Learning Greek part two.

Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges / Seminaries' started by exscentric, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Idea:

    Various views, various levels of eduction etc. have been posting the pros and cons for pages in the LEARNING GREEK thread -- they always say the proof is in the pudding.

    Why don't some of you that have time take a couple days and write your best on James 4:6 King James Version "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

    Give us your best shot on what James was getting at in terms a congregant can understand. Include how many years of Greek and how many years of Hebrew you have. Post your findings in this thread on Friday morning or there abouts.

    Not a challenge, just thought it might give those that are wondering what they want to do about languages some idea of what the differences are.
     
  2. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you think that particular exercise might yield convincing proof?
     
  3. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm with Bill...expand on your last sentence. "some idea of what the differences are"--what does that mean?
     
  4. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Well for one, "some idea of what the differences are" does not mean "convincing proof"

    Just thought if there was a difference in presentation/conclusion from a highly qualified versus a lessor qualified, those wondering if they want to take Greek/Hebrew might gain some insight.

    If it's a bad idea don't post anything - easy enough me thinks. [​IMG]

    See ya Friday [​IMG] Or not.
     
  5. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not saying either that the use of Greek solves all problems or that all Biblical texts have grammatical problems in them.

    What I am saying is that it is my experience that there are many occasions when the use of Greek sheds some light on difficulties in texts.

    Here are some examples. I would like to know why anyone would suppose that Greek is not useful when attempting to deal with such issues as these.

    I suggest that the use of Greek is in these helpful. If anyone denies that, then please explain why (BY FRIDAY) [​IMG] :

    1) Is Toussaint correct that the action of the participal in Acts 22:10 must precede the action of the main verb? why/why not?

    2) As rhemati in Eph 5:26 does not occur with a genitive must it not mean something different than it does in Rom 10:8,17? why/ why not??

    3)Should en in 1 Cor 12:13 be rendered in or by? why?

    4) Is the punctuation of Rom 9:5 in the RSV correct? why/why noy?

    5) Is the Jeh Wit translation ,based they say on Roberstson ,of Jo 1:1 (a god) correct? why/why not?

    6) In Phil 2:6 does morphe mean nature or the appearance of nature? why?

    7) In Jo 1:18 which is more likely original" OB Son or OB God-why?

    8) Is the case vocative in Jo 20:28? If so, what does that mean?

    9) In Jo 1:1 does pros indicate anything more that 'with'-why/why not?

    10) Is j. Smith's "Inspired Translation" of Jo 1:1 correct: "In the beginning was the Gospel"? why/why not?

    11) In Rom 16:7 does it mean that Junia was well known BY the apostles or well known AMONG the apostles? why?

    12) In 1 Cor 14:36 does the particle eta indicate that Paul is merely expressing the views of the Corinthians? why/why not?

    13) In 1 Tim 2:12 does hesuchia mean peaceful or quiet? give proff.

    14) In 1 Cor 11:3 does head (kephale) mean source of or authority over? Give proof.

    15) In Eph 5:22 does hupostasso mean in subjection to or in association with? give proof. In Jo 3:16 does monogenes mean only begotten or unique? give proof.

    16) Does the present tense in Jo 15:26 indicate the eternality of the Spirit's procession or not? give proof.

    17) In 1 Cor 11:5 does the touto de indicate that the location has been changed? why/why not?

    18) In Jo 15:26 is it significant that the preposition is not ek but rather para? why/why not?

    19) In Jo 17:5 does meta as used there indicate that the glory was FROM the Father? why/why not?

    20) Can it be shown that 'grasp' in Phil 2:6 when used with the verb there is iodiomatically used? why/why not?

    21) In Jo 5:18 does the noun for equal mean the same as the adjectival form in Phil 2:6? why/why not?

    22) In Heb 5:8 what is the significance of the aorist emathen being used with the preseny on?

    23) Is Miley right or wrong that the verb and noun for baptism need not mean immersion? why?

    24) Is Burditt right that while the verb in 1 Jo 5:18 is aorist it nevertheless indicates an eternal condition because it must be a gnomic aorist?

    25) Are the JW and RSV translators correct that as in Acts 20:28 it reads tou idiou the blodd is not of God? why/why not?

    26) Which is the morely likely correct reading in 1 Tim 3:16 God or Who? why?

    27) What is the function of the demonstrative pronoun in ! Jo 5:20? why?

    28) Why does knowledge in 1 Tim 2:4 have the prefix epi attached to it? Explain.

    29) Can it be shown that the prefix anti when attached to loutron (a ransom) must carry the idea of "in place of" ? is so, how?

    30)As the verb in 1 Tim 2:12 is present tense could this refer not to occasional teaching but to the office of teaching? why/why not?

    [ October 12, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  6. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    double post-sorry
     
  7. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would'nt you want James 4:4-6 to keep it in context?Or am I just dumb?
     
  8. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Dumb you ain't :)

    Feel free to include as much context as you wish, wasn't trying to restrict anyone in any way.
     
  9. All about Grace

    All about Grace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you actually type out those 30 questions? Wow.

