Looking at the Greek

I was just wondering for those that make it a habit of looking at the greek and hebrew, what are the dangers of doing this if there are any?

I know a guy that is all about the greek and hebrew but sometimes its like that is all he focuses on and I know he know the meaning of the text but talking to him about the bible is rough because he always has a quiz me on the original language and bring out something completely random about the verse rather than taking it at face value.

I know that many like to study the greek and hebrew but is there a point where its just goes too far?

I have used the greek to understand many words to the youth group that help explain the English word better, like the word Repentance in the greek is Metanoya which means literally a Change of Mind.

Sorry just thought I would ask, if you were in the same situation what would you do?

The danger is it can develop conceitedness, arrogance, contentiousness or egotistic attitude as well vain and endless discourses.

At times I also refer to greek or hebrew origin of the words or verses in the bible for myself and for the congregation.

It helps but I will not be obsessed by them since I am not a bible scholar or has been assigned to jobs that require an expertise in those areas.

If I can comprehend them in a flash why not, but I am neither gifted with this ability, and I have rather other things to do.

As passerby indicated, the problem isn't the greek or Hebrew. I know a man who is fluent in both, and although he can lecture effortlessly on the subject, he can also teach children the sciptures with the simplicity of a child himself.

So I don't think the problem is with the original languages. More then likely the problem is with the original sin;)

Blessings,

MC

I think the problem happens when someone thinks that just because they can use e-Sword they are all of a sudden an expert in the original languages. We have good, faithful, literal English translations of the Bible. In the vast majority of cases, the English translation is sufficient to understand the verse.

I have to agree with all the comments so far. I use the Strongs at times to better understand passages that are confusing, or difficult for me. But this is the bottom line for me:

1Cr 2:1 ¶ And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

I thank God for humble, godly men that have searched out the meaning of the text for me to glean from. Two of my favorites are Keven Conner of Australia, and Art Katz, who recently went to be with the Lord.

The danger in my opinion of what you have asked is the purpose behind it. Do they search for understanding, and to allow it to impact and change their lives, or do the search it to debate and dispute with. I have known both types, those who are hungry for truth, and those who want to appear knowledgeable and intelligent. Both have their rewards.

I know a man who is fluent in both, and although he can lecture effortlessly on the subject, he can also teach children the sciptures with the simplicity of a child himself.

I think R.C. Sproul was a man like this. He preferred to teach children in Sunday School. If I recall he said children are more teachable then adults!

I agree with the comments made thus far in this thread..

In discussing the Scriptures with JWs some would 'use' the Greek to intimidate you with their superior knowledge of the WORD. I took that bait and tried hard to understand some Hebrew and Greek terms. It got frustrating, so I quit. I no longer do this - much. But what I do is stick with the English because we all understand it and if disagreements still exist, they just do - they are too deceived to see any other viewpoint. To use the Greek to convince them - or anyone else - is usually futile.

My opinion...

I'm far from an expert in Greek, having only studied it for about 1 1/2 years in seminary. From my exposure to it, I would say that while a knowledge of Greek is helpful, one can still have an outstanding knowledge of the Word without it. Even with my knowledge, I seldom consult it except when doing word studies, or reading some of the more detailed academic commentaries, which sometimes bring up translation issues.

Some of the more literal translations of Scripture, such as the NASB, do such an outstanding job at translating, that a knowledge of Greek isn't going to be overly helpful. Truth of the matter is, most of the time I've translated things from Greek to English, I found that my translation pretty much agreed with the NASB. So I thought it kinda pointless to re-invent the wheel when I already had what was clearly a high caliber translation before me. A knowledge of Greek sometimes helps a difficult to read verse a little more clear though, usually because you can see the grammatical structure of things a little more clearly, and can determine which words are modifying which words, etc.

I would agree with Compton though, the biggest problem with this area is the issue of original sin. Some Greek scholars/teachers are very impressed with their knowledge of Greek, and aren't afraid to show you they are. Truth of the matter is, knowing the original languages while very helpful, is not essential to one's study of the word.

