: No - I will NOT go to those meetings...

Two interesting points here demonstrate how language is very idiomatic and contextual - moreso than we would initially think.

Bob admits that he likes his wife and loves pizza. An inexperienced English student with a lexicon under his arm might be tempted to say that Bob prefers pizza to his wife since love is a stronger word.

Bob also, when asked if he went to a meeting (past) answered with a statement that he will not go (future). Would the student be correct in asserting that since he did not use past tense that he meant something different than the fact that he did not go to the meeting? He was speaking colloquially - nothing fancy here about the tense switch.

These are examples of how a little knowledge can be misleading.

Why even mention it?

I'm not writing these because I want to look smart.

But rather there is much at stake when we interpret the Bible. Wrong interpretation using a little Greek knowledge can have bad consequences. It is better to not know the language than to misapply it and do violence to God's word.

My point is that we much have significant training and a very humble spirit when we presume to exegete a text.

 

[Hope of Glory]

2. I object to the notion that we need Greek to understand what the Bible really says. That means that it was not written for everyone. There is a need for individuals who are highly skilled in languages - that is for certain. But that is a level that will not be attained by most.

j

This seems to imply that people are too stupid to understand it. It was written for everyone. But, there was a day and age in which all students were expected to study such things. (I'm talking about here in the USA.)

But, today, we have dumbed down kids to the point that they can't even speak English, and this has been going on for years. As one of my teachers used to say, "How can I teach someone Greek if they can't speak English?" (Of course, this only applies in an English speaking society, but you get the gist.)

Satan uses this dumbing down. If you don't know what a present, active, participle is in English, it won't matter what it is in Greek. It's not a Greek thing. Even translations that accurately translate the Greek consistently are not comprehended because many people (I won't say the majority, but looking at the kids in high school with my son it may soon be the majority) don't comprend the difference between "she is running to the store" and "she is at the store". (Not to mention, "she done did gone down to the store.":laugh

So, by the reasoning of "it's written for everyone", as people become less educated, we need to dumb down the Bible a bit more.

Do you have to understand the original languages to understand the Bible? No. But if more preachers were to preach from the original languages, most denominations would go away, and most splinters of existing denominations would go away. You wouln't have the sects of Baptists that are founded on the distinction between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost", and things such as that.

You know, making a statement such as this is akin to saying, "You don't need to understand economics to spend money." It's a true statement. But, you do need to understand economics to understand why a small rate of inflation is necessary for a healthy economy, but too much inflation is bad.

By the same token, reading in the Greek you understand the difference between "believe" in the aorist and "believe" as a present, active, participle. Combine that with context, and you have a complete picture. Or, you can take the context and combine it with the grammar. It doesn't matter which order because the two will never contradict one another, and if there seems to be a contradiction, you know about it to study the issue out. If you don't know about the seeming contradiction, then you go along merrily thinking you have understood something without knowing better. I will use myself as an example here. I was raised using the word "lost" to mean "unsaved", although sometimes the context seemed to indicate otherwise. I just filed that as a "mystery". But, when reading those same passages in the Greek, I came to realize that "lost" is never used for an unsaved person; it's only used for a person who is perishing; it's a saved person who has strayed, hence "lost sheep". Necessary to understand it? No, because I have met people who don't know a single word in Greek who have discerned this through use of the English, and most of them are KJVO. But, by putting the two of them together, it certainly opened my eyes.

But, so many people close their own eyes because they don't understand it, or it's too hard, or "you're just thinkin' too hard!", and they go along their way accepting contradictions.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I believe there is a danger and tried to point that out during my recent debate about ME. It seems to me that the only way the ME proponents could make their case was to try and prove what the Bible "really" said by quoting the greek in minute detail.

That's funny. Most of those who are on the ME issue are KJVO. I thought you were one who commented that that's why you couldn't understand it because you aren't KJVO. I know that comment was made.

Lacy made the list for you and showed that the majority of those who preach the gospel of the Kingdom are KJVO.

