|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Only linguists need apply?
|
| Fluent in all biblical languages |
|
| Fluent in one or two biblical languages |
|
| Trained in all biblical languages |
|
| Trained in one or two biblical languages |
|
| Familiar with words and phrases |
|
| Use bible tools without linguistic knowledge |
|
| Only compare various english versions |
|
| Trust my favorite version |
|
| Depend on the opinions of others |
|
| Don't comment on the Scriptures |
|
Total Votes : 10
|
(last vote on : 12/11/2008 9:49:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
Only linguists need apply? - 12/1/2008 5:11:56 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages. Since these are common tools for argumentation in this forum, it would be interesting to find out how many have formally studied the languages of the Scriptures. It would also be interested in opinions regarding this view.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/1/2008 6:06:42 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1313
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: online
|
I voted trained in one of the two Biblical languages since I took two years of Koine Greek when I went to Bible College.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/1/2008 6:07:47 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 90
Status: offline
|
Trained in Greek and Hebrew; I skipped the Aramaic elective.
I think there are enough commentaries, in which the world's greatest scholars debate the nuances of every single word in Scriptures, that a person does not need to study the original languages to be able to either understand fully or join in the debates about what the original text says and means.
But everyone should have the humility and open-mindedness to confess that, when relying on the experts, you may not have the tools to fully evaluate either the validity, the assumptions, or the ramifications of their pronouncements. Just as I, doing my own text studies, still have to confess that I'm not one of the world's greatest scholars, and always be open to correction and to learning something new.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/1/2008 6:25:55 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1885
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Having studied Greek pretty extensively, I think that it's possible to do word studies without formal or informal training, but one should be more hesitant in present their findings authoritatively. I don't know a lick of Hebrew, but I feel confident in at least looking at a word, figuring out its original range of meaning and seeing how often, and where, it is used in the Old Testament. But I would certainly be willing to admit that someone who has actually studied the language would probably have a greater understanding of the language's meaning.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/1/2008 11:06:37 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2995
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
About the only Hebrew that I know is a Hebrew National hotdog and the only Greek I know is a salad. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 12:07:20 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages. Since these are common tools for argumentation in this forum, it would be interesting to find out how many have formally studied the languages of the Scriptures. It would also be interested in opinions regarding this view.
Actually that is a big misrepresentation of what I have suggested.
I actually encourage people to use word studies, and learn as much as the can about the original languages, but I encourage them to understand the limits of these tools.
What I did suggest is that someone not use these tools to suggest that the Greek scholars who translated their English version of the bible were in error. There is far more involved in translating a passage than can every be learned only by reading a word study or looking at an exhaustive concordance, and trying to use these tools to prove that the Greek scholars who were responsible for the translation of our English bible got it wrong is simply ridiculous!
If you don't know anything about the biblical languages then look to the opinions of those who do have formal training and recognize that a scholar who has devoted his life to the study of Greek is far more qualified to make a judgment about the validity of a translation than a person who has absolutely no training in the biblical Greek. If a commentator's note, an article in a word study or theological dictionary, or a footnote or translation note in your bible discusses the merits for an alternate translation then weigh the merits of the article presented by that expert, but don't assume that you can "discover" translations error in your English bible that all of the experts in the field have missed using an exhaustive concordance and/or word study. Know your limits!
Again these are great tools and I would NEVER discourage anyone from using them. What I have discouraged is the abuse of these tools, not the use of them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 2:23:20 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages. Since these are common tools for argumentation in this forum, it would be interesting to find out how many have formally studied the languages of the Scriptures. It would also be interested in opinions regarding this view.
Actually that is a big misrepresentation of what I have suggested.
I don't see you mentioned anywhere in the quote.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 2:48:28 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages. Since these are common tools for argumentation in this forum, it would be interesting to find out how many have formally studied the languages of the Scriptures. It would also be interested in opinions regarding this view.
I thought I also should correct the misinterpretation of my (and other's) statements regarding the use of terms or phrases from other languages.
What has been suggested is that when using such terms and phrases is causing unnecessary confusion, and using the normal English term would avoid that confusion, using the foreign terms is not helpful. When these terms are used incorrectly it just adds to the confusion because those familiar with the term or phrase's correct meaning will assume something different was meant than what the speaker intended.
