1. 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!

Is it wrong to learn Greek?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Skandelon, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Concerning Mark 1:10, the KJV translators considered a stronger readings, but ultimately considered "opened" to be the best translation. This is shown by the inclusion of "or cloven, or rent" in the margin of the 1611 printing.
     
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would be the first to admit that my position on this matter is definitely in Catagory 3; i.e. an informed/uniformed logical conclusion/opinion on the application of CAT2 truth. Or to put it more simply this is definitely a matter the good men can agree to disagree on.

    As to the Scripture I use as the hook to hang my position on, I believe that 2 Timothy 2:15 gives the basis for my position. There Paul admonishes Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved..". That can easily be done in the English language with minimal reference to Greek. However, Paul defines what he (or better put, the Holy Spirit through Paul) means by "approved". Paul/the Holy Spirit defines "approved" as being "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed." I look at the word "workman" and think of a craftsman. Have you ever seen the amount of tools of his trade a master craftsman has in his shop? Now, me, I'm not much of a woodworker, but I am a pretty good cook. As such, I have seven or so knives, three different spatulas, ect. So, I look at a knowledge of Greek as just another tool in my homilitic tool box. Is it one that I can do without and still feed God's flock a good meal (John 21:15-17)? Yes. But, without it, I am limited in my repertoire. "Rightly dividing the Word of God." A knowledge of Greek enables a preacher to better measure twice and cut once.

    And I quite agree with you that the need of the unction from the Holy Spirit while in the pulpit far out strips the need for a knowledge of Greek. I just want to give Him most tools to use as He uses me. Like the Father said "Son, it doesn't do any good for you to pray during the test for God to give you the answers if you didn't study. God can't bring anything to your rememberance if you didn't study it in the first place."

    Another question that might be asked [​IMG] is "Brother, what do you mean by a working knowledge of Greek?" You might be surprised by my answer. ;)
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A 'half'-truth = a lie. The answer to the question given is not "Yes and no"-- it is No.
     
  4. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll agree with you Squire. I have many tools that can perform the same task, but there is one tool that performs many of the tasks the others do, but there is one task that only it can perform, it is the "basin wrench". I have found the KJB to be that basin wrench that can only reach into the tightest spaces and be used to either tighten or untighten. I find the Greek defined by the KJB, but it seems some would use the Greek as a tool to destroy the KJB, therein lies the problem. That same Greek methodology is found fallible as the rule of measure, a basin wrench can also be used to measure. [​IMG]
     
  5. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that today, we use the same Greek methodology as the KJV translators - we just have a lot more resources that we have uncovered during that time. You can't bash those who choose to learn Greek to make an accurate translation without bashing those who translated the KJV in the first place.
     
  6. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we don't. However, doesn't it strike you as odd that *every single one* of the thousands of Greek and versional MSS that we *do* have differs from the KJV? That there's no evidence whatsoever that any Christian *anywhere* before 1611 used an Bible like the KJV? Or that no English speaking Christian who had the misfortune of living in the years prior to 1611 had the "pure, prefect word of God" as KJV-Onlyists define it?
     
  7. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV translators were not infallible. In this instance they rejected the best translation, the one which not only properly renders the force of the verb but preserves the cross-references to Mk. 15:38 and Isa. 64:1.
     
  8. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem lies in using the KJV to deterimine what the Greek should say instead of using the Greek to determine what the KJV (or any other English translation for that matter) should say. It's a *serious* methodological error to let the translation govern the original. The original language text should *always* be the standard against which our English translations are measured.
     
  9. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many instances where the KJV has a superb English translation of the Greek text; however, there are also instances where the KJV has a poor English translation of the Greek text (e.g., Mk. 1:10, where the forceful Greek word used to describe the heavens being "torn open" at Jesus' baptism is robbed of its forcefulness by the KJV's anemic translation). The Greek text is the standard against which *all* English translations must be compared. That's the major reason why serious students of the NT learn Greek. </font>[/QUOTE]You mean that Harmless Dove ripped the Portals of Glory apart when He descended to show His Approval of His Co-equal Existence in the Person of Jesus Christ? No. I would just expect that the Heavens "opening" is more than just a normal event, I'd rather believe it was certainly Glorious, not violent as "torn open" would indicate, but hey? What do I know? I'm just a plumb ol'dumber. </font>[/QUOTE]The Greek participle used in Mk. 1:10 to describe the opening of the heavens is σχιζομενους, from σχιζω, a stong verb which carries the sense of something being forcefully divided into two. It's the same verb used in Mk. 15:38 to describe the tearing of the Temple veil at the moment of Jesus' death. These two occasions -- once at the beginning, once at the end -- are the only times in Mark's Gospel where the verb σχιζω is used, and they "bracket" the Gospel to show how Jesus Christ our Mediator tears away all barriers and grants us access to God. Mark 1:10 is also the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy in Isa. 64:1, "Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down..." Some English Bible translations (like the Geneva Bible) correctly render the forceful nature of the Greek participle, while others (like the KJV) completely miss it and have a poor translation. The "final authority" for *all* English *translations* is the original language Greek text. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, well, we can argue semantics till Jesus comes. The only problem I see by what you suggest is that there is something wrong with the KJB. Either way you look at it, the Heavens opening is not represented by the solitude you suggest it does in the KJB by the use of "opened". I can open a can of sardines and the process would be rending the seal of the container, but if I tried to "rip apart" as you suggest the Greek word indicates, then that would be a respresentative destruction and loss of the contents a possibility, besides that, I might have gotten hurt.

