You Don't Know Greek

[Lois]

I couldn't help but notice a trend these days that I thought should be addressed.There is a big trend of people going about masquerading as Greek scholars.
I don't personally think there is anything wrong in "going to the Greek" if you don't understand something..but to use it to overturn scripture is a horse of a different color.
It seems as though a little knowledge becomes a dangerous thing indeed when it is used to undermine a believers faith and hope in the promises that are contained in that scripture being dismantled before their very eyes.
The translation of the bible was done by 47 scholars and yet one person thinks they know a better rendering of a word then 47 people.Really,that sounds like a private interpretation to me.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


I really did this for anyone that might have come across a Greek scholar these days and lost faith in God by what they have said.
It is to those brothers and sister in Christ Jesus that may read this that I would say,THEY DON'T KNOW GREEK!
Yes,I just yelled at you,now pick your faith back up off the ground.
They do not even know Greek.They know of Greek.They might even be able to say a few words in Greek but knowing OF Greek and actually knowing Greek are very different.

The main purpose of this post is to shed some light on all these folks parading around as if they know Greek.

For starters most seminaries force their students to take basic Greek as part of their degree programs.There is actually a huge debate as to whether students should be forced to take these languages.
I think the problem stems from people finishing seminary with a basic knowledge of Greek and then they fancy themselves Greek scholar.
They tend to get an attitude of, you can't question me I have a degree.
Well I did some checking on all this and would like to share what I have found.


From thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2010/10/should-seminary-students-learn-greek.html


This blog is a blog by John Byron.He is the Associate Professor of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary.I do not fully know his beliefs.I am quoting him for his experience being a teacher of Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary.

Dr Byron writes,

Quote: It is the beginning of term at Ashland and although I am not teaching Greek this year I am still hearing the question, why do I need to learn Greek or Hebrew?

Over the years I have swung between the extremes. On the one hand, I have mounted a vigorous defense of biblical languages in a seminary curriculum. On the other, I have privately wished that the only students in my Greek class were the ones that chose to be there.

Byron continues,

Quote:"The modern pastor is very busy and is more of a general practitioner than a specialist. Working with languages takes time. Although we teach students Greek and Hebrew few have the time week in and week out to put in the kind of effort required to translate the chosen passage for the Sunday sermon."

"One problem that I have often observed is that studetns are often better in one language than the other. Someimtes this depends on which language they took first. A student who takes Hebrew first may experience language fatigue when it comes time to take Greek next year. It is not uncommon for a student to leave seminary with more competence in one of the two languages. Rarley do they return to studying languages after seminary to improve the one in which they are deficient."

The teachers that are teaching are confessing to not being as well versed in the languages as they should be.

Quote:I also wonder about what we as professors require versus what we actually practice. I am aware of many a New Testament scholar who would defend the need for students to learn Hebrew, but cannot read it themselves. I am bothered when we insist that our students be able to do something that we cannot. For the record, I have kept up on my Hebrew, but only after I was personally convicted by the above type of situation. I realized my Hebrew was slipping and concluded that if I wanted my students to read Hebrew I had better be able to read it too.

Dr Byron also states that a lot of seminaries are starting to drop the language requirements all together.

Quote:Added to all of this is the fact that many seminaries are dropping the language requirements. It is possible to get an MDiv without any Greek or Hebrew. And these courses are not being replaced with more Bible. This strategy is being used to shorten the total hours required to earn the degree. Students take 4-6 less classes and spend less money.

I particularly like the honesty of the comments on this blog posting.
thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-on-greek-and-hebrew-pastors-why.html


Here one Pastor comments,

Quote:"while I earned good grades in both languages in seminary, I finished my course work in neither language with a good working knowledge that would allow me to open the manuscript and read with some confidence in understanding most of what I read."

"I have one more observation. Languages are generally (or at least they used to be) at the beginning of the seminary process. When they are finished, there is a pretty big sigh, "I'm glad that's over" with no real expectation that we will use this knowledge in the rest of our classes. I took the 4 year plan for the M.Div. and by the time I was finished, I had already lost enough of the languages to make it very difficult to continue on my own."

Dr Michael Duduit is the founding dean of the College of Christian Studies at Anderson University.

I do not know what Dr Duduit's beliefs are my reason for quoting him is his expertise and solely for that purpose.

From ministryu.org/is-expertise-in-biblical-greek-essential-for-pastors/ *


Dr Duduit says,

Quote:The average seminary still requires 6 to 12 hours of courses in the biblical languages. They spend hours teaching future pastors to take the Hebrew or Greek text and do their own translations. But the dirty little secret is that for the vast majority of pastors, the last time they do an original translation is their final exam in a seminary class

Quote:As a demonstration of our own support for the study of biblical languages, in the College of Christian Studies at Anderson University we offer six hours each in Greek and Hebrew at the undergraduate level. We want our students to have an introduction to the biblical languages, even though we know most will not become experts; knowing something is better than knowing nothing. Because these students are younger and are in the early stages of their preparation, it’s appropriate for them to gain some basic proficiency in working with Greek and Hebrew for personal study and preaching.

Dr Justin T. Alfred who taught Greek for Fuller says on his site, wordinlife.com:

Quote:After teaching Greek and Hebrew for Fuller Theological Seminary’s extension school in Colorado Springs for ten years, I came to realize that for the vast majority of busy pastors and lay people, there is very little time available for the necessary hours to learn the complete grammars of Greek and Hebrew on a seminary or Bible college level.

He goes on to say

Quote:Many pastors are able to read and pronounce some Greek and Hebrew words, and they have some familiarity with the various tenses in Greek and Hebrew. However, they do not understand how those tenses and nuances actually impact the interpretation and bring to life the Living and Abiding Word of God! Please understand, however, that apart from the Holy Spirit bringing life to God’s Word, no amount of Greek and Hebrew will help ANYBODY!"

From Daniel R. Streett
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Criswell College, Dallas, Texas.
Blog here-- danielstreett.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/greek-immersion-in-the-seminary-curriculumwhats-needed-to-make-it-work-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-7/


Dr Streett in his blog compares other colleges language courses to the Greek courses taught at seminaries.
I will be quoting a bunch from his blog because I think it is important,again I do not know Dr Streett's beliefs he is being quoted for his expertise as a professor and teacher of Greek.

