A BIT O' HISTORY
In the time of Jesus, there were liberals and conservatives, too. The Sadducees believed only in the material world. No spirit world, no afterlife, no resurrection. The Pharisees believed in all that Hebrew Bible had to say about the afterlife, resurrection, angels, and the spirit world. But then they went further. Not only did they believe in the Hebrew Bible, they also believed in the Oral Torah. Oral Torah was a set of oral traditions. The Hebrew Bible was the Written Torah. The Sadducees were idealogical descendants of the famous priest of Daviddic times, Zadok. They were aristocratic and wealthy. The Pharisees appealed to the lower classes, the every day man. Their name told you what they were about. It meant those who practiced holiness, those who separated themselves.(1) They were very like the theological conservatives of today. The Sadduces called themselves Israelites who loved the Torah, but felt free to pick and choose the Torah doctrines they wished to believe. They are like today's liberals.
AND TODAY?
Fast forward to today and visit the issue of Bible translations. On the one hand, we have those who have almost no regard for the sanctity of Scripture. The most important thing in translation philosophy to these folks is whether or not some folks like the translation. The big issue these days is gender. Instead of simply translating the Scripture in a straightforward and honest way, translators are sometimes actually instructed to shade the text to make it seem that men and women have the same role or that God is just as feminine as masculine.(2) They call this "gender neutral" translation. This is a lie.
More conservative folks believe the Scripture is inviolable, sacred. Translation is to be as literal as possible, as accurate to the text as possible. This much is good. Some however, like the Pharisees, add to Scripture. The Pharisees added the Oral Torah to the Written Torah, the Hebrew Bible. Some conservatives go beyond holding to a standard of straightforward, accurate translation without agenda. They have decided that a traditional translation is the only translation that can be used by real Christians. They have added their tradition to Scripture.
CHOICES YESTERDAY AND TODAY
So which of these two groups is closer to the truth? Neither is really biblical. One discards biblical ethics regarding the Scripture. The other honors the inviolability of Scripture. They just add a specific rule about exactly which translation to use and insist we all agree it's better than all others. It, in fact, is the Word of God in English, in their view..
Being a conservative Christian who affirms the inerrancy, sufficiency, necessity, and practical value of Scripture, I have long held a sympathy for the King James Only movement. I don't agree with them. I thought that they are trying to preserve the truth, but in a ham-handed way.
I WAS WRONG
Here's how I decided that. It took two definite steps.
The first step was biblical and logical. Biblically, it's evident in both Testaments that God disapproves of those who add to the rules and laws God has already placed on His people, just as much as those who discard part or all of them. Logically, if the answer to a math problem is missed, does it matter that my wrong answer was too high or too low? In most cases, no. And if God gives ten commandments, is it better to keep only eight or to keep all ten and add two of my own? Both disregard God's commandments. One says God is too harsh. The other says He's not harsh enough. Don't both implicitly criticize God?
For the last several years these thoughts have been rolling in my bald head and I can't find a way to excuse one while condemning the other. Indeed, in Deuteronomy 4 adding to God's words is condemned right along with taking some away. Both are wrong. Jesus, in Mark 7, confronted the Pharisees about the unbiblical requirement to baptize one's hands. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees hated Him. Romans 14 and Galatians both prohibit adding rules that aren't biblical.
A GREAT IRONY AND AN AWFUL DANGER
There's a great irony in the King James Only Movement. While they see themselves as preserving the Scripture, they aren't. They don't have all that much to do with the Scripture. Their rules actually prohibit them from studying the Scriptures, or at least from studying it well. For most of them, studying the languages isn't necessary. The KJV is inerrant and totally accurate, they say. This leads to a radical laziness. Biblical scholarship is limited to the study of the KJV. They steadfastly refuse to lift an finger to learn the languages so they can do proper exegesis. Further, in my experience most KJVO pastors simply aren't intellectually equipped to learn the languages. This, too, is sin. The leadership is to be made of men able to teach. And, yes, the KJV says so--II Timothy 2:22-24. Their pastors are mostly ignorant of the Scripture they say they are preserving and honoring. In my experience most don't even know the KJV all that well. I recently asked a KJVOer what he knew about the Divine Name. His answer had to do with "theos", the Greek word for God. He didn't even know the Divine Name. It's in the KJV, just like all good translations and "theos" isn't it.
