Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Seventeenth Century Language Message-ID:Date: 29 Sep 89 07:25:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 105 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu > Don't forget Aramaic. Actually, Aramaic is very close to biblical Hebrew (at least the form present today). Hebrew and Aramaic is oftentimes taught together. > The moderator comments: >>In my experience, when people start referring to the >>Greek, there's a good chance it's because they're trying to sell a >>theory that isn't accepted by most scholars. It's a sure way to end a >>discussion: "It says here in the Bible ..." "But according to Pastor >>X, the word translated as day really means night". What can you say? Actually, I don't find this to always be the case. Oftentimes, they are trying to make a point which is debated between different denominations. > My experience agrees with the moderator's, and > to take it a step farther, I don't think I have ever heard a compelling > argument based on the Greek that could not be made in English as well. Probably the most compelling reason here is areas where the Greek and English vary in the ability to convey an idea. For instance, Greek also has the "perfect tense" (english does not). Also, Greek does not have the "indefinite article" (english does). For the first point, english has "past tense" (e.g. "he was here"), "present tense" (e.g. "he is here") and "future tense" (e.g. "he will be here"). Greek has the "perfect tense" which implies always was, is, and will be (an important concept in describing God). There is a certain amount of tradeoff a translator must make when translating the "perfect tense"; between exactly conveying the tense verses making the translation easy to read. The second point is the center of the John 1:1 controversy. Greek has no "indefinite article" (e.g. "the Word was a god"). It does have "definite article" (e.g. "the Word was God") as well as "no article" (e.g. "the Word was God). > The other example I thought of is in regard to John 1:1, which > some have said should read "the word was a god" rather than "the > word was God." Well, I know enough Greek to respond to that, but > it seems much simpler to say that if there is only one God, and the > word was a god, then the word must be that one God. Again, the problem you've conveyed here is that in saying "there is only one God" you are implying "the God" (at least that what capital God usually means). There are other "gods"; this is quite evident from Exodus (among others): EXO 12:12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn--both men and animals--and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. EXO 15:11 "Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you-- majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? EXO 18:11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." I should point out (which should be evident from my previous postings) that I do believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead; my previous posting simply indicated that John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine); there are others which I believe unquestionably imply Trinitarism. I do believe Greek and Hebrew are valuable; just as learning learning French helps you read French poetry. Something is always lost in Translations. The Bible is valued, not only for its authenticity, but also its poetic value. Most translations need to compromise one or the other (usually some of both). The importance of the poetic value can't be underestimated; it served as part of the weighting when deciding which books should be included in the Canons of Scripture. A translation leaves you one step away, just as a paraphrase leave you further and a commentary, even further. I do not believe that learning Greek and Hebrew is for everybody (I'm still debating whether to learn it fluently myself). I do think its important for those who are trying to justify theology (especially controversial theology) within their own minds. But then, as I've always contended, I'm not sure how much "theology" God intended us to learn; Paul states: 1CO 13:9-10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 1CO 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. and Peter gives: 2PE 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. With that, I believe that much theology (especially those which are contro- versial) simply becomes "man's best guess"; things which should not divide the body of Christ. In Him; James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!uunet!tektronix!amadeus.WR.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.WR.TEK.COM