Basically in a nutshell, there is nothing more Holy or Sacred about using Hebrew/Jewish terms, and sometimes trying to substitute these for the normal English terms just causes confusion (especially when the Hebrew terms are used incorrectly). And sometimes substituting Hebrew words into verses incorrectly significantly changes the verse, and in these cases it would be far better to have the correct English terms than it is to have used the wrong Hebrew Terms.
Here are a couple of recent examples:
1) The Hebrew words 'Adonai' and 'Elohim' were substituted into the Duet. 6:4 passage like this: "Adonai Elohim, Adonai is one." The primary problem I had with this was because the passage uses the term "elohenu" or "our God" rather than "Elohim"; this is something reflected in every English translation. By trying to substitute Hebrew words into the verse, a significant change was made to God's word i.e The Lord was no longer "Our God", he was now simply "a God". Making this change not only obscures the intention of the author, but it also looses personal aspect of "Our God" that is so powerfully a part of the original text.
2) When someone familiar with the term "Tenach" hears it used to describe the Old Testament, they immediately think of a "Tenach" i.e. a Hebrew or English Old Testament organized in the Hebrew book order, and if it is in English the expectation is that it would be Jewish translation like the JPS, or one of the Messianic versions. That is because "Tenach" is a Hebrew acronym just like the English "IBM" is an acronym for "International Business Machines". In the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament is divided into three sections, the Torah (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketovim (writings); the Hebrew word "TeNaK" is spelled with just the first initial of these three words i.e. תנ"ך. So imagine my surprise when, after hearing the term Tenach continuously used for the Old Testament, a reference was made to all the books in the Tenach, Genesis through Malachi. I was surprised because the last book in a Tenach is 2 Chronicles and not Malachi. In other words, the references had all been to a regular Christian translation of the Old Testament, and not a Jewish or Messianic one.
For me, I am far more troubled by the first example because it represents a change of meaning to the biblical text, and because of the reverence I have for God's word, I believe accurately transmitting God's word is critically important. The second example is not that big of a deal. It is simply an example where the use of a Jewish term causes a little bit more confusion than necessary and the English term would have brought a great deal more clarity. Because it is only confusion about what kind of bible is being read, a misunderstanding has no real consequences, so this kind of misuse is really no big deal. But I still have to wonder why this seems to be so important?
Again, I see no problem with using terms from other languages when it enhances communication, provides new insights, or when such terms are readily understood by the audience to which communications are being directed, but to use these terms simply to make something sound "more Jewish" or "more Holy" doesn't really accomplish anything, and it hinders rather than helps communication.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 12/2/2008 2:59:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 2:52:08 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages. Since these are common tools for argumentation in this forum, it would be interesting to find out how many have formally studied the languages of the Scriptures. It would also be interested in opinions regarding this view.
Actually that is a big misrepresentation of what I have suggested.
I don't see you mentioned anywhere in the quote.
No, but I assume it must be related to the exchange we just had beginning here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 4:44:28 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
No, but I assume it must be related to the exchange we just had beginning here.
As you say that is your assumption. However, since you also presume some terms are used to make them sound "more Jewish" or "more Holy", would you please enlighten me regarding what "normal English terms" are? Do they include eucharist, logos, or epistle. All of these terms have been used in these forums, without definition or translation. Were they used because they sound "more christian" or "more Holy"? What is the difference between these terms and supper, word and letter other than the fact that they have completely different meanings and connotations depending on context?
So, to get back to the OP, does one have to be totally familiar with those greek or latin terms to use them them in this forum? Should we ignore the OPs in order to correct the misuse of these greek terms also? If these terms are no more holy than any other terms, what is the problem? Let's all post in spanglish. However, if certain hebrew terms have been set apart for a purpose, as you seem to imply, then maybe we should insist that english terms never be misused on these forums either. After all, aren't they supposed to have definition and context also. May the creator grant you endurance for that task. By the way are OP, BTW and IMHO normal English terms? According to the 1980 Book of Knowledge Dictionary, Adonai, Eloheim and Torah are, or at least as normal as Casablanca or chili con carne.