    The "force" exerted is not a destructive force, but an over-powering force. The rent in the vail did not leave it in a state of ruin, neither did the Heavens opening/rending leave them in the same state of ruin.

    In the particular case of the "opening" of the Heavens, or the "rending" as you suggest to be more violent, does not also go with saying that the Heavens are in a state of disrepair, as the vail rent in two neither does, but the more careful and precise action the Lord would perform, not as some mongrel ripping open the tent of his enemy to apprehend his fair spoil.

    Something else of note, the verb used is in the present tense, indicating the Heavens are still "opened" and in the passive voice as the action is complete.

    What you're suggesting doesn't even amount to enough beans to fill a pot to cook them in, sorry.
     
  10. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we don't. However, doesn't it strike you as odd that *every single one* of the thousands of Greek and versional MSS that we *do* have differs from the KJV? That there's no evidence whatsoever that any Christian *anywhere* before 1611 used an Bible like the KJV? Or that no English speaking Christian who had the misfortune of living in the years prior to 1611 had the "pure, prefect word of God" as KJV-Onlyists define it? </font>[/QUOTE]So far every place yall say they differ I find that you only try to impose your opinion. I have found every alleged discrepency to be a false accusation against the KJB. This is due to the misinterpetation of the verbs by your opinion and in the effort to minmize the KJB. To pull out a singular defintion of a verb and fail to use it's other indications of meaning and dogmaticly say the KJB has made a mistake is stupendous. It would be likened to a barrel of monkeys and yall saying they are all named "Bob". ;)
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV translators were not infallible. In this instance they rejected the best translation, the one which not only properly renders the force of the verb but preserves the cross-references to Mk. 15:38 and Isa. 64:1. </font>[/QUOTE]Did I hear you call for "Bob"?
     
  12. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem lies in using the KJV to deterimine what the Greek should say instead of using the Greek to determine what the KJV (or any other English translation for that matter) should say. It's a *serious* methodological error to let the translation govern the original. The original language text should *always* be the standard against which our English translations are measured. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe I should introduce George Foreman's children; George, George, George, George, and George, and if he has any more children, George.

    The KJB doesn't "govern" the Original as you suggest, but compliments the Greek by giving the correct interpetation.
     
  13. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV translators were not infallible. In this instance they rejected the best translation, the one which not only properly renders the force of the verb but preserves the cross-references to Mk. 15:38 and Isa. 64:1. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither are you infallible [​IMG] An awful lot of top notch scholars, geniuses even, considered your position but for some reason(s) ultimately rejected it. Do you know what their reasons were? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick proclaim the superiority of your translation in such an absolute way.

    ps - apparently the scholars behind the NASB and ESV disagree with you as well
     
  14. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only problem I see by what you suggest is that there is something wrong with the KJB. </font>[/QUOTE]
    That's because there *is* something wrong with the KJV in Mk. 1:10, namely, it has a poor translation.

    Apples and oranges. "Opening a can of sardines" is not the same as either the heavens or the temple veil being "rent in twain."

    Agreed -- but the "rending in twain" of both the heavens and the temple veil did mean that the barriers which separate sinful humanity from God's holiness have been forever removed because of the work of Jesus Christ.

    The participle is in the present tense because the action it describes takes place at the same time as the main verb in the sentence. The participle is in the passive voice because the agent (i.e., the one doing the action, God) is not directly named but rather implied. You might want to look these things up in a basic Greek grammar before commenting on them.
     
  15. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we don't. However, doesn't it strike you as odd that *every single one* of the thousands of Greek and versional MSS that we *do* have differs from the KJV? That there's no evidence whatsoever that any Christian *anywhere* before 1611 used an Bible like the KJV? Or that no English speaking Christian who had the misfortune of living in the years prior to 1611 had the "pure, prefect word of God" as KJV-Onlyists define it? </font>[/QUOTE]So far every place yall say they differ I find that you only try to impose your opinion. I have found every alleged discrepency to be a false accusation against the KJB. This is due to the misinterpetation of the verbs by your opinion and in the effort to minmize the KJB. To pull out a singular defintion of a verb and fail to use it's other indications of meaning and dogmaticly say the KJB has made a mistake is stupendous. It would be likened to a barrel of monkeys and yall saying they are all named "Bob". ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Let me try once again to present this as simply as I can.

