Original languages necessary for study?

[Bakershalfdozen]

Um, exactly. Seminary students learn much Greek and Hebrew. We had a pastor who had 2 earned doctorates in N.T. Greek and he could read the Greek N.T. fluently and tell you what it meant, with tenses and all.

[Psalms18_28]

I don't know greek or hebrews :leaving

At least I can read KJV :lol

[Randy]

Um, exactly. Seminary students learn much Greek and Hebrew. We had a pastor who had 2 earned doctorates in N.T. Greek and he could read the Greek N.T. fluently and tell you what it meant, with tenses and all.

And it is at best a 'mechanical' knowledge, not a true language knowledge.

It is not possible to learn the actual language because there are no speakers of the language. The most knowledgable anyone can get in greek these days is the same way some people can speak latin. It is always a translation.

Why should I concern myself with what one person thinks a greek word should be when he is actually translating, the same as the KJB translators did?

I'll take 400 years of fruit over anyone breathing.

[Alen]

And it is at best a 'mechanical' knowledge, not a true language knowledge.

It is not possible to learn the actual language because there are no speakers of the language. The most knowledgeable anyone can get in Greek these days is the same way some people can speak Latin. It is always a translation.

You know that there are dramatic similarities between Koine Greek and Greek today? So it is not that hard to learn to speak it. The same goes with Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish. Those languages are descendants of Latin, so it is not hard to learn the accents, etc., of the languages. Learning to speak some dead languages like Koine Greek, Latin, and Hebrew is not a difficult job, and one can achieve fluency easily enough if they are dedicated to it.

A friend of mine learn Classical Greek, Ancient Greek and Koine Greek. He is fluent in all. Unfortunately he is an unbeliever, but nevertheless you place a NT in front of him, and he can translate on the fly and give you an explanation when the translation isn't perfect (as for the reasons I mentioned before, words not existed, tences not existing in English and so forth).

The same goes for Hebrew. The Hebrew spoken today is the same of that in the Bible, the resurrected the language at the founding of Israel after WW2.

So in ending with that point, if anyone wants to study those languages, they can achieve real fluency in the language, and be able to read, write and speak just like someone did many many many years ago

Why should I concern myself with what one person thinks a greek word should be when he is actually translating, the same as the KJB translators did?

I'll take 400 years of fruit over anyone breathing.

Well, that is, of course, they are translating the same as the KJV, you should hearken up though when there is meaning there that isn't displayed in the translation, which of course happens quite a bit, especially with the NT. In the end though, most people won't need to look in the original languages. We have what we need in the English translations and those in many other languages.

-Alen

[Randy]

you should hearken up though when their is meaning there that isn't displayed in the translation, which of course happens quite a bit, especially with the NT.

If someone comes up with meaning that isn't in the KJB, and isn't backed up elsewhere in scripture, then they are wrong. Period.

Applications from scripture are many - but there is only one meaning.

[Alen]

If someone comes up with meaning that isn't in the KJB, and isn't backed up elsewhere in scripture, then they are wrong. Period.

Applications from scripture are many - but there is only one meaning.

Well buddy, I hate to inform you, but your logic is messed up, you shouldn't be comparing the Greek with the KJV, you should compare the KJV with the Greek. The KJV is the translation, not the Greek, hence if there is an error, it's in the KJV.

This is your logic:

Since the KJV is the perfect word of God, if the languages it was TRANSLATED from differ, it's obviously the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES that has the issue.

You are making an assumption and going from there. Here is something that isn't an assumption: The original languages are the word of God. Hence, when a TRANSLATION differs, there is something wrong in the translation.

You can't base your logic on an assumption. It needs to be based on solid fact. Here is some solid facts repeated:

1. The Greek and Hebrew language is much more complex than English
2. There is many words that do not exist in English that appear in these languages.
3. There is tenses, and other things related to the languages that do not appear in English.
4. The KJV fails to translate all place names and people, as a result, meaning is lost, therefore KJV isn't 100% just from that.
5. Believing that a perfect translation can occur with these issues is delusional.

If you can explain away all this, I am more than willing to turn over to being KJO.

