I have many comments to catch up, but for now,
Tim D (the Greek-speaking one) said in the post #91 above:

Is there anyone who has put much effort into Bible study that would not understand that we must be continually filled with the Spirit, as opposed to a single instance? Scripture interprets Scripture, and a general knowledge of Scriptural teaching enables specific verses to be understood in their context and intent. I don't know enough Greek to pronounce gyro (the sandwich) correctly, but I "figgered out" that I leak out a lot more of the Spirit's power than I retain, so the spigot needs to stay on. (prayer and meditation on His Word - the readable one)

On the preservation topic:
I find it interesting that we are told constantly that God is incapable of communicating His exact and complete message in English. He was powerful enough and specifically purposed in His use of the Hebrew and Greek for the autographs. Even Tim agrees that He has perfectly preserved His words in the extant mss (even though we can't quite put our fingers on them). That must have been some challenge for God to keep track of just which mss copy He had preserved which verse, after all there are 1000's (I speak as a man). But when it came to being certain that we uneducated dunces who battle the severe limitations of the only language that we will ever have a chance to know, He just could not quite pull it off. He had to settle for "close". I guess to 9X% ain't too bad. I just hope that the pieces that we missed weren't important.


Incidentally, Tim, you commented on the KJV vs KJB. Though neither KJV or KJB is its official name, I have used KJB for a while to set it apart from the rest when posting, but you have gotten me to thinkin'. I usually refer to the book that I read as "the Scriptures", which is the name it gives itself, when I am preaching and teaching, because we are all using the same book. I would like to develop the habit of using "the Scriptures" exclusively. It does cause a bit of confusion, however, because others think that the KJB is one of many, whereas I believe it to be unique.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 03:13 PM by Brother Tim.

That is misleading. I am not saying God is incapable in that He lacks power. I am saying that in God's providence, He has not made all languages equal. In this case, God omnisciently chose to make English not totally capable of communicating everything in the Greek.

And if you don't think those little things are important, then you do not have as high a view of Scripture as I thought. When Christ mentioned a jot (yod) or tittle (mark in a letter to tell the difference like O to Q) then apparently the little things did matter. You take those little things away and you have a much different meaning or translation.

And since the jots and tittles won't pass away (reference to Hebrew & Aramaic) then apparently preservation remains with those texts. Just a new thought.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 03:40 PM by Greektim.

Like non-Greek Tim said, I had no problem understanding exactly what it meant either, and understood it using the KJV. I don't really think that is all that difficult to understand.

I knew you were going somewhere with this, and so I will rephrase my answer to the question over the use of dynamic equivalency in the KJV. They did not use it. I am not one to say that they should or should not have. They didn't use it, so it makes any assumptions about it moot. Whether it would be right or wrong to use it, who am I to say?

Where does it say in scripture that Greek was the sole authority from which all other languages are compared?

Don't misinterpret me. I am talking about the translation specifically from Greek to English in text alone. The translation must convey as best as possible the originals. I think I made that quite clear. If the doctrine is changed, then the translation must be at fault. If you gather the exact same understanding in meaning from a translation from the originals, then the translation is a faithfully preserved copy (in essence) from the orginal.

The fact that you argue over textual matters in loss during translation doesn't hold much water in the sense that even Greeks reading the same Greek cannot agree on what is being said in the originals alone. It doesn't take a copy or a translation to disagree on a meaning. The english language has conveyed the originals as best as possible. If it did not, then all of the english translations are corrupt.

Besides, speaking of having a high regard for scriptures, you said yourself that one small incorrectness doesnt spoil the bunch (baby and bathwater syndrome). So doesn't it also speak that not a high regard for scriptures means not throwing out something because of a minor problem? You also tak about one jot and one tittle? What about this scripture:

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

A jot and tittle means a jot and tittle and leaven leavening the whole lump debunks your thinking in your previous quote on post 84:

but you said:

So, maybe you don't have as high a regard for scripture?......

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 06:35 PM by Jim.

From GreekTim's post #95:

Please identify your source for this!

This is what I found:

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 05:46 PM by Brother Tim.

Lots of quotes from both Jim & Tim:

Too bad you cannot say that w/o a subjective bias (I can't either). You have had a competent man to preach to you as well as your own study. You have been taught that. But if a new Christian came across the phrase “be filled with the Holy Spirit” the English communicates a one time thing. That was my point. Canonical context aside, that one phrase does not communicate the continuous idea in English. That was my point.

Well before we rabbit trail into a new discussion, answer my question about God in the Greek first just to get out all of the extras first.

Again, you are reading me wrong I think. I am not trying to say that Greek is superior to all languages and should be compared to it. I am only saying that Greek is vastly different than English. Those differences keep from a translation translating the entire elements 100%. It is not a matter of one better than the other. It is one is too different than the other.

That is entirely true. A good translation should convey as best as possible. But in those words (which you might change now) conveys the idea that there are limitations. Maybe you didn’t mean to convey that, but it sounds like that. The whole thing with a “high view of Scripture” is that you mentioned the little things as not being important. But everything, even the smallest detail, is important if it is God’s Word.