    Number of Greek and versional MSS from the time before the 1611 KJV appeared - thousands.
    Number of Greek and versional MSS from the time before the 1611 KJV appeared which agree 100% with the KJV - zero.

    Ponder the implications of these facts.
     
  16. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except where the KJV gives the incorrect interpretation. Where the choice is the KJV or the Greek, the Greek wins, hands down. If that's not the case, then the KJV in fact governs the Greek.
     
  17. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV translators were not infallible. In this instance they rejected the best translation, the one which not only properly renders the force of the verb but preserves the cross-references to Mk. 15:38 and Isa. 64:1. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither are you infallible [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]Never said I was. [​IMG]

    I'd be very interested to know why some English translations fail to render the force of the verb in Mk. 1:10 correctly, particularly given that translators since the days of the Geneva Bible recognized it.
     
  18. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    tim: Neither are you infallible
    angel: Never said I was.


    You sure sound like it, at least when you're talking about this verse ;)

    angel: I'd be very interested to know why some English translations fail to render the force of the verb in Mk. 1:10 correctly, particularly given that translators since the days of the Geneva Bible recognized it.

    Because they have considered your position and have rejected it. Just possibly, maybe, they are right? [​IMG] It definitely isn't an oversight, as your preferred translation is in the margin.

    Btw, I'd love to know their reasoning too. The KJV translators are long dead, but I assume many/most translators of the NASB and ESV are still living.
     
  19. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet the Door is still open and had not be before Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Whether God is implied or is visable we still know only God can open the Dorr into heaven, and only God can open the heavens to speak, only God could rent in twain the vail of the Temple, all the while causing no destruction of those things.

    Your demanding the more violent and forceful rendering of the verse is become problematic to reason, it is become a radical concept to the actions of God. The problem in understanding what you impose upon God as destructive of His own creation for anything less than literal sin.

    The LORD's destructive forces are only found according to the Righteous and Holy wrath exerted by His displeasure towards sin, not in His opening the way unto life eternal and into the Holy of Holies, nor the implication that He somehow caused a permanant rift in the visable sky.

    Also I suggest you don't rip "open" from the definiton of "schizo"
     
  20. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not me that's demanding it... it's the meaning of the word that's demanding it.

    σχιζω

    Liddell-Scott Lexicon -- "to split, cleave; generally, to part, separate."


    Louw-Nida Lexicon - "to split or to tear an object into at least two parts - 'to split, to tear.'"


    Thayer's Lexicon - "to cleave, cleave asunder, rend (Luke 5:36; Matt. 27:51; Mark 1:10; Luke 23:45); into two parts, in twain (of a river, Polybius 2, 16, 11), Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; John 21:11; to divide by rending, John 19:24. tropically, in the passive, to be split into factions, be divided: Acts 14:4; 23:7, (Xenophon, conv. 4, 59; Diodorus 12, 66).


    BDAG Lexicon -- "1. to divide by use of force, split, divide, separate, tear apart, tear off

    a. act. split the wood (Antig. Car. 142; Paradoxogr. Flor. 9; Paroem. Gr.: Apostolius 7, 24a) Ox 1 recto, 8 (GTh 77; cp. Eccl 10:9, also Gen 22:3; 1 Km 6:14; he will tear the new Lk 5:36b. Cp. J 19:24; tear (off) a patch from a garment Lk 5:36a (cp. Jos., Ant, 8, 207).

    b. pass. be divided, be torn, be split; the rocks were split Mt 27:51b (cp. Is 48:21; TestLevi 4:1; PTebt 273, 43; 52). Of the curtain in the temple (it) was torn (cp. Anacr. 95b Diehl; as portent, cp. Plut., Dem. 894 [12, 3] of Athena’s robe, which was rent during a procession) Lk 23:45; Of a net J 21:11. Of the dome of heaven Mk 1:10 (JosAs 14:4; Himerius, Or. [Ecl.] 32, 14 for a divine announcement, to bring from the house of Zeus a pure soul,).

    2. to tear apart a group through conflicting aims or objectives, fig. ext. of 1

    a. act. cause a division/schism IPhld 3:3 (cp. Dionys. Alex. in Eus., HE 6, 45).

    b. pass. become divided/disunited (X., Symp. 4, 59) Ac 14:4; 23:7 (cp. Diod. S. 12, 66, 2; Celsus 3, 10; Ps.-Lucian, Asin. 54).


    Please note that "open" is not among the definitions in any of these four standard Greek lexicons. I'd suggest you can't "rip" something from from a definition if it's not there in the first place. [​IMG]
     
Loading...