Quote:"What’s Normal?
First, I think we need a clear idea of what’s normal in language learning situations. So, let’s look at a few examples of how modern languages are approached at American universities. Let’s begin with UC-Berkeley’s German program. If you choose to major in German at Berkeley, here’s what’s expected:

German 1, 2, 3, and 4 (20 credit-hours). That’s four, count ‘em, four, basic German courses. So that’s four semesters or two years of basic German. These courses meet 5 days a week, an hour a day. The first two semesters focus on establishing “communicative competence,” in all four skills while the last two continue to develop these skills through study of German history and culture—auf Deutsch natürlich! And, would you believe me if I told you that all four courses (20 credit-hours altogether) are prerequisites to the major? That means they don’t actually count toward the credits you need for your major!
Three Upper Division Core Courses (9 hrs). So, this is where the major actually begins, once your prereqs are out of the way. These courses are all taught completely in German and include a course in German cultural history, an intro to German linguistics, and a course in advanced German composition and style. Notice that linguistics and style are taught in German, and therefore only after the student has acquired basic proficiency in the language itself.
Three More Upper Division Courses (9 hrs). These are all taught in German and use texts exclusively in German.
Four More Upper Division Courses (12 hrs). These are literature/culture/history courses taught in English (which makes it feasible for non-German majors, e.g. history or sociology or politics majors, to take them). However, German majors are encouraged to replace two of these courses by spending their junior year abroad in Germany, after completing German 1,2,3 and 4. What’s interesting is that even after you’ve completed German 1-4, you are still required to take an additional intensive language program from July to October before you can actually take classes alongside German students.



So, to summarize, UC-Berkeley expects its majors to do 50 hours of coursework (all in German except for 6hrs) and ideally, spend three months in Germany taking an intensive language course, followed by two semesters of courses at a German university. Stateside, you would have around 600hrs of in-class German exposure, followed by three months of focused immersion (around 300-400 hours) and two semesters of general immersion at a very high level. If you don’t come out of all that fluent in German, then you’s jist plane stoopid!

He continues on now to compare the Greek offered in seminaries.

Quote:And Greek?

In an upcoming post, I’ll compare some of the syllabi and textbooks from modern language programs with those from typical Biblical/Classical Greek courses. For now, I just want to force us to grapple with how utterly lightweight our Greek programs are.

For example, Southern Seminary, a pretty rigorous program, requires M.Div. students to do 3hrs of Elementary Greek, 3hrs of Greek Syntax, and 6hrs of Greek exegesis electives (book studies). That’s only 12 hrs of Greek in a three-year program! German majors get almost that much in their first year!


Fuller Seminary, one of the largest in the nation, requires its M.Div. students to take a year of basic Greek (3 quarters) and then one course in exegetical method (basically a hermeneutics course that incorporates Hebrew and Greek), and one course in NT Exegesis. Remember, they’re on the quarter system, so a course lasts only 10 weeks.

These schools aren’t exceptions. The typical Greek program is: Greek I and II (3 hours each), followed by (if you’re in a “rigorous” program) Intermediate Greek (3 hours; one semester, maybe two?). While beginning classes focus on morphology, vocabulary and grammar, the intermediate classes usually focus on grammar and syntax. As a result, much of the vocabulary “acquired” in the first year will be lost.


After intermediate Greek, you might have an advanced Greek course of 3hrs (usually an elective, only for the very serious students) that deals with historical linguistics and more technical issues like lexical semantics, verbal aspect, discourse analysis, etc. Then, you have some exegetical courses, which make use of the grammar and syntax you’ve been taught. Of course, none of these courses provide an immersive environment. None of the class will be conducted in Greek and the overall amount of Greek reading that you’ll actually do is probably less than a hundred pages over 3 years.

So, you have maybe 12-21 hours of Greek over three years, none of which is immersive and none of which produces—or even aims for—communicative proficiency. By the end of 3 years, you’ll still just be talking about Greek. If you go on for a PhD in NT, it’s more of the same, and you’ll end up having had 6 years or more of Greek, even teaching Greek, and not be able to count to ten in the language, much less carry on a one-minute conversation. Source: personal experience, sadly. :(

Another factor to keep in mind is that they are not at college just taking Greek, they are in many other courses at the same time.The Greek studies are only a small portion of the seminary students studies..but they still seem to come out thinking they are Greek scholars.
I'm sure there are a lot of people that haven't even taken the Greek courses that seminaries offer but they still want to pretend to be self taught Greek scholars.

They don't know Greek.The people teaching them confess over and over that they don't know Greek.

Are you tired of hearing about old manuscripts, Greek and Hebrew debates, and reading endless explanations of why such and such a word in the "original language" had a "root" the meaning of fill in the blank?
Me too!

Just to give an example as to why using the "root" for something can be deceiving.

The word villain:

Villain comes from the Anglo-French and Old French vilein, which itself descends from the Late Latin word villanus, meaning "farmhand",

The "root" of villain means farmhand.

So if someone were to read a newspaper that describes Jeffrey Dahmer as being a villain, we should just go ahead and translate that to mean he was merely a "farmhand", as the root would indicate?No,I don't think so.


So,
Knock it off,you don't know Greek! :P



Every time a person says,"This word is mistranslated, it should read...." or, "The better translation is....",they are firing a fiery dart into the heart of their hearer's faith. How on earth can someone maintain faith in the Word of God if they are constantly hearing that their Bible has errors?
Every time someone does this they are sowing the seeds of unbelief.


Questioning the accuracy of the the Bible and using Greek and Hebrew to try and disprove it is not a faith building activity.
I don't know why someone would insist on participating in it.

So,Knock it off,you don't know Greek!


Don't get me wrong there probably are a few people that speak,read,write and understand Greek fluently..but they are the exception not the rule.
The majority of people are just faking it.They don't know Greek.

[Mary]

Hi Lois,

I appreciate the point you are trying to make but in light of your comments on the thread discussing Vic's article "will God say just kidding about hell" I find what you do in this post and what you say to be enormously hypocritical. :(

[Vic]

Temporarily closing thread until I can catch up and respond. My apologies for the delay. Company and family needs have priority. THanks for your patience.

[Vic]

I am opening this thread but I don't want any personal attacks or reading into what has been posted as being a personal attack on any one member.

For the record I have dealt with the issue of poor scholarship by those claiming leadership and their followers since being on the 'net in 1998, and there are many who have claimed to know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc, and who know squat of those languages and have been shown to know same. But they do go by "such and such is incorrectly translated" by those "uninspired", or wicked translators or myriad of other reasons why they now have the 'correct' translation, the 'correct' wording all should accept and believe, because it just makes so much more sense and makes one feel so much better putting trust in 'their' understandings.

Well, there is nothing new under the sun, including deceptions such as that. Eugene Peterson's, The Message, is a prime example of a 'Christian' appearing to have the language skills yet when I asked the publisher directly what languages he had degrees in or was fluent in, months later it still was not answered. Which is an answer in itself since he was contacted directly by the publisher for me. And his spew in that paraphrase is enough to understand that claiming language skills or understandings is not the same as having them.

We've seen the issue so clearly with HR and sacred name characters like James Trimm, Koniuchowsky, Rood, Brad Scott, Rico Cortes, and many many more, many who write their own 'bible's which they are not. So this thread is a legitimate cry for people to not be lured into thinking that because someone states a word or phrase is mistranslated, that it must be so. And 'they' will provide the correct meaning, is not to be received lightly.