We were actually talking about an example of a text that was missing one verse. That text is the Word of God to the extent that it agrees to the inspired Word. That text missing one verse is God’s Word to the extent that it is correct. Is there a higher view? There is no reason to throw it all out. What if God did that w/ Christian’s whose doctrine was not 100% correct (in other words people who agree w/ me ). What if God took them out of the world? That is the idea being conveyed if we threw out certain mss just b/c they had a few errors. Remember, no 2 ancient mss agree 100% of the time. So throw 'em; we got the AV 1611 baby! (couldn't resist)

The verse I mentioned (Matt. 5:18 ) is dealing w/ Scripture. Yours is not. You have to apply that principle. Can a little leaven actually leaven the Word of God? Or is this principle restrained to its context of leaven in doctrine and in a church?

Well in post 87 I thought you said you agreed w/ what I said in post 84. I don’t think it debunks what I said b/c that principle may not be admissible for Scripture. Remember you are not interpreting Gal. 5:9 to Scriptures (at least I hope not) you are applying it.

Oh yeah, a jot and titlle does not mean a jot and tittle. A jot is the Hebrew letter yod. The tittle is the stroke that tells the difference between 2 different but very similar looking letters (kinda like an O & Q).

These were said in 2 unrelated contexts and issues. One is about a mss issue, the other is about a translation issue.

Obviously (and I hope you know me well enough by now that I would never claim something different) I don’t know the mind of God. But the obvious (at least to me) tells me so. The same source that says 2+2=4 tells me that Greek and English are too different to make a bridge of translation where 100% of the meaning gets across. It is reasonable to say that. God gave us logic and the ability to study languages and linguistics. Remember, not all revelation is restricted to Scripture. That doesn’t make it less true. It just makes it less authoritative.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 09:57 PM by Greektim.

GreekTim:
Not to be fussy, but I think that the average person reading your statement would assume that you are stating fact rather than opinion. It is not as simple as 2+2. Perhaps it would be better to add something like "in my opinion" or similar wording.

Eons ago I seem to remember you (maybe it was someone else) describing the differences between Hebrew and Greek and how they have distinctive characteristics. Does that mean that they are "too different to make a bridge of translation where 100% of the meaning gets across" ? That did not seem to stop the translation of HOT passages into Greek. And before you say "but that is inspiration", please note that it is STILL translated! Were they all literally translated? NO! Were the NT words exactly what God intended? YES! After all, He picked the words.

Those of us who are KJBO (or OKJB for Jim) believe that God chose the English as the next step in the preservation of His Words. Included in that belief is that the English was providently brought to its pinnacle for the purpose of being the ideal language to carry the Gospel to the world in the last days. Also, many believe that English has continued to deteriorate over the last century or so. That is the reason that not only are none of the modern attempts at replacing the KJB suitable, but I think the likelihood of that happening in the future is slim to none, not to mention unnecessary.

By the way, you never answered a Greek question that I had. See "Unicorns, page 3, post #42 for question and context.

From GreekTim's post #98 above: (emphasis mine for reference)

* Tim, read what you have said. We learn the true meaning of the phrase "be filled" because we are taught, but the new Christian has to figure it out on his own ?!
We all come across new information as we study the Scriptures. We all have a responsibility to research and learn. You are now implying that all new Christians must learn Hebrew AND Greek before beginning to read the Bible or else they will be confused or mislead by the weakness of the English. You keep dancing around this issue! You do not expect that of your own members, by your own admission. If someone could EVEN READ the Greek with a skill level necessary to interpret more that just scattered words or phrases, you can't even tell them which GNT to go out and buy because it is qualified to be considered THE preserved Word of God!
ARRGH!!
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I BELIEVE THAT GOD DIVINELY DIRECTED THE PRODUCTION OF THE KJB! If I read with "ears that hear" what God's Spirit is saying, and give due diligence to studying "for approval", I can with my KJB learn exactly what God wants me to know. I challenge you to give me your guess of the percentage of Christians today that can pick up a HOT and a GNT and read them with understanding without constant reliance on an array of English-language lexicons. If you say more than 0.1%, then you are very optimistic! Whether you like it or not, you have placed yourself as the surrogate Holy Spirit for your congregation. They must sit at your feet and listen to you explain the fuller meaning that is missing from the English, including the Bible that you preach from, because, by your own admission, the learning of the original languages is not a high priority that you place on your people.

In reality, I have listened to several of your messages. Other than the use of the NASB when you read a passage, most would not notice that you do not accept the KJB. I don't recall you doing much translational correcting.

Sorry ... battery dying ... posting without review ...

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:59 PM by Brother Tim.