How can purposeful ignorance be worship and obedience of the God of truth?
The King James Only Movement is a microcosm of something hideous in conservative Protestantism. This serpantine monster is a modern Phariseeism, the hubris that sneaks into a life or a group and adds rules God hasn't given us as if He'd forgotten them. This monster is dangerous. It can send you to hell while convincing you you're more righteous than anyone you know.
Conservatism is a term that tells you just what it is. Whether it's in politics, religion, or one's personal finances, it's an effort to conserve something valuable. It's a good thing.
That is, unless the thing conserved isn't all that valuable. And what if it's downright harmful or evil? That kind of conservativism has no place in the life of one who wishes to follow Christ. There is only one thing a Christian is to preserve, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nothing else. Pharisees add things.
It's easy to point out that the liberals are lying to us. They claim to be Christian, but deny the very doctrines of Scripture that have defined Christianity for 2000 years. It's a no brainer.
But can a good conservative be lying? Surely one intent on preserving truth and all the doctrines that make real Christianity can't be dishonest. Perhaps they are mistaken.Well, how did Christ deal with the Pharisees? Did He try to correct their mistakes or did He call them sinful? He called them sinful. The King James Only Movement is a sinful movement, just like the liberal movement along with their so-called gender neutral movement. Both are lying and both are liars. The KJVOers are no better than those twisting the Scripture to make gender points. The liberals want to discard God's commandments about the inviolability and sanctity of Scripture. The KJVOers keep those commandments and then add a few. You have to read only the KJV and you have to affirm the inerrancy of that translation. And with some you have to affirm the inerrancy of the underlying Greek text of the KJV New Testament, the Textus Receptus. None of these rules are in Scripture.
RIGHT UP TO DATE--THE SECOND STEP
Recent experience has confirmed what the Scripture says in regard to the danger in a godless, unbiblical conservatism, a conservatism of white knuckles and black souls. There is no such thing as a separation between our theology and our conduct. Creeds are deeds and deeds are the natural fruits of our creeds, Rick Warren not withstanding. Romans 12:2. KJVOers hold to a false doctrine. Can they hold to a lie and not be liars as I had once thought?
Not that long ago, right here on this blog a liberal named Frank Turk lied. He pretended to know the languages. He was defending gender-altered translations. This isn't surprising. Liberals lie. However, in the last few days, I've interacted on Facebook with a few KJVOers. They were calling anyone who uses other translations things like heretic and corrupt and accused me of denying the deity of Christ. One pretended to know all about textual criticism and actively plagiarized other websites, posting entire paragraphs as if he'd written them. Another pretended to know Hebrew. Yes, they lied and they lied a lot and they didn't seem embarrassed when I caught them. AND they didn't see the irony of lying in defense of truth.
Proverbs says this about those who add rules in addition to those given:
Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar--Proverbs, chapter 30, verse 6. In other words, adders are liars.
I'm a slow learner.
Be holy,
Phil Perkins.
(1) Johnson, Paul; A History of the Jews; Harper and Rowe; New York; 1987; pp. 100-109.
(2) Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version; Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, TN; in the "To the Reader" section.
Posts
28 comments:
Seems you know something about the languages of the Bible. But I'd like to know if you are really a scholar of the original languages. Isn't it true that they are not used anymore and that they are a lot different from modern Hebrew or Greek ?
I don't believe simply learning modern Hebrew or modern Greek and reading their modern translations really puts one above anyone who studies them in other translations. They are all translations.. aren't they ?