That thinking has and does lead people away from Christ and the Truth of the Scriptures. I have personally seen it over and over and over again. I have seen people who have since renounced what they were lured into and speak against just such thinking. Because it does destroy faith in Christ and trust in God's Word, that He has been faithful to provide it and keep it, as it is the Sword of the Spirit.

We do not have the original manuscripts that were penned so long ago, but we do have some copies and then translations into English and many other languages. If we cannot believe God inspired the translators, then we can no longer claim having the the Word of God, and hence the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, which quenches the fiery darts of the enemy. And I for one, do not believe God is that inept, because His Word endures forever.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Jer 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

Psa 119:41 VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.
Psa 119:42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.
Psa 119:43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.

Psa 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Psa 119:158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
Psa 119:159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness.
Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Psa 119:161 SCHIN. Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.

Psa 119:127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.
Psa 119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
Psa 119:129 PE. Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them.
Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

[Vic]

Just as a clarification. There is quite a difference between classical greek and koine greek of the Scriptures. THis distinction is noted on the 'B-Greek- forum, which is a forum for those fluent in or who teach and study Greek in depth.

Re: Classical and Koine Differences

Quote:...>Yes, I am. I have a general question about the differences between classical Greek and Koine. Could some of those on the list that work with both plase give me a fairly concise list of the major differences between the two? >


This is off the top of my head, so it won't be complete and perhaps won't even hit the highest spots, but others will perhaps respond and add to the list of items I can think of. It should, of course, be remembered that neither what we call Classical nor what we call Koine is a static or homogeneous entity; there are dialectal differences, social-level stylistic differences, concurrent alternative forms of words and constructions in a language that is always in flux, etc., etc., etc.


But if we take Attic Greek of the 5th and 4th centuries as standard for Classical (and ignore Homeric and literary Ionic, Aeolic and Doric), then I'd say, for a general observation, that Classical Greek is more nuanced in its capacity to differentiate between perceived (or even imagined) shades of quality, quantity, contingency, and the like. I often tell beginners in the first class that Attic Greek has one more of each grammatical category that they're likely to expect in a language: number (dual in addition to singular and plural), tense (aorist in addition to pres, impf, fut, and the
3 pf tenses), mood (optative in addition to indic, imptv, subj), voice (middle in addition to active & passive), a full array of participles for each tense-system and voice, etc. I also tell them that the Greek noun is pretty easy to learn, but they'll spend years coming to understand the verbal system (if any of us ever does so completely).

Now many of the distinguishing features of Classical Attic DO survive in Koine, even if in alternate formations. But here are a few differences:

(1) Ionic spellings (and pronunciations) such as -SS- for Attic -TT-,
primarily owing to Macedonian Ionic-speakers taking the lead in
administration and commerce in the Hellenistic cities at the outset.

(2) Pronunciation differences (most of which don't really show up in spelling). The vowel/diphthong system has probably gone through most of the changes to the way vowels and diphthongs are pronounced in modern Greek. Very likely many of the consonants have also done so (B->V, D->th, e.g.).

(3) A marked tendency for the alpha-endings of the 1st aorist to be used on 2nd aorist stems (ultimately, in modern Greek, even on imperfects).

(4) MI-verbs increasingly assume -W-verb conjugation: e.g. AFIHMI -> AFIW.

(5) The optative mood has more or less ceased to be used in old ways, survives for the most part in expressions like Paul's MH GENOITO, which possibly isn't even undestood by the speaker/writer as a verb form but as an exclamation. As a consequence the subjunctive must function even in
secondary sequence as the optative functioned in Classical Attic. e.g.:
Attic: HLQEN hO ADELFOS MOU hINA TAUTA hHMIN AGGELEIE.
Koine: HLQEN hO ADELFOS MOU hINA TAUTA hHMIN AGGELHi.

(6) The (hINA + subjunctive) clause, used almost exclusively in Classical Attic to express purpose in primary sequence, has in Koine become a multi-functional verbal noun almost equivalent to an infinitive or gerund (in modern Greek it DOES serve as an infinitive).

(7) The use of the articular infinitive expands, particularly with a
genitive article TOU (and normally without the original governing
preposition hENEKA) to express purpose. Even otherwise, the articular infinitive's capacity as a verbal noun seems to run parallel to that of the (hINA + subj) clause.

(8) Case usage: constructions found even in Attic become more common, as PROS + acc. as equivalent to a dative with a verb of speaking for indirect object; EN + dative to express the instrumental notion, where Attic more commonly used no preposition and generally limited the use of EN to
locative function. This is a matter of tendency rather than an absolute distinction between Attic and Koine.

That's a short list of things that come to my mind without checking a grammar. It is far from complete. One of the more interesting short histories of the Greek language is an out-of-print little book by the George Thomson (the mad Marxist British Hellenist of Manchester and Prague!) entitled, aptly, _The Greek Language_. I'd like to learn of what
others might deem good summaries of linguistic change in Greek.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University ...

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archi...11684.html

And

Quote:Here's another of those little things I notice from time to time to be so frequent in NT reading that, upon reflection, I think they are patterns of developing usage:

hOSOS (-H, -ON) may be used without any sense whatsoever of quantity (such as it usually has in classical Attic) as a substitute or equivalent of the relative pronoun. ....

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archi...11685.html

So with that, we know that scholars recognise that there are differences to Biblical Greek versus Classical Greek and also versus contemporary Greek.

[Solo Christo]

Vic Wrote:For the record I have dealt with the issue of poor scholarship by those claiming leadership and their followers since being on the 'net in 1998, and there are many who have claimed to know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc, and who know squat of those languages and have been shown to know same. But they do go by "such and such is incorrectly translated" by those "uninspired", or wicked translators or myriad of other reasons why they now have the 'correct' translation, the 'correct' wording all should accept and believe, because it just makes so much more sense and makes one feel so much better putting trust in 'their' understandings.

Yes, it’s particularly hard to reference check claims online. I think we should be skeptical of claims of a “new/correct” translation, however at the same time, there have been ongoing debates over a few words/passages for hundreds of years and significant discoveries (e.g. Oxyrhynchus Papyri & Dead Sea Scrolls) have allowed translators to make ongoing improvements to translations.

I’m still very much a beginner with Koine Greek, but I’ve been researching aion, aionios, & aidios, for almost 2 years now, reading everything I can find on them, which is why I’ve made comments about them. A few translations have reflected the meaning I suggest for a long time, however I suspect that until the mainstream translations change, people will remain skeptical, which is completely understandable. I guess for now, I just hope to show that these couple of words have been disputed by legitimate scholars (not me!) for quite awhile now (e.g. since the Early Church Fathers).

Vic Wrote:Well, there is nothing new under the sun, including deceptions such as that. Eugene Peterson's, The Message, is a prime example of a 'Christian' appearing to have the language skills yet when I asked the publisher directly what languages he had degrees in or was fluent in, months later it still was not answered. Which is an answer in itself since he was contacted directly by the publisher for me. And his spew in that paraphrase is enough to understand that claiming language skills or understandings is not the same as having them.

I mentioned my similar dislike of The Message on your thread about it.