    I have had over 30 academic hours of Greek (even had a Greek minor in my PhD work) and I can tell you that many of the questions you ask are unanswerable.

    Greek is not English. English is not Greek. There will always be a gap between languages that cannot be completely bridged. That is why the original manuscripts were inerrant but translations and interpretations are not.
     
  10. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like Jas 4:4-6 in general just fine. But not as a test of the value of Greek.

    What I am doubting is that the virtue , or lack of it, of using Greek is well tested by its application to just one text.

    What my opinion is, is that unless it can be shown that Greek has no value in providing insight into the 31 examples I give above, and I'll give 31 more if you like, then, the virtue of Greek has been adequately demonstrated.

    Yes , I know, Stan, that your alma mater's PhD in Bible required NO Greek (At least not when I was in it). But that practice is not done by any accredited or credible PhD or ThD in Bible programs anywhere in any school in or out of the USA ; that fact alone should suggest the virtue of Greek for the scholar.

    As for the pastor, well, as I am not one, I am less qualified to judge that issue. Let congreants judge for themselves as to the Biblical literacy of their pastors if said church members think they are qualified to do that.

    Bill

    [ October 12, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  11. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===


    yes, I typed them, with my one finger hunt and peck.

    :D

    But I don't think you quite get my point although I've elsewhere said it several times. Look at what I said: "sheds some light on difficulties."

    I am NOT, NOT saying that Greek renders one inerrant on any text!

    In the courses in exegesis of the Grk NT, we were taught to list and weigh the evidence for alternative positions...not to make popish declarations about what MUST be.

    I AM saying that Greek IS VALUABLE in understanding the difficulties in some texts.

    Here's an example: John V. Dahms in the Journal NT Studies says that the Septuagintal usage of monogenes proves that John, by using that adjective for Christ, means that the Son as God is eternally begotten by the Father.

    I say the Septuagintal usages prove no such thing as they do not consistently imply a begetting.

    One with Greek can locate and read for himself the occasions where the LXX uses that adjective to see if Dahms' assertion is correct or not.One w-out Greek cannot.

    IMO, that ability is important as it helps to define Trinal relationships.

    BTW, I can provide experts for every point, I think, who believe those questions ARE answerable.

    [ October 12, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  12. All about Grace

    All about Grace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. There are great scholars on both sides of most of these issues, thus rendering the answers "questionable" at best.

    My point is that the Bible is a human book as well as a divine. Evangelicals (particularly of the fundamentalist brand) can have a tendency to overemphasize the divine side to the sacrifice of the human. Obviously I believe it is important to know Greek (otherwise I have wasted a lot of time, energy, and money), but knowing Greek is not the key to knowing the Bible and more importantly, not the key to knowing God.
     
  13. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. There are great scholars on both sides of most of these issues, thus rendering the answers "questionable" at best.

    My point is that the Bible is a human book as well as a divine. Evangelicals (particularly of the fundamentalist brand) can have a tendency to overemphasize the divine side to the sacrifice of the human. Obviously I believe it is important to know Greek (otherwise I have wasted a lot of time, energy, and money), but knowing Greek is not the key to knowing the Bible and more importantly, not the key to knowing God.
    </font>[/QUOTE]===

    But "questionable" is preferable to saying out of ignorance "it must be."

    It is good for a Bible student to be aware of the various positions on an issue in a text. If that student cannot use Greek, then he can neither follow the reasoning behind the all of the various positions nor can he satisfy himself that he has done what he can to arrive at his own position. And I think that is bad.

    Of course Greek is not required to know God. I don't know anyone who would claim that, so one using that as an argument against Greek is pretty much using a strawman. Neither is anyone in this thread denying the human element in the composition of the NT, and I don't see how that is an issue!

    As to Greek being one key of several to open up in some cases the meaning of Scripture, then, of course IT IS that! My 31 examples evidence that is is!

    I assume your programs of study would support that view, else, as you say, why did you spend the many hours it takes to learn Greek at all?
     
  14. Rhetorician

    Rhetorician
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hey all,

    I would only submit a couple of ideas:

    First,
    as I have said in other places the study of BLs is the best work anyone can do period. Even if one is KJV only. It can help you read the Majority Text.

    Secondly,
    by analogy, when a missionary goes to a foreign land s/he must learn the "native language" with all of its idioms. intricacies, and vernacular. So, why should we not at least learn to translate the Gk and Heb text.

    Thirdly,
    when we pick up ANY TRANSLATION we are already trusting them to have done our work for us. Are you sure you want to trust others in handling "the very breath of God" for you. And then, do you want another layer of "interpretation as translation" being given to your people.

    Fourthly,
    if we are truly "Inerrantists," then how dare we not learn the BLs? It seems that it follows necessarily this doctrinal statement.

    Food for thought.

    Think about it!

    sdg!

    rd
     
  15. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the meaning here is obvious, at least to those of us in the know. I live in the city of Humble, Texas. So grace is given to us. Those of you that live in those proud towns are just out of luck.
     

Share This Page

Loading...