Unless one is a scholar of the ancient original language of the Bible he is not much different from a theologian who studies them in English, French or German translations. After all a student of modern Greek or Hebrew would also need a dictionary and a concordance just like everyone else.. :) What say you ?
Dear Anonymous,
I don't usually publish anonymous comments, but your questions are worth answering for a number of reasons.
If I understand you correctly, you have five main points.
1. The original languages are different from modern Greek and Hebrew.
I don't know modern Greek, so if you wish to pursue that issue you may wish to contact another Phil. He has a blog on my blog roll, called Theology Today. He lives in Greece and he can tell you the similarities and differences. I believe he teaches biblical Greek. I would expect those two languages to be very different because languages change ovedr time.
Modern Hebrew is very much like Classical Hebrew. The grammar is identical with few exceptions and many new words have been added to relfect modern things like autos, computers, and such. The reason Hebrew has not changed is that no one spoke it since biblical times. When the Hebrews were scattered, they went to foreign lands and took the new languages.
Today, when a Jew returns to the land of Israel, he/she learns Hebrew as a second language. A wonderful man, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, took the time and spent the effort to adapt biblical Hebrew by adding modern vocab and teach it to as many folks as possible. Read about this bit of History here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_yehuda.html
So folks who know Modern Hebrew can read Hebrew Bible with little difficulty.
2. No one, including myself, really reads the original.
I have no idea who has told you this sort of thing, but there are schools in every state of the US teaching both languages. Hundreds. Most aren't very good, but some are. I taught for five years and am now starting my own school.
3. All we have is translations.
No, while we don't have the original pieces of material, we have literally thousands of copies called manuscripts. These are compared for copying mistakes and compiled into Greek and Hebrew texts of either the New Testament or Old Testament. This process is called textual criticism. These texts are what we who know the languages read, not translations.
4. You can know as much about the Bible by reading it in English.
No, not even close. Until the last 150 years or so, it wasn't considered acceptable to prepare a sermon from a translation in Protestant churches. Catholic churches were different. Much like the King James Only folks they believed in using only one translation, the Latin Vulgate. That's why Catholic services were only in Latin until the middle of last century. Just like the KJVOers, Catholics at one time said you could only read one translation. All others were corrupt and they one approved translation was perfect, never to be doubted.
As the clergy became less biblically anchored, biblical scholarship was abandoned. Until, today, it's acceptable to be a pastor/teacher without learning the languages. In viotion of Scripture, we've become lazy.
If someone says you can be just as accurate by using a translation, that one probably has never known a second language. The differences between languages go far beyond vocabulary. And even in vocabulary you can't ever find two languages with a 1-1 correspondence between their vocabularies.
(continued in next comment)
Anonymous, (continued)
5. Greek and Hebrew scholars have little or no advantage over what a layman can find with a dictionary and concordance, in your opinion if I've got you right.
Concordances and lexicons are great aids essential to sholars and layman alike. They are tools for word studies. HOWEVER, doing word studies alone is like being a math student that only knows how to add. The math student who can only add can't solve a subtraction problem, a multiplication problem, or a division.
For instance, the Greek words for "if" (there are more than one) mean different things depending on the syntax of the sentence. They can mean "since" or "since...not" or "if possibly". You can't tell which one it is if all you have is word studies and many English translations don't reflect the differences.
The same is true in English. Read this:"To car house Jack Mary Fred of drove and the the." You can look up every word in that sentence and you still can't tell exactly what I meant. Why? I didn't follow English grammar and syntax rules. And because Greek is a deflected language you won't even be able to identify the words because of the forms involved. The same is true of the Hebrew verb.
You have to know more than the words. You have to know the language.
I'd like also to address one remark you made. You said, "I don't believe simply learning modern Hebrew or modern Greek and reading their modern translations really puts one above anyone who studies them in other translations."
I've already answered the idea that biblical scholars read only translations. What concerns me here is the idea of competition or comparison. You used the term "over". The idea of competition isn't appropriate in the assembly. Teachers are to be few and good ones are to be honored.