Vic Wrote:We've seen the issue so clearly with HR and sacred name characters like James Trimm, Koniuchowsky, Rood, Brad Scott, Rico Cortes, and many many more, many who write their own 'bible's which they are not. So this thread is a legitimate cry for people to not be lured into thinking that because someone states a word or phrase is mistranslated, that it must be so. And 'they' will provide the correct meaning, is not to be received lightly.

Yes, from what I’ve read about the above people, I can understand why you’d be rightly wary of anyone questioning any translating.

Vic Wrote:That thinking has and does lead people away from Christ and the Truth of the Scriptures. I have personally seen it over and over and over again. I have seen people who have since renounced what they were lured into and speak against just such thinking. Because it does destroy faith in Christ and trust in God's Word, that He has been faithful to provide it and keep it, as it is the Sword of the Spirit.

I certainly can imagine that some changes could unsettle people, however historically there have been dozens of revisions of to translations, & yet Christianity is still growing. Whilst I think God has been faithful in preserving Scripture for us to use, I think we have to be very careful about strictly restricting that. i.e. it’s one thing to say the original manuscripts are inspired & we have many copies that allows translators to make excellent translations into hundreds of modern languages, so that billions can hear about God, what He has done, & know how to respond with repentance & faith in Christ. It’s another thing to say (& I’m not saying anyone here is saying this) the modern XYZ translation into the modern PQR language is perfect (& that therefore every other translation in ever other language, isn’t worth looking at).

Vic Wrote:We do not have the original manuscripts that were penned so long ago, but we do have some copies and then translations into English and many other languages.

I agree.

Vic Wrote:If we cannot believe God inspired the translators, then we can no longer claim having the the Word of God, and hence the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, which quenches the fiery darts of the enemy. And I for one, do not believe God is that inept, because His Word endures forever.

I do believe we have the Word of God (the Sword of the Spirit that quenches the fiery darts of the enemy). I don’t believe God is inept & I do believe His Word endure forever. However I don’t think God inspired (in the 2Pe sense of not making any mistakes) the modern translators (I believe He would’ve helped by the Holy Spirit, in a similar way that hopefully He’s helping you & I in this conversation. i.e. I assume that because God is sovereign, He is guiding our lives, but we still make mistakes), not because He couldn’t, but because I don’t see that promised in anywhere in Scripture. I appreciate the passages you’ve quoted, as it’s always good to be reminded of the importance & effectiveness of the Word.

Vic Wrote:2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

”old time” not “all the time”.

Vic Wrote:2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I only just noticed this so I'm still weighing up what I make of this (particularly in light of 2Pe), but the Greek word behind the phrase “inspiration of God” is theopneustos. Some translations translate that as “God breathed”, implying the focus should be more on the origin, than the end product. e.g. Humanity is “God breathed”

For 2Ti 3:16, ESV Wrote:All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

For 2Ti 3:16, HCSB Wrote:All Scripture is inspired by God(a) and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

Footnote (a) Lit breathed out by God; the Scripture is the product of God’s Spirit working through men; 2Pt 1:20-21.

For 2Ti 3:16, YLT Wrote:every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

Vic Wrote:So with that, we know that scholars recognise that there are differences to Biblical Greek versus Classical Greek and also versus contemporary Greek.[/b]

I agree, I was talking to my Greek tutor yesterday & he said a modern Greek reading Koine Greek is like us reading Chaucer - you can tell it’s the same language but it’s very hard work!

[Vic]

(07-10-2012 07:42 AM)Solo Christo Wrote:  Yes, it’s particularly hard to reference check claims online. I think we should be skeptical of claims of a “new/correct” translation, however at the same time, there have been ongoing debates over a few words/passages for hundreds of years and significant discoveries (e.g. Oxyrhynchus Papyri & Dead Sea Scrolls) have allowed translators to make ongoing improvements to translations.

I’m still very much a beginner with Koine Greek,....

THe advances as you call them, have very little do with actual doctrine for translating.

Further while you say you are 'very much a beginner with Koine Greek", you have posted appearing to give the impression you are more than a little capable of translation and repeatedly put down the well qualified translators/translations found within such as the KJV--which isn't the only version which upholds the choice of words. YOu are comparing apples to oranges when you compare modern translations to KJV and prior versions because modern versions do not use the same base texts and in fact those base texts do not agree with one another. Further you have based some of your understandings on your understanding of Classical Greek, which as you have agreed now, is considerably different than Koine Greek.

Further, you have couched your statements with phrases such as:

Quote:Posts 41
Whilst not as important as the above, it’s also used of finite things in other Koine Greek texts. e.g. Josephus in “The Wars of the Jews” book 6, states that Jonathan was condemned to aionios imprisonment. Yet that prison sentence lasted only three years. Likewise The word was used by Diodorus Siculus to describe the stone used to build a wall. (Thanks Paidion for pointing these out)

An overly simplistic definition that doesn’t take into account the range of uses in Koine Greek, although in Strong’s defence I don’t think there was much Koine Greek available for him to refer to when he wrote the above

I think his definition is right until he tries to guess the meaning “by extension” :-|

Post 42

It’s quite odd that the everlasting chains are only until Judgment Day, because generally aidios has a narrow semantic range with authors, especially in contrast with aionios. I guess the author really wanted to emphasize that the chains were unbreakable.

I think that’s a reasonable definition.

I agreed until the last sentence because that’s only vaguely correct in Classical Greek (e.g. some Classical authors interchanged aidios & aionios, but much less so in Koine Greek.). Also Plato’s definition was much closer to timelessness, than everlasting (in time), which isn’t mentioned above.

Neither the word everlasting or hell appears in this verse, the word is géenna (according to the concordance: a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom", a physical place outside Jerusalem).

Yes, but it’s important to see how the Bible uses the image (we are definitely talking about imagery e.g. fruit, tares) of fire (see p2 of this thread).
The other thing I should've mentioned in regards to Matt 12:32 is that the word there is aion (eon) not world, and the Bible speaks of multiple eons. i.e. the non-forgiven eons could be sub-set of the eons. ...

Also in posts 16,'

Quote:...In regards to chastisement, often the word used is kolasis, which Aristotle & St Clement of Alexandria (a native Greek speaker, Head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria in 189AD)....

And there's other posts with the same type of statements.

The Alexandrian school was a known hotbed of gnosis. Was Aristotle a believer, and if not what would it matter what word he used for what? Origen was Clements star pupil and known for his gnostic writings, as was Clement. In fact isn't or hasn't Origen been one of the universalist founders who some try to distance themselves from?

Solo said

Quote:I’m actually wanting aionios to be translated more consistently & more literally, as opposed to the way it appears in many translations now.

So because you are a beginner in learning Koine Greek, and really aren't fluent in it, or fully understand it or the translating process, you think because you want it translated the way you want it interpreted should be acceptable to all.