I find it best not to take things too personally. Though I sometimes don't succeed in the efforts, I try to focus on issues and not personalities. In other words, I think it is more important to discuss the points as defined, than worry about where they came from.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 12/2/2008 6:24:26 AM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 9:00:14 AM
|
|
|
floydette
Posts: 1086
Status: offline
|
I was one class shy of maxing out the available Grk classes in grad school. After all of those hours memorizing and conjugating, I am not convinced one "needs" to study biblical languages (unless of course you are on a prof track, or research track, then of course it would be vital.)
That said, if you are going to use original languages in your studies, then I'd suggest getting some of it under your belt, so that you know how the language works. (Part of any language is the culture in which it was used.) There are so many people who open their concordance and pick one of the myriad of choices to define a word without understanding how the word would have been used in it's original state. There are so many nuances to any language. Just because a word "means" a particular thing to us, doesn't mean that it meant that 2000 yrs ago. I remember studying to teach (pre-Greek) and doing the same thing. You just use what you have in your tool box. And, sometimes, those tools can get you into trouble. I suspect word studies ought to land at the bottom of the list of hermeneutical tools.  (Unless of course you are going to work on a meta-level or author-level study - and that takes forever. Especially with Paul....uggg. And, I am not sure that it helps us out that much in the long run.)
Another concern about studying biblical languages. Often people can take the mindset of "I studied Hebrew, and you didn't, so I know what I am talking about, and you don't." Which, is concerning on a number of levels.  If you want to study the languages good for you. Go for it. But I suggest never using a phrase like - "in Greek... it means this...." from a place of authority. (shutter....) 
_____________________________
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” Henri Bergson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 9:34:08 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
No, but I assume it must be related to the exchange we just had beginning here.
As you say that is your assumption. However, since you also presume some terms are used to make them sound "more Jewish" or "more Holy", would you please enlighten me regarding what "normal English terms" are? Do they include eucharist, logos, or epistle. All of these terms have been used in these forums, without definition or translation. Were they used because they sound "more christian" or "more Holy"? What is the difference between these terms and supper, word and letter other than the fact that they have completely different meanings and connotations depending on context?
So, to get back to the OP, does one have to be totally familiar with those greek or latin terms to use them them in this forum? Should we ignore the OPs in order to correct the misuse of these greek terms also? If these terms are no more holy than any other terms, what is the problem? Let's all post in spanglish. However, if certain hebrew terms have been set apart for a purpose, as you seem to imply, then maybe we should insist that english terms never be misused on these forums either. After all, aren't they supposed to have definition and context also. May the creator grant you endurance for that task. By the way are OP, BTW and IMHO normal English terms? According to the 1980 Book of Knowledge Dictionary, Adonai, Eloheim and Torah are, or at least as normal as Casablanca or chili con carne.
I find it best not to take things too personally. Though I sometimes don't succeed in the efforts, I try to focus on issues and not personalities. In other words, I think it is more important to discuss the points as defined, than worry about where they came from.
Again, I think you missed the point. I have never posted an objection to using these terms, but only to misusing these terms. When you emend Scripture in order to use these terms and end up changing the meaning of Scripture, I have a problem with that! And I would have the same problem if some was attempting to "Latinize" the bible and changed the meaning of Scripture to make it sound more Latin. It is the fact that YOU CHANGED THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE that is most troubling, the incorrect use of the Hebraisms is simply an annoyance. To put this in perspective, the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures that we have today is largely a result of the reverence for the Scripture that the Jewish people demonstrated. They were meticulous about how they handled and copied Scripture, devising ways to check and double check their work to make sure that not even the slightest error in the transmission of the text was allowed. At the end of every book the Masorites included counts of words, verses, etc... and checked each copy to make sure the counts were correct; they began and ended each page on the same word in every copy, etc... just to make sure that no errors were introduced. Inserting Hebraisms in to the text may make it sound more Jewish, but doing so while compromising the meaning of the texts goes against everything they stood for.