Lastly, my rules are stated clearly. Anonymity isn't allowed. There's no legitimate reason for deception.
Next time please tell us who you are or I will enforce this very reasonable rule.
Phil.
Thanks for an insightful answer.
The illustration on grammar and syntax rules was enlightening. I assure you you need not be
concerned over the idea of competition or comparison. I just wanted facts.
Actually the point of all these is about defending the Bible. I have a little argument with a senior
pastor who claims that Luke was wrong in writing Publius Sulpius Quirinius was the ruler of Syria
at the time when Christ was born [Luke 2:2]. As you will understand, what he's actually implying is
that the Bible contains errors. I have done a little research and am convinced that I'll be able to refute
him.
A few days back came I came across an article which could possibly aid me and the reason I came to
this blog is because this article concerns translation. The author of this article claims that the fourth
century Greek version of the Codex Siniaticus has a different word order than what we have in our
modern translations of Luke 2:2.
" Haute apographo egeneto prote hegemoneuontos tas surias kureniou." -- Codex Siniaticus
He says this could be translated " This registration took place first (or "before") the governing of Syria
by Quirinius " thus using the comparative form (in this case- before) of the word 'protos [prote]'instead
of first. This is why I want to hear from a scholar who actually knows the original language and not a
theologian who learns a few Greek words in Bible school and pretends to be able to interpret the NT
when he actually doesn't even remember 10 words without consulting a concordance and a dictionary !!
LOL ...
I am hoping you can shed some light on this and also please pardon my anonymity as I have my reasons at present. [ I pride myself in following what I'm taught.. A student of Modern Integrated Apologetics should primarily use the net for learning and post only on moderated blogs and should take care not to reveal his identity in order to avoid unnecessary mental disturbance and hurt].
Anonymous,
Sorry about this, but I don't have the time to give a proper answer this evening. Will get to you tomorrow.
Phil.
Ok.. thanks Mr. Perkins.
If its not asking too much, I'd like to know if you are a pre-millennial dispensationalist. And if you are not I'd very much like to hear your interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. Putting aside all the arguable doctrines, how would you translate the passage in question?
Anonymous,
I may regret writing some of this. Keep in mind I've not had much time to peak at this. And you actually made me break out my syntax book.
If your article is right about the different word order, the only possible meaning is that the census was prior to the rule of Q.
The most likely reading of this is that it was was the first census under the rule of Q. However, protos (lexical form) can mean prior to. We have a gentive absolute to describe the rule of Q and that usually indicates circumstance having to do with time.
So, at first look, I'd do the traditional translation--the first census during the rule of Q. And I base that on the traditional word order--the adj. prote directly follows the noun it modifies, the census. BUT that's not absolute. It could be prior to the coming of the circumstance of the rule of Q even with the traditionally accepted Greek word order. Young goes this way. So it's not out of the question.
With the generally accepted word order, the traditional reading is most likely, but the convoluted language Luke makes the prior to translation possible.
The Greek word order suggested in the artice reverses "egeneto" and "prote". That makes Young's translation (the one suggested in the article) absolutely the only reading in my opinion. More work may change my mind, but I don't think so.
At very worst, we're stuck with the traditional word order in Greek. That means we have two possibilities. Your antagonist is hanging his whole on a likely understanding, not a shut and closed case. And he has to assume the secular history is correct, something that occassionally needs revision, too. And if the article has turned up a better Greek reading, then your pastor friend has no case at all.
BUT here's the real issue. If you're dealing with a pastor who doesn't have absolute confidence in the Scripture, you're dealing with a man unfit to be in the pulpit. Or in the church.
If he's your pastor, I'd bring him up to the elder board and question him there or take a couple elders with you and question him in their presence. If he's really not holding to inerrancy, he should be fired and excommunicated until or unless he repents. He probably isn't a believer.
If the elders won't back you up, you're in a sinful church and you need to decide what to do about that. You will probably end up leaving.