Post 32

Quote: ...Looking at the concordance (is that allowed?) it appears apōleias (v1) & apōleia (v3) should be translated “destructive/destruction” not “damnable/damnation”.

I think it’s more helpful to translate it more literally “Tartarus” (a Greek name for the under-world) rather than add all the baggage associated with “hell”. Anyway, as it’s “unto judgment” this doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about what happens after judgment.

I agree that it’s good to research the words that are associated with hell, as it appears that unhelpful assumptions have been made in many English translations that miss the nuances of the words (e.g. simply translating Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, & Tartarus, all as "Hell"). Likewise translating Aiôn, Aiônios, & Aïdios, all as “Eternal” is overly simplistic to say the least.

I believe ”for the eons of the eons” is a better translation. So it certainly seems to suggests a long time, but not necessarily infinite. e.g. it could be for the first few eons of many eons. Alternatively given the phrase appears in probably the most non-literalistic book in the Bible, it could simply be hyperbole. e.g. like when we say, “it’s going to take forever to get to work in this traffic!”

And there's other quotes I could make showing your view that what you have stated should be taken over those who are actually fluent in languages and know how to translate from one language to another. I am not going to let this thread go into dealing with your definitions, as I want that kept to the Just kidding thread, although it is running through my mind to do another thread to deal with eternal/everlasting.

From one of my articles I should point out that in order to be able to go to the source texts and be able to translate the Scriptures, according to academics fluent in these languages, "that it is obvious that in order to even read/utilize the listed source texts one would have to know, "at a minimum, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek (to be able to judge the accuracy of the Hebrew and/or Syriac translation of the Greek NT)."

These are the opinions, collectively, of real professors who head Religious Departments in major Universities, who have doctorates in Middle East studies and so on. These are the academics who know what would be needed in order to translate a Bible..."

Solo said

Quote: but I’ve been researching aion, aionios, & aidios, for almost 2 years now, reading everything I can find on them, which is why I’ve made comments about them. A few translations have reflected the meaning I suggest for a long time, however I suspect that until the mainstream translations change, people will remain skeptical, which is completely understandable. I guess for now, I just hope to show that these couple of words have been disputed by legitimate scholars (not me!) for quite awhile now (e.g. since the Early Church Fathers).

So are you telling us that what you are doing is merely parroting what some others have called into question, doubting the legitimacy of the Bible as we know it, and trying to change doctrine to be what 'they want it to be'. So changing the translation is the way to go, right? And calling those who won't go along with it as 'hindering the Gospel', hindering Christ and so on.

You claim that the translations done by, for example, the 40 plus KJV translators were uninspired in their word/translation choices, and when we read the Bible we are reading uninspired words...yet claim on the other hand the ESV, HCSB are or must be superior in their lack of God breathed/inspired writings. You say 'dictionaries are written by uninspired men", yet you say the same thing about Bible translators up until now, that is, all are also uninspired men. Or are there some versions that you use translated by inspired men? Or is it just some writers of books that are inspired, like some you mention should be read to gain real understanding of EU and the real meaning of what the Scriptures say, according to them that is.

If that's the case, according to your beliefs, then no one can be inspired except those men of old, who wrote the very original OT and then NT,of which we do not have access to, then nothing you say or anyone else says can ever be viewed as inspired by God, even though all who believe Christ have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and are given gifts and abilities by the Holy Spirit, to edify the Body of Christ with and also to share the Gospel with to the unbelieving.

So we are kind of at the mercy of what you are claiming sounds good to you, despite it not aligning to the Scriptures which were written for our understanding. Pretty hard to apply these verses if we can't believe they were inspired and protected for us to receive.

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Solo said

Quote:It’s another thing to say (& I’m not saying anyone here is saying this) the modern XYZ translation into the modern PQR language is perfect (& that therefore every other translation in ever other language, isn’t worth looking at).

No, no one has said that. However, after much study and understanding the difference in base texts used, I personally do believe the KJV is the best English translation available. It reads beautifully and has stood the test of time, and has been well used in leading many to Jesus Christ. I have used NIV in the past and reviewed many other versions and find they are incredibly lacking and based on source manuscripts and the Westcott/Hort foundations find them wanting.

Solo said

Quote:I do believe we have the Word of God (the Sword of the Spirit that quenches the fiery darts of the enemy). I don’t believe God is inept & I do believe His Word endure forever. However I don’t think God inspired (in the 2Pe sense of not making any mistakes) the modern translators (I believe He would’ve helped by the Holy Spirit, in a similar way that hopefully He’s helping you & I in this conversation. i.e. I assume that because God is sovereign, He is guiding our lives, but we still make mistakes), not because He couldn’t, but because I don’t see that promised in anywhere in Scripture. I appreciate the passages you’ve quoted, as it’s always good to be reminded of the importance & effectiveness of the Word.

Addressed above.

[Solo Christo]

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  Further while you say you are 'very much a beginner with Koine Greek", you have posted appearing to give the impression you are more than a little capable of translation and repeatedly put down the well qualified translators/translations found within such as the KJV--which isn't the only version which upholds the choice of words.

Whilst I’m a beginner with Koine Greek, I’ve read a lot on aionios, both for & against, by Greek experts, which is why I feel I can comment. If you asked me about some other random Greek word, I’d have go away & research it.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  YOu are comparing apples to oranges when you compare modern translations to KJV and prior versions because modern versions do not use the same base texts and in fact those base texts do not agree with one another.

Being part of this forum has forced me to research the KJV translation more than I ever had before. I was surprised to discover entire websites dedicated to explaining the pros & cons of the KJV. I also talked to a minister about it & he pointed out that even the texts the KJV used contain variations. I now know enough about textual criticism to know it’s never simple or precise (something I’m told even the KJV translators happily acknowledged with their extensive notes in the margins). However, as the pro & cons of the KJV isn’t something I know enough about to comment further - certainly not when I can’t quote/link.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  Further you have based some of your understandings on your understanding of Classical Greek

I have? I thought I criticised others for putting too much weight on Classical Greek & not enough on Koine Greek?

I Wrote:...In regards to chastisement, often the word used is kolasis, which Aristotle & St Clement of Alexandria (a native Greek speaker, Head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria in 189AD)....

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  The Alexandrian school was a known hotbed of gnosis.

I’m not a historian, but I’ve researched a bit, mainly relating to the history of Universalists. From what I’ve read, Clement of Alexandria, was “the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, raised a criticism against the followers of Basilides and Valentinus [both gnostics] in his Stromata”.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  Was Aristotle a believer, and if not what would it matter what word he used for what?

Aristotle wasn’t a believer, but he was a Greek, just before the era of Koine Greek, so it’s interesting (although not definitive) to see it appears he defined it in the same way later Koine Greek users.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  Origen was Clements star pupil and known for his gnostic writings, as was Clement.

From my research I thought he refuted Gnosticism??

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  In fact isn't or hasn't Origen been one of the universalist founders who some try to distance themselves from?

