Should we learn Greek?

Excellent idea!!

 

Good idea. Unfortunately, some still need some lessons in English.

 

^^^

That's hilarious!

Yep, I wholeheartedly agree. Study Greek and we will have better 'Berean' Christians who love and study the Word of God.

 

I agree. I think it is an excellent idea and one which can help improve our understanding of the Word.
A local church actually did this and I understand it was very popular with the congregation and well attended.

God Bless

Sheila

 

I'd be first in line!

 

tsk, tsk, tsk

 

Sounds good to me!!! In fact, my own pastor frequently gives the original Greek and its contextual meaning in the Greek in his Sunday sermons. It ALWAYS leads to a better understanding of scripture. Always.

 

Sure why not? Then everybody in English speaking churches can forget about speaking English and we could all speak in a dead language!
Wonderful Idea!!!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Like Elizabethan English?

 

Or better yet,two Anglican necromancers..

 

Who are you referring to?

 

I believe that the very first step in studying the Bible should be reading the New Testament, and if you can't read Greek, you can't read the New Testament—all you can read is a translation of it! And from my point of view—that just doesn’t cut it.

Those who wish to study the writings of Shakespeare have to learn English! Those who wish to study the writings of the New Testament have to learn Greek! The world is full of people with enough interest in the literature of cultures different than theirs to study the languages of those cultures—what a pity and an embarrassment to the Christian faith it is that so many who claim to be interested in the literature of the Bible are not interested enough to bother to learn to read the languages in which it was written. Most certainly learning to read Greek so that one can read the New Testament should be the endeavor of all who name Jesus as their Savior. Many churches in the mainline denominations offer Greek classes—why should so many Baptist churches assume a lower standard?

 

Craig says; "Most certainly learning to read Greek so that one can read the New Testament should be the endeavor of all who name Jesus as their Savior."
__________________________________________________

And THAT'S the issue for the "Greekers" ainh't it?
The claim is made that all we have is a translation of the New Testament, therefore we ought to learn to read "The Greek". But THERE IS NNE GREEK TEXT IS THERE?
So what you are left with is the hopeless task of "muddling through" the plethora of fragments and jumbled up "imperfect" copies of copies of copies etc of various DIFFERENT MSS.
Very much like the situation you have with the various English translations today. So you have gained nothing! Other than becoming your own judge and jury of "What saith the Lord".

But, I don't expect the "Greekers" to see this obvious contradiction of their position as opposed to ours which they are so quick to point out.

It comes down to this, IMHO, either you CAN trust God to give you His WORDS or you CANNOT. Either God is BIGGER than all the so-called problems with textual transmission or He is NOT. If He is, then we already have ALL WE NEED. If He is not then YOU must decide what He said.

In HIS service;
Jim

BTW, if you personally think God wants you to study the "Greek" language, GO FOR IT! But DO NOT try to impose your preference on me. I'll say it again; I trust God has given me a PERFECT Bible in the KJV, the one I got in my hands, but if YOU do not, then fine! That's between you and God isn't it?

 

Oh, brother, here we go again....
In defending Craigbythesea's statements (Craig's statements here reveal the awful little 'peccadilloes' that KJV-onlyists seem to be so touchy about.... )

Well, let's see, I have a UBS 3rd & UBS 4th Edition Greek NT, I also have a Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek NT, a Westcott & Hort Greek NT (dated 1927), um.... ah, here, the dust is still on my Theodore deBeza Textus Receptus, a Stephanus Textus Receptus, and a Hodges Majority Text Greek NT. Which one do you care for?

Seriously, which Textus Receptus do you want? Or, for that matter, which of these TR's underlie the KJV? Oh, silly me.... the KJV used only a handful of late manuscripts in their translation from the Greek to the English (ahhemmm.... Elizabethan English, to be quite specific, something used FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO!) Despite all the silly rantings of rabid KJV-onlyists, even the KJV had 13 variants that were notated in the 1611 edition of the 1611 KJV. So much for a 'perfect' Bible

Oh, sit down! The KJV used well-worn copies of copies of copies... et. al... of copies of manuscripts-- all being 'imperfect' with errors in them. What's the difference between an imperfect KJV, which used imperfect and error-prone late manuscripts (all but a handful of manuscripts!) to the imperfect, but very revised and refined ESV, which used a modern Greek NT that evaluated over 5,500 manuscripts? Methinks that the KJV has nothing better to offer.
If some KJV-onlyist has an original manuscript written by Paul or James, or some other Apostle, then please tell me that your blessed KJV is 'correct' and 'perfect' if the readings match the translation. Hint: there are NO original autographs around to compare, so how do you know that the KJV reads like any of the original autographs?
Anyway, I digress into stupidity further.....

What contradiction? Do we say that we have the 'perfect' Bible? Any of us? HELLLOOOOO! Since we 'Greekers', as you call us, all well know that the transmission of the text of the OT & NT have errors, then we only plainly state the facts. How you KJV-only types get the logic that (ORIGINALS = MANUSCRIPTS = TEXTUS RECEPTUS = KJV) is a non-existent, fallacious, deceitful ideal. Furthermore, your 'doctrine' of a supernatural, providential, perfectionist, 'preservation' of the text of the Bible is also NOT in the Bible. Anywhere. We've asked for proof of such teachings that could be gleaned systematically from Scripture, but there are not a one. Too bad. The fact that God chose (ahem... a Sovereign God chose) to allow errors to be included in the transmission of the text of the Bible does no injustice to the historic Christian doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. As a KJV-onlyist, you cannot define such terms Biblically and hold to your unbiblical 'babble', so-called KJV-onlyism.

So, you acknowledge that there are 'problems' in the transmission of the text of the Bible. That's a good start. You'll just need to throw out your KJV, ahem.... KJV-onlyism to begin seeing the truth behind the ugly veil of KJV-onlyism. Indeed, we do have all that we need: a Greek NT, or two, or three, or four..... you get the drift!
Unlike KJV-onlies, we do indeed trust the very Word of God, and as such study as good Berean Christians do. We have also, as such good Berean Christians, evaluated the KJV-only nonsense, lies, distortions, dodges, half-truths, inconsistencies, and outright deceit, to declare that the false teachings and doctrines of KJV-onlyism puts it at complete odds with what the very Word of God attests to itself: the Word of God was inspired by men moved by the Holy Spirit and as such, they are inerrant in the original writings ONLY. No shame in being ORIGINAL-AUTOGRAPHS only when it was only the Apostles and Prophets that were given the revelation by God to them into making the NT Scriptures. The KJV translators were no more 'inspired' or 'inerrant' or 'perfectly preserved' (unless they were embalmed!) than I am when it comes to translation from the Koine Greek into the English. What makes you think the KJV is so special?

Who is imposing on who? Again, you make the fallacious argument that the KJV is 'perfect' when it was translated by imperfect men from imperfect manuscripts into an imperfect English language. As you've stated it, it's between God and you. You lose.

 

I lose NOTHING.
Why? Because I do not question the Book.

I don't NEED to question (judge) it. Rather, it JUDGES me and my walk in HIM.


In HIS service;
Jim