Sorry for the bad news, but your biggest problem isn't a matter of textual criticism or translation, but an apostate pastor.
Phil.
Anonymous--I forgot to apologize for the delay.
Phil.
Stu said...
Thank you very much Sir.. and there's no need for the apology at all. Actually the response came sooner than I expected seeing its a rather complicated issue we're dealing with.
This Pastor is now retired but is still very prominent and influential because he is one the few theologians here who studied hebrew. The sad part is that I've always thought that Presbyterian Pastors are conservatives who hold to the inerrancy dogma...
I'd appreciate it very much if you could spare the time to respond to my question on Daniel as well.
Thanks in advance.
Stu
Stu,
I love interacting with someone serious about Scripture and following it. Will get to your other questions later today. Yesterday I was shoveling snow most of the day. We own a laundromat and when the weather demands I have to do what I have to do.
I wasn't sure if "Stu" and "Anonymous" were the same.
As to Presbyterians being straight, no. They have broken up into a number of denominations. As one goes liberal, real believers come out and form a new denomination, just like all the other groups. Some are great others aren't.
The first Fundamentalists were straight Presbyterians fighting liberalism coming out of Princeton, a Presbyterian school.
If you wish to read a little history, Roland McCune has written a great history of the decline of Evangelicalism in America during the 1900's called Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. It's a good book, documented well, and written in a matter-of-fact way. But it's really shocking to see just how much folks in the pew have been lied to.
Biblically, if your retired pastor friend actually doesn't believe the Scripture, he shouldn't be tolerated in the church even as a member. That has been the practice of God's people since the time of Moses, and I call it corporate holiness or separation. In the early to mid 1900's there was a split in conservative Protestantism. Those who held to corporate holiness began to be seen as too harsh by many in conservative churches. As a result a new movement was started by men like Carl Henry and Billy Graham and institutions like Fuller Theology Seminary and Christianity Today.
New Evangelicalism wanted to hold to all the fundalmentalism, but allow unorthodox members and leaders to be in their ranks. Supposedly this warm-and-fuzzy strategy would help folks see that we Christians weren't so bad and maybe they'd like us. This whole episode was just the Down Grade Controversy that Spurgeon fought and lost.
Two problems with this strategy:
1. It doesn't work. The strategy of denying your core beliefs never make you friends. To your face, your enemies will be nice to you, but they actually respect you less. And anyway, who do they like--you or the you you're pretending to like? It's just cowardice, sanctified by and unbiblical "LUUUUV".
2. It's sin. Failure to separate from false teachers and those who hold to false teaching, leader or layman, is expressly and repeatedly condemned in Scripture. Rev.2, Deut. 13, Joshua, I Cor. 5, Jude, II John 10--11, etc.
That's why you must leave that church if they fail to get rid of that pastor. Don't do anything hasty. Make sure he actually doesn't believe inerrancy. Then do what you gotta do.
Be holy and pray that I am, too,
Phil.
Thanks again for the advice.
I agree that denying one's core beliefs and being tolerant with erroneous teachings [even the smallest ones] never really bear good fruit. I think it's one of the reasons why Christianity is in such a sorry state today. It's just as Paul prophesied Acts 20:29-31 ; 1Tim 4:1-2
That's why McCune called it a failed strategy. The enemies of Christ are still the enemies of Christ. It's just that a lot of them are now called Evangelicals.
I was a young man in the 70's and 80's, just when this idea started having its full effect down at the level of the local church. We felt great about it. We thought we were so much more loving than our parents. We were arrogant idiots. We needed to be slapped.
It was about that time that we decided "fear" God really meant to respect Him and that love was His highest and most important attribute. The old guys taught that God's highest attribute, the attribute that governed all others was His holiness. Evidently all those wonderful preachers and theologians weren't nearly as smart as we who couldn't even recite the 10 cimmandments were.
We were smarter.