Ah, yes, a little search and here it is, a quote by you, Amy. G:

That must be why this doctrine has eluded me. I don't use the KJV. Yes, it's true. I have one, but if I want a KJ reference, I usually look it up on Blue letter Bible. I use the NKJV and the NASB.

And here's the link to the discussion on the Lordship Salvation thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1049100&postcount=277

I expect this sort of thing (using dishonesty and misrepresentation) from certain people, but I expected better from you.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Our English language has just changed too much over the last 400 years in some VERY key areas.

Of course, you could study English. Oh, wait, that was my first major.

But, we're dumbing kids down enough these days to get 'em to believe anything.

 

[Charles Meadows]

HoG,

Yes we are dumbing down the kids - but that isn't the issue.

We are not talking about the differences between tenses. A certain level of proficiency is easy to reach.

That to which I refer is the degree of expertise necessary to definitively say that a text means this. This sort of thing affects doctrine. If you think that understanding Greek is that easy then I think you would fit into my "dangerous exegete" category.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob admits that he likes his wife and loves pizza. An inexperienced English student with a lexicon under his arm might be tempted to say that Bob prefers pizza to his wife since love is a stronger word.

Yea, if its a meatlover pizza!

 

[Hope of Glory]

If you think that understanding Greek is that easy then I think you would fit into my "dangerous exegete" category.

Where did I ever say that it is easy?

I've never said that mastering English is easy.

Making stained glass is not easy.

Driving a truck is not easy.

Digging a ditch is not easy.

Not much in life that is worthwhile is easy.

But, we've diminished the importance of hard things, in ever aspect of our lives, we we want everything now, and are not willing to work for the things that are hard, and we're not teaching our kids the hard things, and I'm seeing more and more kids who aren't willing to work for what they want.

"By the sweat of your brow" applies to more than simply the physical.

But, just because it's not easy doesn't mean it can't be done.

And, just like making a 10'x15' stained glass window for a church, the Greek itself fits together like a perfect puzzle, with every part interacting with the other parts. Greek is very precise, and you can make it say in one word what it would take a paragraph to say in English. (That's also why there will never be a perfect word-for-word translation.)

With a precise language wielded by the supreme deity, I assume that it's inerrant and perfect. When I find grammar that contradicts what I think the context says, then I look at both and find out where my misunderstanding is through much prayer and "sweat of my brow". Sometimes, it's years before I understand something.

But it's always there.

It's like my male child. To me, in English, I have referred to him as my "son" from the time he was in the womb. When he was a baby, he was my son. He's my son now. He will always be my son. However, the Greek has several different words for "male child", and they each reference a different stage in development, and even the perspective of his relationship. When it's translated willy-nilly as "son", "child", or whatever, it's confusing. When you look at what "child" it's talking about, it's not confusing. It removes ambiguity.

When looking at the original languages, there can be no doubt about the truth of OSAS, unless you accept contradictions. When you look at context, especially the warnings that are given to saved people and the penalties involved, there seems to be contradiction, or doubt about OSAS. Now, context itself can certainly show the truth behind OSAS, but the grammar and the context together proves it, unless you're willing to accept contradictions.

But, by the same token, the grammar and the context together gives warnings to saved people, with sometimes drastic consequences, and unless you add, "But this can't really be talking about saved people", it's clear and easy to understand.

Then, you have things such as "hell". In the KJV, four different words have been translated as "hell". If "hell" is the lake of fire, then we're in trouble because we're all going to hell. Two of the words are nothing more than the unseen world of the dead. One of them is in relation to angels. The other one is gehenna, and the gehenna warnings are given to saved individuals. A saved person can end up in hell, but not in the lake of fire forever and ever. Context shows this, but there seems to be ambiguity, so there is much debate over this.

However, many translations show this truth. Know how they show it? Grammar. They translated the words themselves, and what they say. It doesn't mean the KJV was wrong, but our understanding of what "hell" is has evolved over the last few hundred years to mean something completely different.

Grammar and context.

Should grammar dictate our doctrine? If you can't take God's words at their face value, then how true are they? This, of course, doesn't mean that we necessarily have a perfect understanding of the particular words in question. But, when the Greek says x, and we think it should really mean y, which one should we accept?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Steve: Do you like pizza?