I don’t agree with everything Origen said (e.g. pre-existence), however even many very anti-UR ministers I know, have a lot of respect for him, and from what I’ve read of his, I can understand why.

I Wrote:I’m actually wanting aionios to be translated more consistently & more literally, as opposed to the way it appears in many translations now.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  So because you are a beginner in learning Koine Greek, and really aren't fluent in it, or fully understand it or the translating process, you think because you want it translated the way you want it interpreted should be acceptable to all.

The reason I said that was because people often accuse universalists of being inconsistent in their translation of aionios, that they make it temporary just for “bad” things & everlasting for “good” things.

I recommend people research aionios more thoroughly, going beyond reading a definition in a lexicon (not saying this is all you’re doing) and seeing how it’s used right across Koine Greek, because when I did, I found it had a broad semantic range, which allows EU.

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  And there's other quotes I could make showing your view that what you have stated should be taken over those who are actually fluent in languages and know how to translate from one language to another. I am not going to let this thread go into dealing with your definitions, as I want that kept to the Just kidding thread, although it is running through my mind to do another thread to deal with eternal/everlasting.

I feel slightly hard done by here, as you told me to focus on my own understanding, to refrain for quoting, referencing, etc. yet now you criticise this as just my opinion... :-/

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  [color=#1E90FF][b]From one of my articles I should point out that in order to be able to go to the source texts and be able to translate the Scriptures, according to academics fluent in these languages, "that it is obvious that in order to even read/utilize the listed source texts one would have to know, "at a minimum, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek (to be able to judge the accuracy of the Hebrew and/or Syriac translation of the Greek NT)."

These are the opinions, collectively, of real professors who head Religious Departments in major Universities, who have doctorates in Middle East studies and so on. These are the academics who know what would be needed in order to translate a Bible..."

I’m not trying to translate a Bible, I’m simply pointing out why some scholars & translators (of which I am neither) think aionios has been mistranslated in the most popular translations.

I Wrote:but I’ve been researching aion, aionios, & aidios, for almost 2 years now, reading everything I can find on them, which is why I’ve made comments about them. A few translations have reflected the meaning I suggest for a long time, however I suspect that until the mainstream translations change, people will remain skeptical, which is completely understandable. I guess for now, I just hope to show that these couple of words have been disputed by legitimate scholars (not me!) for quite awhile now (e.g. since the Early Church Fathers).

(07-11-2012 01:51 PM)Vic Wrote:  So are you telling us that what you are doing is merely parroting what some others have called into question, doubting the legitimacy of the Bible as we know it, and trying to change doctrine to be what 'they want it to be'. So changing the translation is the way to go, right? And calling those who won't go along with it as 'hindering the Gospel', hindering Christ and so on.

You claim that the translations done by, for example, the 40 plus KJV translators were uninspired in their word/translation choices, and when we read the Bible we are reading uninspired words...yet claim on the other hand the ESV, HCSB are or must be superior in their lack of God breathed/inspired writings. You say 'dictionaries are written by uninspired men", yet you say the same thing about Bible translators up until now, that is, all are also uninspired men. Or are there some versions that you use translated by inspired men? Or is it just some writers of books that are inspired, like some you mention should be read to gain real understanding of EU and the real meaning of what the Scriptures say, according to them that is.

If that's the case, according to your beliefs, then no one can be inspired except those men of old, who wrote the very original OT and then NT,of which we do not have access to, then nothing you say or anyone else says can ever be viewed as inspired by God, even though all who believe Christ have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and are given gifts and abilities by the Holy Spirit, to edify the Body of Christ with and also to share the Gospel with to the unbelieving.

So we are kind of at the mercy of what you are claiming sounds good to you, despite it not aligning to the Scriptures which were written for our understanding. Pretty hard to apply these verses if we can't believe they were inspired and protected for us to receive.

So when you refer to scholars & translators it’s ok, but if I do the same I’m “merely parroting” - seriously Vic that’s insulting :-(

I’m also disappointed that you criticise me when I refer to uninspired writers, yet you do so yourself (e.g. with dictionaries, newspapers, etc.) & it comes across to me that you’re not acknowledging that you’re doing so?

I don’t think any of our translations are perfect, but that doesn’t mean I must therefore hold the extreme opposite & think they’re all useless (I don’t even think the KJV is useless, I think it was very good at the time & still reasonable now).

I don’t think any books we have now are inspired/perfect, although I think some contain much more truth than others. As well as the Holy Spirit, God gave us the Church, brothers & sisters, we are meant to speak & listen to one another.

Similarly just because when the Holy Spirit helps both of us & we don’t instantly produce perfect, identical prose, doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit isn’t helping. i.e I think the Holy Spirit is helping the translators & making sure we have enough of it right. As far as I can tell, there is uncertainty, and that’s just what God intended so that we’d learn to trust Him.

I don’t see any difficulty with either Jud 1:7 or 2Pe 3:1, as I believe we have many words spoken by Jesus, that almost everything that’s credited to Him in the NT is done so correctly.

In this latest post, you certainly sound like you view the KJV is inspired/perfect... How do you know which version of the KJV? What did people do before the KJV? If they already had inspired versions why don’t we still use them, if they didn’t, why do we need an inspired one? Do people of other languages also have inspired translations or do they need to refer to the KJV? I’m not trying to attack you, it’s just I’m confused by your comments. e.g. “incredibly lacking” isn’t far off “isn’t worth looking at”.

[Vic]

(07-13-2012 07:41 AM)Solo Christo Wrote:  Whilst I’m a beginner with Koine Greek, I’ve read a lot on aionios, both for & against, by Greek experts, which is why I feel I can comment. If you asked me about some other random Greek word, I’d have go away & research it.

Then you need to be saying that you are sourcing particular people for your knowledge, not implying, as your original posts did, that you are qualified to translate the original manuscripts and have determined any translations other than what you now have deteremined to be 'the best' choice of words. You didn't qualify that you were a beginner in learning/understanding koine greek when you made those statements. That's the point, Alex, and you still cannot claim understanding of tenses, and all necessary to understand or translate from koine Greek as a whole, to any other language, including English. And since some of the understanding of the use of those words is also compared to Hebrew OT verses, you would also have to be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, there's egyptian, chaldean etc loan words, so there's much more than choosing one or two words to focus on and claim an understanding on, and that most translators have gotten it wrong and you hope most come into line with your and the few who are positing this use.

Quote:Being part of this forum has forced me to research the KJV translation more than I ever had before. I was surprised to discover entire websites dedicated to explaining the pros & cons of the KJV. I also talked to a minister about it & he pointed out that even the texts the KJV used contain variations. I now know enough about textual criticism to know it’s never simple or precise (something I’m told even the KJV translators happily acknowledged with their extensive notes in the margins). However, as the pro & cons of the KJV isn’t something I know enough about to comment further - certainly not when I can’t quote/link.