-Alen

[Randy]

Well buddy, I hate to inform you, but your logic is messed up. You shouldn't be comparing the Greek with the KJV; you should compare the KJV with the Greek. The KJV is the translation, not the Greek. Hence, if there is an error, it's in the KJV.

My logic is just fine, thank you.

God preserved the original languages through the KJB. Both KJB and Greek/Hebrew say the SAME thing. Anyone citing Greek to "correct" the KJB is wrong. Ditto for anyone attempting to fix the Greek from KJB.

You are making an assumption and going from there. Here is something that isn't an assumption: The original languages are the word of God. Hence, when a TRANSLATION differs, there is something wrong in the translation.

....

The KJV fails to translate all place names and people, as a result, meaning is lost, therefore KJV isn't 100% just from that.
Believing that a perfect translation can occur with these issues is delusional.

Unfortunately, your assumption is that God did not preserve His word. Mine is that he did.

[Alen]

Err, no your logic is not fine, it's never the original languages fault if the translation is not in order.

Unfortunately, your assumption is that God did not preserve His word. Mine is that he did.

No, I do believe God has preserved His word, your assumption is it is in the KJV. However I believe God has preserved His word in the Greek and Hebrew. I believe that any faithful translation of this is the word of God. To tell me though that the English is perfect, when it is not, is delusional, and without substance, it is no different than if you were to believe Adam and Eve were 20 feet tall, rainbow colored, and could fly

-Alen

[kevinmiller]

If someone comes up with meaning that isn't in the KJB, and isn't backed up elsewhere in scripture, then they are wrong. Period.

Applications from scripture are many - but there is only one meaning.

You'll never win an argument like that. :wink

[chev1958]

To tell me though that the English is perfect, when it is not, is delusional, and without substance,

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that God gave English speakers an imperfect Scripture. Is that correct?

Mitch

[dwayner79]

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that God gave English speakers an imperfect Scripture. Is that correct?

Mitch

Mitch, I realize this was not directed to me, but I will answer from my POV.

Where does it say that God will give English speaking people a Bible?

God has preserved His Word. Any translation to any other language is less then perfect. "Traduttore, traditore." So the wording of your post (which sounds bad) is not really a fair question.


Oh and Randy,

My logic is just fine, thank you.

Seriously, its not. There is nothing logical about your argument. You position is one of faith. I would call it blind faith. It is a perfectly reasonable belief to have (well, sorta), but you can't say that it is logical. It is something that you are taking on faith alone. There are plenty of things in the Christian life that we are to take on faith alone, but this one is extra-biblical. If God said, "I will preserve my word in English 1600 years from now." then I would take it on faith that He did. Unfortunately, he did not. So you logic is flawed, but your position is not built on logic.

[kevinmiller]

Seriously, its not. There is nothing logical about your argument. You position is one of faith. I would call it blind faith. It is a perfectly reasonable belief to have (well, sorta), but you can't say that it is logical. It is something that you are taking on faith alone. There are plenty of things in the Christian life that we are to take on faith alone, but this one is extra-biblical. If God said, "I will preserve my word in English 1600 years from now." then I would take it on faith that He did. Unfortunately, he did not. So you logic is flawed, but your position is not built on logic.

:goodpost:

[Alen]

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that God gave English speakers an imperfect Scripture. Is that correct?

Mitch

I agree pretty much with what Dwayne has said. God has preserved his word remarkably, there is thousands of languages here on Earth, people have translated scripture into almost all of them. Tell me Mitch, where is their perfect Bible? Oh wait, that's a privilege only an English speaking person has. Most KJV wouldn't say that though, they'll try and dodge the question or say "God never promised He'll preserve His word in more than one language".

It's a shame really, the KJO crowd limit God's power to only having a Bible 1 language, in 1 translation. My God is one that has the Bible in thousands of languages, and thousands of translations.

-Alen

[kevinmiller]

Nice posting Alen. Though I don't think Mitch was defending radical KJO theology.

[Alen]

I am not familiar with any other type of theology in the KJO crowd But at the same time, I did not mean to sound accusatory.

-Alen