Bob: I LOVE pizza!

What we are talking about here is more akin to Bob saying "I LOVE pizza" in interpreting it to mean, "Well, I don't really like it, but I can tolerate it."

Or, "I'm never going to that meeting" to mean "I LOVE going to these meetings and I can't wait for the next one!"

Or, better yet, "I'm not planning on going to the meeting, but if we do, let's get a pizza" to mean "I will get a pizza."

 

[TCGreek]

Where did I ever say that it is easy?

I've never said that mastering English is easy.

Making stained glass is not easy.

Driving a truck is not easy.

Digging a ditch is not easy.

Not much in life that is worthwhile is easy.

But, we've diminished the importance of hard things, in ever aspect of our lives, we we want everything now, and are not willing to work for the things that are hard, and we're not teaching our kids the hard things, and I'm seeing more and more kids who aren't willing to work for what they want.

"By the sweat of your brow" applies to more than simply the physical.

But, just because it's not easy doesn't mean it can't be done.

And, just like making a 10'x15' stained glass window for a church, the Greek itself fits together like a perfect puzzle, with every part interacting with the other parts. Greek is very precise, and you can make it say in one word what it would take a paragraph to say in English. (That's also why there will never be a perfect word-for-word translation.)

With a precise language wielded by the supreme deity, I assume that it's inerrant and perfect. When I find grammar that contradicts what I think the context says, then I look at both and find out where my misunderstanding is through much prayer and "sweat of my brow". Sometimes, it's years before I understand something.

But it's always there.

It's like my male child. To me, in English, I have referred to him as my "son" from the time he was in the womb. When he was a baby, he was my son. He's my son now. He will always be my son. However, the Greek has several different words for "male child", and they each reference a different stage in development, and even the perspective of his relationship. When it's translated willy-nilly as "son", "child", or whatever, it's confusing. When you look at what "child" it's talking about, it's not confusing. It removes ambiguity.

When looking at the original languages, there can be no doubt about the truth of OSAS, unless you accept contradictions. When you look at context, especially the warnings that are given to saved people and the penalties involved, there seems to be contradiction, or doubt about OSAS. Now, context itself can certainly show the truth behind OSAS, but the grammar and the context together proves it, unless you're willing to accept contradictions.

But, by the same token, the grammar and the context together gives warnings to saved people, with sometimes drastic consequences, and unless you add, "But this can't really be talking about saved people", it's clear and easy to understand.

Then, you have things such as "hell". In the KJV, four different words have been translated as "hell". If "hell" is the lake of fire, then we're in trouble because we're all going to hell. Two of the words are nothing more than the unseen world of the dead. One of them is in relation to angels. The other one is gehenna, and the gehenna warnings are given to saved individuals. A saved person can end up in hell, but not in the lake of fire forever and ever. Context shows this, but there seems to be ambiguity, so there is much debate over this.

However, many translations show this truth. Know how they show it? Grammar. They translated the words themselves, and what they say. It doesn't mean the KJV was wrong, but our understanding of what "hell" is has evolved over the last few hundred years to mean something completely different.

Grammar and context.

Should grammar dictate our doctrine? If you can't take God's words at their face value, then how true are they? This, of course, doesn't mean that we necessarily have a perfect understanding of the particular words in question. But, when the Greek says x, and we think it should really mean y, which one should we accept?

1. While you and I do not agree on a number of issues, I do share your sentiments that the biblical languages in their context do shape theology.

2. But I am equally leery of those who come along and think that for the last two millennia of doing theology, somehow, important truths were overlooked and now we must be ENLIGHTENED.

 

[TCGreek]

Then, you have things such as "hell". In the KJV, four different words have been translated as "hell". If "hell" is the lake of fire, then we're in trouble because we're all going to hell. Two of the words are nothing more than the unseen world of the dead. One of them is in relation to angels. The other one is gehenna, and the gehenna warnings are given to saved individuals. A saved person can end up in hell, but not in the lake of fire forever and ever. Context shows this, but there seems to be ambiguity, so there is much debate over this.