I had to laugh at what you said about the little boys that take a bit of Greek in Bible school and then pretend to be students of Scripture. They are the ones who did all the sermons on "agape" love. They didn't even know what the word meant.
But the agape love sermons were so popular that all the preacher boys copied each other. One would give a sermon on agape love and all the girls and little old ladies would cry and just flip out. Then the next preacher, lo and behold, would just happen to run across the same Greek word and decide to give a sermon on it. And it just happened that all the little old ladies and effeminate men in his church would think their pastor had just discovered something new.
Arrogance dressed up as humble love. Ignorance feigning studied scholarship. Liars who didn't even know they were lying, posing as guardians of truth.
Today's church is the product of what happened then. And THAT is why so many of the things you see today are the way they are.
Anyway you gave me another assignment, didn't you?
Phil.
Yes .. I believe I did.. lol
This is one of the things I like about God's Kingdom ... we get to order the biggies around :)
Your assignment : Daniel 9:24-27
and if you don't collapse, Daniel 8:14 is another problem for me. Does the Hebrew imply 2300 days or 1150 days ?
Stu,
You can skip the sirs and misters. My name is Phil. I appreciate the respect, but read Matthew 23.
In answer to your questions about the seventy weeks of Daniel and my disposition toward dispensationalism, I'm not a dispensationalist. It's a recent template placed upon biblical history and largely ignores the natural scheme already included in Scripture. That scheme is the flow of the covenants. I occassionally use the term "dispensation" just to keep my covenantal friends awake, but any differences between the dispensations or natural periods of God's dealing with man are the result of the passing and establishing of the covenants. And I don't fit with the traditional conventalists, either. Amillennialism is, I believe, really the result of historical anti-semitism, not biblical scholarship. The prophets speak way too much about the Messiah coming to reign over all the nations from Jerusalem for it to be allegorical.
This has important implications for lots of doctrines. For instance, if you're a Gentile believer, you're not better than the Jews. You're the redheaded stepchild, not the Jews. Romans 9-11. We're grafted into the Jews. And the "church" is really God's extension of the ancient assembly of the Hebrews.
I'm currently pretrib in the sense that Christ will, I believe, come before the start of the millennium reign. However, I will never separate from nor argue with one who has another view, unless it's really crazy.
Specifically, I believe that there are different elements in the 70 weeks passage. For one thing the Messiah being cut off is a Hebrew way of predicting His death, but on the other hand we see that the passage speaks of filling of the cup of iniquity. The COI refers to the fact that God has sovereignly preordain all sins, who will commit them and when this will be completed. All sin will be accomplished and not one more sin will be committed. This is true for individuals, groups, and the entire word. No unbeliever will die until their evil work is completed.
Interestingly, this passage is an excellent one to study in regard to the sovereignty of God. (Yet many who spend lots and lots of time and energy on end times are Arminian. Without a strong view of God's sovereignty, the end times aren't possible.) Not only is sin limited, but the atonement is mentioned, too. It is specific to the sin God has preordained. It isn't infinite in its intent and purpose. The atonement is very specific. (God isn't morally responsible for sin, we are.)
Sin won't be completed until the end of this age. So I believe that 70 weeks refers to events separated by many years, the crucifixion, the atonment, and the end of sin on this earth. The people of the prince destroyed the temple and they were the Romans. The prince will do it again at the end of this age.
Is that messy enough for you?
Phil.
Stu,
In 8:14, the text reads, "...evening morning 2300..."
That sounds like a veriation of the idiom for "day" in Genesis.
So, I'd say 2300 days.
Phil.
One last question Phil ( on this thread i.e .. Lol)
Dan 9:27 - 'He will confirm a covenant with many for one `seven.' In the middle of the`seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.' [NIV]
'And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease..' [KJV]
Who is the 'he' here ? Christ or the anti-christ !
Calvin comments on this : 'The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader.' Yet many interpreters ascribe this verse to the anti-christ.
Can you make it more messy ?