I do find it helpful at times to better understand a word that isn't real clear. Like this morning I was studying 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 and the word disorderly sparked my interest. What does that word mean in this context, here is what I found:

1) disorderly, out of ranks (often so of soldiers)

2) irregular, inordinate, immoderate pleasures

3) deviating from the prescribed order or rule

This word was used in Greek society of those who did not show up for work.

1) to put in order, to station

a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint

1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one

b) to appoint, ordain, order

1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority

2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

AV — unruly 1

It would seem that those who do not work are disorderly and should not eat if he refused to work. Hmmm

This in the Greek did help me to understand a bit more what this was refering to. It is a great study help, but worthless if you are trying to exalt yourself by it.

By the way most of the time I use the Blue Letter Bible to search verses and words, it is much faster.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm

The NASB says "the only begotten God" in John 1:18. The difference in translation has to do with a textual variant, of which the NASB and KJV use a slightly different text. But that's an issue for the textual critics to sort out.

Perhaps I can help you understand.

There are about 5,000 different manuscripts that the Greek NT is based on. Of these manuscripts that were hand copied, there is great agreement. But because they were hand copied there are some areas that disagree. Where these texts disagree we say these disagreements are "variants." The KJV translators used an underlying Greek text that slightly differed with NASB translators. John 1:18 has four differences in the wording on this verse, and thus you get some differing translation. I personally think the NASB got it right here. But I could be wrong. The theology of the two here is the same though. The only begotten God is the Son of God.

Hope that helps.

I am sorry, but I am not a lawyer...I can't "parse" words.

I'm not a lawyer either. I'm not asking you to parse words either.

Calling Jesus Christ "a begotten God" is a Heresy! I understand that, I wondered if you did.

Notice, I never used the word "a" begotten God. "A" begotten God would definitely be heresy, implying a plurality of gods. But the text does not say that. It says "the" only begotten God. "A" is different than "the." Jesus Christ is "the" begotten God, that is, He is God made flesh in His incarnation, as the second member of the Trinity. Having translated John 1 in my studies, I can strongly denounce and do strongly denounce the Jehovah Witnesses version of the text. It is in no way supported, and shows only that they come to the text ignorant and with an agenda.

When we approach such studies, we should try to do so as objectively as possible, and without an agenda.

I understand your position, however if your position agrees with a JW for whatever reason I'd change it.

Brother, I don't really care if this verse agrees with the Jehovah Witnesses version of the Bible or not. I never read or consult their work. I imagine there is a great deal of their edition of the Scriptures that agrees with many other verses in the Bible. You'll find the same with the Mormon version of the KJV of the Bible. That doesn't prove anything other than there is similarity.

Even should a verse agree with their versions, just because they twist a verse to mean whatever they want it to mean, that doesn't mean it has the meaning that they give to it. "The only begotten God" is a textual variant that has strong support in many ancient Greek manuscripts. Not only that, but "the only begotten God" has historically been used to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, especially against Arianism, of which Jehovah Witnesses are theologically in agreement from what I understand of them.

The language, the only begotten God, is 100% historical and Christian. And it is far from being vague and evasive. It is very precise language. And I like that, because I don't deal in vague or evasive language. I simply do not have the time to be vague. But if for some reason you find something I say vague, please ask for a more precise definition, and I will labor to come up with one whenever possible.

As it is, I'm not really sure what brought all this discussion on, other than having briefly visited your website, you come across as KJV-only, and I personally suspect you are on a smear campaign against modern translations on these forums. I could be wrong though, and correct me if I am. But if such is your intent, I would encourage you to reconsider doing such, as the topic has been beaten to death many times over from people who are very hardcore about that belief.

And on a more personally note, if you are truly KJV-only, I would encourage you to seek the Lord and repent of such a belief. While the KJV is an excellent translation, the KJV-only stance is not part of the apostolic Christian faith. You can't even use a KJV to prove the doctrine of KJV-only. Such is an extra-Biblical teaching, and in my humble opinion, is heresy.