As far as your other Hebraisms go, the only (minor) issue I have had is with the misuse of those terms There are many on these forums who use Hebraism's, and in several threads I have defended their use even though I do not follow these practices myself. Again my reaction is to the misuse of these terms, and not simply their use. It is an annoyance because it adds additional confusion when these terms are misused.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 9:38:08 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: floydette
I was one class shy of maxing out the available Grk classes in grad school. After all of those hours memorizing and conjugating, I am not convinced one "needs" to study biblical languages (unless of course you are on a prof track, or research track, then of course it would be vital.)
That said, if you are going to use original languages in your studies, then I'd suggest getting some of it under your belt, so that you know how the language works. (Part of any language is the culture in which it was used.) There are so many people who open their concordance and pick one of the myriad of choices to define a word without understanding how the word would have been used in it's original state. There are so many nuances to any language. Just because a word "means" a particular thing to us, doesn't mean that it meant that 2000 yrs ago. I remember studying to teach (pre-Greek) and doing the same thing. You just use what you have in your tool box. And, sometimes, those tools can get you into trouble. I suspect word studies ought to land at the bottom of the list of hermeneutical tools. (Unless of course you are going to work on a meta-level or author-level study - and that takes forever. Especially with Paul....uggg. And, I am not sure that it helps us out that much in the long run.)
Another concern about studying biblical languages. Often people can take the mindset of "I studied Hebrew, and you didn't, so I know what I am talking about, and you don't." Which, is concerning on a number of levels. If you want to study the languages good for you. Go for it. But I suggest never using a phrase like - "in Greek... it means this...." from a place of authority. (shutter....)
I absolutely agree!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 2:42:35 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
It has been suggested that one should not use word studies or terms and phrases from other languages, unless one has formally studied those languages.
Depends to what extent we use them.Ben and Floydette made valid points. If to just emphasize a biblical idea that can be more vividly illustrated by a foreign term, great, but not to form our own, new, radical doctrinal views.
Many cults and weird teachings have started by careless using of this method.
I don’t know what your line of work is, brother BT, but there is universally applicable expression" knows enough to be dangerous"
for ex-ple, I study computer science. There is little sustainable danger a regular user can cause, short of spilling coffee on keyboard, unlike the one, that after taking a class and announcing himself to be a programmer, opens and changes a registry key.
Be it the Scriptures, an electric drill or AK47- it is only beneficial to use it to the degree we know how and are proficient and skilled at
Also in a theological debate, especially online, it is hard to make yourself understood properly, so we need to use the best method to reach this goal and to glorify God. So if using a foreign word to be of real assistance - by all means, let's use it.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 2:53:13 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Fluent in biblical languages
Dont think this option even exists If one indeed is, I surely wouldn't date him - our age gap is about 5000+ years.
Nobody knows the exact meanings of all words and phrases for nobody lived in those times, but we can rely ( if taking it critically ) on what the experts say, to the extend of their knowledge.
There are a few great threads on biblical versions, translations, etc. going on now and what reading them made me painfully realise - there is no shortcuts. To be a good student of the Bible one ought to read many versions, pray a lot and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, and do it over the course of a lifetime, and still die "seeing thru the glass dimly"...
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 3:13:47 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are a few great threads on biblical versions, translations, etc. going on now and what reading them made me painfully realize - there is no shortcuts. To be a good student of the Bible one ought to read many versions, pray a lot and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, and do it over the course of a lifetime, and still die "seeing thru the glass dimly"...
I couldn't agree more, especially with that last part! And unfortunately it is that last part I would LIKE to disagree with most, but I can't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 3:23:49 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Again, I think you missed the point. I have never posted an objection to using these terms, but only to misusing these terms. When you emend Scripture in order to use these terms and end up changing the meaning of Scripture, I have a problem with that! And I would have the same problem if some was attempting to "Latinize" the bible and changed the meaning of Scripture to make it sound more Latin. It is the fact that YOU CHANGED THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE that is most troubling, the incorrect use of the Hebraisms is simply an annoyance. To put this in perspective, the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures that we have today is largely a result of the reverence for the Scripture that the Jewish people demonstrated. They were meticulous about how they handled and copied Scripture, devising ways to check and double check their work to make sure that not even the slightest error in the transmission of the text was allowed. At the end of every book the Masorites included counts of words, verses, etc... and checked each copy to make sure the counts were correct; they began and ended each page on the same word in every copy, etc... just to make sure that no errors were introduced. Inserting Hebraisms in to the text may make it sound more Jewish, but doing so while compromising the meaning of the texts goes against everything they stood for.