Stu,
I believe the "he" in vs. 27 is the prince to come, not the Messiah. The antecedant of a pronoun is usually the closest prior noun that agrees with the pronoun in gender and number.
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I was called to work.
Phil.
Hi Phil,
I need help again..please. It's about that Codex Sinaiticus passage in Luke 2:2. I want to check if that article was right about the word order. Does it say
" Haute apographo egeneto prote hegemoneuontos tas surias kureniou." -- Codex Siniaticus
OR
'Haútee apografeé proótee egéneto heegemoneúontos teés Surías Kureeníou' as in traditional translation.
Here's the link:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&verse=6&zoomSlider=0
You might need to scroll down a bit to come to Luke 2:2
boy.. how I wish I could read Greek! :)
regards,
Stu
hey Phil I think i got it .. that is if
εγενετο = egeneto
πρωτη = prote
Like you said these reversed words are the differences .. right ?
αυτην απογραφην εγενετο πρωτη ηγεμονευοντοϲ τηϲ ϲυριαϲ κυρηνιου
this is the Codex Sinaiticus and the modern translation should read somewhat like αυτην απογραφην πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντοϲ τηϲ ϲυριαϲ κυρηνιου ... am I right?
Stu,
Yes, you got it. I haven't looked up that link, but the word order in the Greek suggested by those folks makes it really hard to read any way other than "...before the reign..."
I'll teach you the languages. Just say the word. It's about 3 years HARD WORK, but worth every second.
Phil.
Are you serious Phil ?
Teach me the language of the Bible!!? On the internet? Is it even possible? Hard work I'm up for, but I'm afraid you'll be just wasting your precious time. Now don't even get the idea I'm not grateful.. you can't even imagine how much I appreciate your offer of sacrifice.. but there's no one here who would be of help.. I mean how are u suppose to learn a language if u don't have anyone to talk to ??
I spent the whole day thinking about it.. strangely, incredulous as it seems, somehow I believe it's possible..lol..very strange indeed !!
I think I'll have to seriously think about this and make a decision.. beginning something and dropping out is something I hate.. especially when it concerns God and his holy Word.
I'll get back to you soon.
With Love in Christ,
Stu
Stu,
Why wouldn't it be possible? Have you ever used Skype or Oovoo? It's face to face in real time. I use a white board and all that. I am wanting to start classes in March.
Phil.
Phil!
It is good to have you back, I have missed your articles.
I have been warned by your interaction here with Stu... two men loving God and wanting to know Him more deeply.
I have in the past expressed interest in learning the languages as well but Stu has a point, I would want to do this not try this (if you know what I mean), do you have others ready to go in March?
Once again it is good to reading you again and I have missed the finish of the Holiness of God posts, is that finished?
Anyways, let me know on the course.
God Bless Brother Phil!!
Terry
tdotbootsattelusdotnet
Hi,
I see you are having fun here my friend!!! Nice handling of the Greek BTW: can I sign up for your course??
@Stu;
You can learn Greek online and actually you don't need to "talk to" someone, at least not for Koine....its a dead language after all:-)
Nice to see you back Phil!!!!!
Phil
Terry,
Good to hear from you, too. Yes, there are a few students, but don't worry about all that. I'll teach one. Anyway, there's no telling what will work schedule-wise for whom. Six students may have to be tqught in pairs, threes or singles.
I'm willing to do anything to get this knowledge into the churches.
And, you're right. I did intend to finish the series on the holiness of God. My work stopped all that, but I will start finishing that this week.
Phil Perkins.
Phil N.,
So you want to brush up your Greek or learn Hebrew? Have you taken Hebrew? It's just as rich as Greek, more so and most of the Bible is in Hebrew.
Haven't forgotten you. THANKS FOR CALLING!!!!! Look forward to face-to-face meeting.
God bless,
Phil.
Oh, by the way, I meant "warmed" not "warned" by your interaction.
I should proof read a bit more eh?? lol
Terry
Hey, Terry, you're talking to the king of the typoes.
Post a Comment