Of course there's variations in the texts, but the majority texts of which there are over 5000---agree with one another, unlike the minority texts. Translating from one language to another is always going to show some variations, whether it's word for word or other forms of linguistics used. The point is, they did not take it lightly, and strived for accuracy from the originals, because they had a very high regard for the Word of God,a nd that is what was being put into the hands of the people.. And of course words are added in because otherwise it would not read with any sense of flow from one language to the next. Take English to French or french to english, the order of verbs, nouns tenses are all different and word for word sounds like total babble. I believe most have taken the task very seriously, believing the words within it, as we all should...

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Quote:I have? I thought I criticised others for putting too much weight on Classical Greek & not enough on Koine Greek?

It appeared you were sourcing classical as a validation of koine understandings. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Quote:I’m not a historian, but I’ve researched a bit, mainly relating to the history of Universalists. From what I’ve read, Clement of Alexandria, was “the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, raised a criticism against the followers of Basilides and Valentinus [both gnostics] in his Stromata”.

THere's a lot more to the school, Clement's and Origen's history and theology and doctrine.

Quote:Aristotle wasn’t a believer, but he was a Greek, just before the era of Koine Greek, so it’s interesting (although not definitive) to see it appears he defined it in the same way later Koine Greek users.

But you dismiss people like him as uninspired, even more so as an unbeliever---since he was likely a practicing pagan, wouldn't that make him even more so uninspired? Or do you think because he was a 'philosopher' that makes him better qualified to understand the meanings of words contained in the Scriptures? Since you view all people who translate the Scriptures as uninspired it stands to reason he would have nothing to offer of any interest, but perhaps I have mispoken on that.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
1Co 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.[b]
1Co 2:10 [b]But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Quote:I don’t agree with everything Origen said (e.g. pre-existence), however even many very anti-UR ministers I know, have a lot of respect for him, and from what I’ve read of his, I can understand why.

Will address this later

I Wrote:I’m actually wanting aionios to be translated more consistently & more literally, as opposed to the way it appears in many translations now.
The reason I said that was because people often accuse universalists of being inconsistent in their translation of aionios, that they make it temporary just for “bad” things & everlasting for “good” things.
I recommend people research aionios more thoroughly, going beyond reading a definition in a lexicon (not saying this is all you’re doing) and seeing how it’s used right across Koine Greek, because when I did, I found it had a broad semantic range, which allows EU.

I find your understanding rather odd. The point that you seem now to posit is that the word holds different meanings. That can't be a surprise Alex. IN every language words can have multiple meanings and context, tenses and so on dictate that meaning.

Alex, you know that in the Just kidding article I did show the various uses across the board, both for the ages, limited duration and for eternal God, eternal life and eternal punishment/judgment etc. You have just noted yourself that EU's are noted for liking to have the good being for eternity but the 'bad' for a short age or duration. Yet context shows, even in the same verse, that eternal life is the opposite of eternal/everlasting punishment. The same Greek word, the same inherited meaning.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

IGNT+ Mat 25:46 καιG2532 AND απελευσονταιG565 [G5695] SHALL GO AWAY ουτοιG3778 THESE ειςG1519 INTO κολασινG2851 PUNISHMENT αιωνιονG166 οιG3588 ETERNAL,
δεG1161 BUT THE δικαιοιG1342 RIGHTEOUS ειςG1519 INTO ζωηνG2222 LIFE αιωνιονG166 ETERNAL.

KJV+ Mat 25:46 AndG2532 theseG3778 shall go awayG565 intoG1519 everlastingG166 punishment:G2851 butG1161 theG3588 righteousG1342 intoG1519 lifeG2222 eternal.G166

G166
αἰώνιος
aiōnios
Thayer Definition:
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
Part of Speech: adjective

KJV Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

KJV+ Mar 3:29 ButG1161 heG3739 G302 that shall blasphemeG987 againstG1519 theG3588 HolyG40 GhostG4151 hathG2192 never forgiveness,G3756 G859 G1519 G165 butG235 isG2076 in dangerG1777 of eternalG166 damnation:G2920

IGNT+ Mar 3:29 οςG3739 δG1161 ανG302 BUT WHOSOEVER βλασφημησηG987 [G5661] SHALL BLASPHEME ειςG1519 AGAINST τοG3588 THE πνευμαG4151 SPIRIT τοG3588 THE αγιονG40 ουκG3756 HOLY, εχειG2192 [G5719] HAS NOT αφεσινG859 FORGIVENESS ειςG1519 τονG3588 TO αιωναG165 ETERNITY, αλλG235 BUT ενοχοςG1777 LIABLE TO εστινG2076 [G5748] IS αιωνιουG166 ETERNAL κρισεωςG2920 JUDGMENT;

And believe me, Alex, I use Strong's or Thayers or BDM and others, because that is something people can look up and often use. But that does not mean I don't research beyond what I post. Please, don't presume what you don't know about how I research.

Quote:I feel slightly hard done by here, as you told me to focus on my own understanding, to refrain for quoting, referencing, etc. yet now you criticise this as just my opinion... :-/

The point is Alex, you aren't basing your translation/word statements on your fluent knowledge of Greek, the original manuscripts or ability to translate them into English. It's your opinion that the sources you have chosen for your beliefs are accurate. That is what you have come to believe, but that doesn't mean those sources you've based your opinion on or to be in agreement with are correct. Do you see what I am saying?

Quote:I’m not trying to translate a Bible, I’m simply pointing out why some scholars & translators (of which I am neither) think aionios has been mistranslated in the most popular translations.

Now you have said it clearly what you are basing your opinions on and that's what I was looking for. Which are the most 'popular' translations being targeted for this claimed mistranslation error, Alex? Do you have a list, because as I noted before, KJV and other prior versions are based on different manuscripts than the modern versions. So which are the 'good guys' and which are bad guys?

Quote:So when you refer to scholars & translators it’s ok, but if I do the same I’m “merely parroting” - seriously Vic that’s insulting :-(

My apologies if you were offended. The point was, Alex, I defer to the translators because I believe God protected the very intent of His Word to be translated for all mankind. Hence, the belief that when I open God's Word, the Bible, I can trust that God has preserved the very essence of what He intended us to read in order to know Christ, and learn of how to live for Christ, are within those pages. Otherwise we are adrift in a sea of what ifs and everyone having their own doctrines. It is only by the Holy Spirit any can understand the Scriptures, which is why translating them should never be taken lightly or viewed as those engaged in that, to be taking that responsibility lightly. IN saying that, that belief over the years has allowed for those who are not of Christ to attempt to change the very intent and content of God's Word. Hence the importance of looking carefully at the versions, the source documents used for a translation and so on.

Quote:I’m also disappointed that you criticise me when I refer to uninspired writers, yet you do so yourself (e.g. with dictionaries, newspapers, etc.) & it comes across to me that you’re not acknowledging that you’re doing so?