As far as your other Hebraisms go, the only (minor) issue I have had is with the misuse of those terms There are many on these forums who use Hebraism's, and in several threads I have defended their use even though I do not follow these practices myself. Again my reaction is to the misuse of these terms, and not simply their use. It is an annoyance because it adds additional confusion when these terms are misused.
Again, this is not about a particular problem you might have had with how I used a term in a post to you on another thread. I created this thread to investigate this issue without the baggage of personal greivances regarding a particular passage. However, since you insist on being proven right and my apologizing, could you remind me of the particular passage in which I committed the terrable act?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 4:00:44 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, this is not about a particular problem you might have had with how I used a term in a post to you on another thread. I created this thread to investigate this issue without the baggage of personal greivances regarding a particular passage. However, since you insist on being proven right and my apologizing, could you remind me of the particular passage in which I committed the terrable act?
I would be far more interested in having you look at what I and others in this thread have said, and reconsider how you approach this in the future. I am not looking for an apology for past acts, but hoping you will show a little more restraint in the future. I believe you have a lot of good things to add to the discussions on these forums, but often your points get lost in the confusion created by these forced Hebraisms, and so for the sake of accuracy and clarity I hope you will reconsider how you use these terms.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/2/2008 4:35:13 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I would be far more interested in having you look at what I and others in this thread have said, and reconsider how you approach this in the future. I am not looking for an apology for past acts, but hoping you will show a little more restraint in the future. I believe you have a lot of good things to add to the discussions on these forums, but often your points get lost in the confusion created by these forced Hebraisms, and so for the sake of accuracy and clarity I hope you will reconsider how you use these terms.
That is why I started the tread. I would hope that we would all look at what you, I and others in this thread have said and reconsider how we all approach this in the future.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/3/2008 3:19:27 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
I find myself unable to select an option in the poll, because it doesn't acknowledge different circumstances.
Let's compare this to engineering, design, physics and the like.
It's fine for a person to use just a little knowledge of design and engineering to build a fence with a gate using plans they've drawn up themselves. It's a relatively simple thing to build, where most flaws will be readily apparent. (Though, even then, one needs to be aware of their own limitations in understanding, lest their fence get blown down by a strong wind.)
However, it's another thing for someone with no education, study or training (formal or not) to think that they've discovered something contrary to generally held principles simply by reading a few pages of a high-school physics book. If someone like this were to build what would be classified as a perpetual motion machine, honestly thinking that they've solved the world's energy problems, they'd almost certainly be mistaken.
Too many posters have come on these boards convinced they've discovered that most of Christianity is wrong based on their using Strong's, or a literal translation of the Bible, or even just based on reading a few scriptures and feeling that what is said is contrary to what others are teaching. They've come here trying to claim that God is not triune, that hell is not eternal, that being healthy is just a matter of having enough faith, that Jesus isn't God, and much more.
It's one thing to use a word study and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries to enhance one's understanding of scripture and to go "Oh, it really does say that!" and "Wow, these two verses link together, and now I see a connection between these two teachings!". It is quite another thing to look up a Strong's definition and say "Well, everyone else must be wrong because it's obvious from my five minutes of study that all of Christendom has been wrong for hundreds of years."
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Only linguists need apply? - 12/3/2008 3:51:28 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
It's one thing to use a word study and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries to enhance one's understanding of scripture and to go "Oh, it really does say that!" and "Wow, these two verses link together, and now I see a connection between these two teachings!". It is quite another thing to look up a Strong's definition and say "Well, everyone else must be wrong because it's obvious from my five minutes of study that all of Christendom has been wrong for hundreds of years."
Your point regarding the extent one's knowledge being a factor in one's success constructing sound doctrine. However, I would say that whether on has five minutes or fifty years of continuious study to state that "everyone else must be wrong" is a rather foolhearty statement in any event. After all even the most well established doctrines are derived from the Scriptures and therefore are subject to human error in their construction.
Fear not answering the pole. It does not ask what level is required for interpreting the Scripures. The poll asks how much training one has. This is a rather straight forward objective question.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