However, many translations show this truth. Know how they show it? Grammar. They translated the words themselves, and what they say. It doesn't mean the KJV was wrong, but our understanding of what "hell" is has evolved over the last few hundred years to mean something completely different.

Grammar and context.

Should grammar dictate our doctrine? If you can't take God's words at their face value, then how true are they? This, of course, doesn't mean that we necessarily have a perfect understanding of the particular words in question. But, when the Greek says x, and we think it should really mean y, which one should we accept?

1. While I agree with you that the KJV has failed to make a distinction with the different Greek words translate "hell," I must ask this question, What is the eternal fire reserved for the devil and his angels to which those on the left of Jesus will be going?" (Matt.25:41)

 

[J. Jump]

But I am equally leery of those who come along and think that for the last two millennia of doing theology, somehow, important truths were overlooked and now we must be ENLIGHTENED.

No one has said that these Truths have been overlooked. There have been people that have been teaching these Truths down through the centuries.

What I find funny is that those that disagree with us think the Truth is in the majority the majority of the time. Truth is not something that is continuing to grow and expand and grow some more in a positive manner. One need just get a class of junior high kids together and play the telephone game to know that the longer you go the more distortion comes into play.

Revelation 3 tells us that the majority is not the place to be in the lukewarm church of this day. It is only individuals within the church that open the door as Christ knocks.

Christ came the first time when the "Truth" had gone the way of man-made tradition. And even in the first century there were attacks on the Truth. How much more are those attacks going to be today after 2000 years.

I think it best to question everyone, but especially the majority.

 

[TCGreek]

No one has said that these Truths have been overlooked. There have been people that have been teaching these Truths down through the centuries.

What I find funny is that those that disagree with us think the Truth is in the majority the majority of the time. Truth is not something that is continuing to grow and expand and grow some more in a positive manner. One need just get a class of junior high kids together and play the telephone game to know that the longer you go the more distortion comes into play.

Revelation 3 tells us that the majority is not the place to be in the lukewarm church of this day. It is only individuals within the church that open the door as Christ knocks.

Christ came the first time when the "Truth" had gone the way of man-made tradition. And even in the first century there were attacks on the Truth. How much more are those attacks going to be today after 2000 years.

I think it best to question everyone, but especially the majority.

1. So we both agree that language affects theology.

2. Is the "eternal fire" of Matt. 25:41 the same as Gehenna or not?

3. Now this question is still within the purview of our discussion.

 

[Charles Meadows]

HoG,

Your last post hints at my point.

I think that an intelligent individual who puts in multiple years of hard work in language study will be rewarded for his/her efforts.

But the individual who either lacks ability, or doesn't understand the complexities of language has the potential to do much more harm than good.

Perhaps I have failed to understand your stance - but it seems that you advocate everyone learning Greek so they can understand the NT better.

 

[Hope of Glory]

2. But I am equally leery of those who come along and think that for the last two millennia of doing theology, somehow, important truths were overlooked and now we must be ENLIGHTENED.

I've also never said that they were overlooked. There has been much historical stuff posted about ME and the gospel of the Kingdom. There has been evidence posted of the etymology of the English word "eternal", as well as the Greek grammar behind forming adjectives, and a request for historical cases of any other exceptions to certain rules, in either canonical, deutero-canonical, or secular writing, of which no one has responded at all.

In fact, I have claimed the opposite. I could readily find the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom 35 years ago, but now I cannot readily find. But, the Bible tells us that there will be great apostasy, but of course, that's always "the other guy". (Even from POV. I would argue that if an individual were aware that he were apostate, that he would fix it, but there are too many people who simply don't care, so I think that would be a false argument.)

I have also argued, and presented evidence of, that it's not "some great secret" (although it's referred to as a "mystery"; something that you have to be initiated into), but that the evolution of English, and the dumbing down of people that has led to this decline.

So that today, most of Christendom believes in Catholic doctrines, Secular Humanist doctrines, etc. (such as hell=lake of fire; man is only two parts) not because it's some big secret, but it has been a gradual decline. I doubt that much of it is intentional, although this is one thing that Secular Humanists stated was ther objective 70 years ago.