Alex, we are in the world and surrounded by the things of the world. Being on the 'net, on a computer is utilizing those things of the world. Referring to a reported to story in a newspaper or elsewhere is hardly the source of doctrine for me. There is such a thing as what some call the science of linguistics and how to understand and translate from one language to another. That's why a person needs to understand all the issues surrounding a language in order to translate the language accurately into another. I have never referred to the Biblical translators of KJV for example as uninspired, and with the inference being then, as you have stated, that the words written/translated by them are uninspired, but rather I believe they have been protected by God for His purposes. Dictionaries are merely a compilation of a language and the known meanings of words, whether root words, original hitorical meanings and so on. I use them occassionally if I am just not sure about a meaning, but don't rely on them for my doctrine. That's an entirely different issue.

Quote:I don’t think any of our translations are perfect, but that doesn’t mean I must therefore hold the extreme opposite & think they’re all useless (I don’t even think the KJV is useless, I think it was very good at the time & still reasonable now).
I don’t think any books we have now are inspired/perfect, although I think some contain much more truth than others. As well as the Holy Spirit, God gave us the Church, brothers & sisters, we are meant to speak & listen to one another.

Actually God calls us to use His Word as the standard and test for all we believe. Jesus said by their fruit we shall know false prophets, and there are many verses warning about deceivers and deceptions. Just because someone says the name of Jesus does not mean they walk with Christ and provide sound doctrine. The proof comes by what they say, believe and teach as sound doctrine, and whether it can be found to stand the test of Scripture itself. Otherwise we can be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine thrown out by those who claim to be 'believers'. People write books, and they can be of Christ or not, just as face to face people are of Christ or not. Regarding books, Solomon had a lot to say:

Ecc 12:9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
Ecc 12:10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
Ecc 12:11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Quote:Similarly just because when the Holy Spirit helps both of us & we don’t instantly produce perfect, identical prose, doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit isn’t helping. i.e I think the Holy Spirit is helping the translators & making sure we have enough of it right. As far as I can tell, there is uncertainty, and that’s just what God intended so that we’d learn to trust Him.

Enough of it right, Alex? Then that leaves it wide open for people to determine which is 'the right' versus which is false and not truth. Which part of the Scriptures then are truth and which part false, Alex? Do you have a list that separates the Truth of God's Word from the False of God's word which can't be His Word then?

Perhaps Christ dying on the cross, and rising from the dead is false, because there's a large movement saying just that. They believe that He didn't rise from the grave, and they are scholars and claim to be Christians. I had people on this forum who claimed the 'lying scribes' of Jeremiah means all that was written from Genesis forward, all about Israel etc, was all false and not of God. So that eliminates the OT, Messianic prophecies and part of the NT...but wait, without Christ dying and rising from the dead, that eliminates the need of salvation.... read about that here and all the implications. And all these people claim to be 'believers'.> The 'lying scribes' of Jeremiah 8:8
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.p...ng+scribes

It's a very Slippery slope Alex, that you are on..

Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Jas 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Jas 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
Jas 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jn 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psa 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Quote:I don’t see any difficulty with either Jud 1:7 or 2Pe 3:1, as I believe we have many words spoken by Jesus, that almost everything that’s credited to Him in the NT is done so correctly.

"Almost" everything credited to Him is done so correctly? Wow. That's quite a statement.

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written,[b] that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Joh 21:24 [b]This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Joh 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Quote:In this latest post, you certainly sound like you view the KJV is inspired/perfect... How do you know which version of the KJV? What did people do before the KJV? If they already had inspired versions why don’t we still use them, if they didn’t, why do we need an inspired one? Do people of other languages also have inspired translations or do they need to refer to the KJV? I’m not trying to attack you, it’s just I’m confused by your comments. e.g. “incredibly lacking” isn’t far off “isn’t worth looking at”.

I view the KJV, and there are others also, as being the Word of God translated, protected and kept for us by God Himself, translated into languages all over the world, so the world might know of Christ and the Gospel. As I said before, I personally believe it's the best english translation. You have to keep in mind that they didn't have computers 'back then.' Everything was handwritten, and copyist mistakes were made and then corrected. Every version has had updates, because proof reading takes place and translation into other languages is not an easy undertaking. Before KJV there was the Geneva , etc....King James wanted a version put into the hands of the common people. Thankfully God is in control of what happens with His Words...He wants all to know of Christ as noted in the Scriptures above..so translating is required. That's why the NT was in Koine Greek, so that the gospel was spread with the common language of that time.

Jesus Himself said, "Mar 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Meaning it would to throughout all the world in the languages necessary for people to know of Christ. As I noted before, the difference in source manuscripts changes the translation for modern versions which all use the same source texts. But that's in another thread which I believe you have been reading and maybe posted to.

[Mary]

(07-06-2012 11:06 PM)Mary Wrote:  Hi Lois,

I appreciate the point you are trying to make but in light of your comments on the thread discussing Vic's article "will God say just kidding about hell" I find what you do in this post and what you say to be enormously hypocritical. :(

I would like to attempt to apologise for what may have seemed like a personal attack on you Lois... I am not calling you a hypocrite, just that in using other resources to make your point, I feel that to be an hypocritical act after chiding another for doing similar.

There are many times when people do behave arrogantly and attempt to destroy understanding and even faith, by bringing into question the way a word has been translated.

Our faith will always be tested - whether by intentional "anti-Christ's" or by those sincerely questioning and seeking answers, who may or may not be Christians. We Christians should remember that our faith is a gift from God
Eph2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith;" and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

and that
Rom 8: 38-39

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So if we feel our faith threatened by a difference of opinion, or understanding, we should trust God to bring us into understanding, and be bold in our trust. If we have access to resources, and we are challenged by someone's 'Greek' or otherwise questioning of translation why not look it up? If you become confused, leave it be, and keep reading His Word as you have been doing, with prayer and thinking about what you read. I trust that God will answer our questions in time. Consulting with other Christians about your questioning or a difficult passage or word, is a biblical thing to do:

see Exodus 18:17-24
and the example of Paul and Timothy for examples.

In 2 Timothy 2: 16 -18 Paul tells Timothy to shun vain and profane babblings and avoid foolish and unlearned questions. So if as a Christian, one feels they have come into contact with such babblings and questions - avoid them - i.e. don't bother with them. If you feel one feels urged to become involved then take Paul's other advice in 2Tim2 and:

"study to show (yourself)approved.... rightly dividing the word of God" ... and be "apt to teach"

vs 19:
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

Therefore I don't think that a blanket rejection of anyone who raises a question about a translation, or interpretation of a word or words or verse is a helpful or edifying response. Far better to just avoid - ignore- it or use it as an opportunity to grow in your own knowledge and understanding, and use it even as an opportunity to teach someone, who may be struggling to believe.

So, back to my apology, I also thought that as you are plainspeaking you would appreciate some plain speaking too. Sure the rebuke of a "friend" is painful, but it is also faithful. I regret if I have caused you pain, and I will try not to hurt you further.

As I said in my PM to you, Vic and Solo, I have some verses that feel would benefit from deeper understanding, even if through more knowledge of Greek or Hebrew - but I will post them in more appropriate threads.