The King James English is far superior to anything else. The Lord made it didn't He? Is He omnipotent/omniscient or not? If He intended His word to remain inspired/preserved only in the original thingamabobs, would He have said so? If He intended for us to study (2Tim2:15), wouldn't He specify Hebrew/Greek? The English does not only have a "larger dictionary", it is also much more specific/descriptive than any Greek. The Greek is very, very limited in conveying many things accurately.
As far as "be filled" being accurate in conveying "a continuous filling", it SURE does. Here's a few more examples (by the way, I teach English): When you say to your friend, who's going out for dinner in a dangerous neighborhood, you say "be careful." You didn't mean only for a few minutes of driving to the restaurant, but the entire departure, journey, meal, side trip, errands, etc. When you say to your neighbor, who is voting for a different candidate than you, to "be aware" of his opinions, stances, issues, etc, you mean "continuously alert." I could go on, but I think the point is made. Also, GT, you were taught that the Greek has all this magical/mystical "power" by your teachers in seminary, so why disdain a teacher for a new Christian? 1 John 2:27.

Apologies. In my opinion, the source that tells me 2+2=4 tells me that Greek & English are too different to make a perfect translation where 100% of the message is conveyed.

Well, I was gonna argue inspiration but you did it for me. Those words that were used in the NT were exactly what God wanted. So this is a non issue. At least it is not a similar issue. One is inspiration and the other is preservation (in your view).

Not to mention, the references of the OT in the NT are not exegesis of the passage. They are merely references. Something more important (in my opinion) than the NT translation of OT, is methods of interpretation of the NT use of the OT.

You criticized me for not having a source for my view. Where is your source? (I bet it comes from the same place as mine – 2+2=4 thus we are having this discussion and disagreeing) If you argue for faith in the English, then what is wrong with me arguing faith in the lack of the English language?

Sorry I did not respond. I don’t even remember getting an email about that post. I am assuming you are talking about the different words for love in John 21. That is another good example where at least a look at the Greek text does wonders. It is argued in some more modern scholarly circles where there is no major difference between agapaw and philew.

Wow, I just realized how long and difficult this issue is. I am not going to go into it. Needless to say, I find significance in the different word usages. I think the differences in the words are different levels of love. Agape love is selfless, sacrificial, and giving (John 3:16, Eph. 5:2, & 25). Philew love does not have that implication. The question is, was that the emphasis in John 21, different levels of love? That is the issue. I would say yes, but you’ll never know that from the English only (and assuming access to any Greek aid is not available).

I will say it again. My point in mentioning Eph. 5:18 is to show a case where the English does not communicate the continuous idea found in the Greek. Only looking at the phrase “be filled”, does that mean continuous in English. No, it would have to be “be filling.” But the problem with that translation is that it doesn’t communicate the command as well (and the KJV didn’t say that either). A wooden literal translation is “be being filled!” (the ! is to show the command/imperative of the word). Just to see the major difference between the 2 languages – it took English 2 to 3 words to communicate the idea in 1 Greek word. I can give you examples of English needing 5 to 6 words for one Hebrew word. Just too different.

I see your logic. God would have said that preservation remained in the original languages w/ the preserved mss. Since God didn’t say that, then they must not remain the preserved Word. By the way, could you chapter and verse where the KJ English is far superior to anything else? Why do you not speak it and use it (besides in prayer)? Where in the Bible does it say that the Lord made the KJV? The same logic that says that preservation didn’t remain w/ the mss because God didn’t say so can be used to say that God didn’t do it with English, the TR, and the KJV since that is not stated in Scripture.

How many times do I have to say it? I am not preaching superiority of the Greek language. I am saying they are too different. My teachers didn’t teach that. Attack me if you like, but please leave my professors out of it. They were some of the godliest men I have ever met. You don’t know what they taught so you shouldn’t criticize them. That is extremely offensive.

This post was last modified: Thu Apr 03, 2008 08:23 AM by Greektim.

Tim, if you look at my sentence, I included the phrase "those of us ... believe". That is identifying my statement as opinion, preference, or conviction, not as fact. An external source may not be applicable, or difficult to state because of the broadness of the facts used to establish said statement.

I have no problem in you arguing faith (or lack thereof). My point is that your original statement was one of fact derived by knowledge of God's intentions, not a statement of apparent understanding within the limits of your knowledge. (e.g. "It appears to me ...", "As I understand it ...", etc)

You are perfectly in your rights to express the thought that God limited Himself to a set of languages with which to communicate His perfect will for the world, so long as you indicate that there is room for differences.

I will endeavor to hold myself to that same standard.

On OT -> NT translation: What is missing in my question? Is not the Greek quotation of the Hebrew passage a translation? Yes. [definition of "translation"] Are the words literally translated? No, not always. [examples available upon request] Then did not God by inspiration determine exactly what Greek wording would correctly reflect the intended message? Yes. Is this not the meaning of formal equivalence? Example: In Deut 8:3 "word" does not literally exist but is understood, and so it exists in Matt 4:4 & Luke 4:4.

more to come ...

P.S. James, it would be beneficial to GreekTim for you to list the ways that the KJB is superior to Greek. Also, I know that Greek professors are not on your Christmas card list, but please refrain from lumping them all into the demon class. There are some Godly men out there.

Forgive my contrariness, Brother, but that is exactly what you are doing! I don't fault you for that, if that is what you believe. You are certainly not alone. If you say that the Greek words cannot be adequately translated into the English so that the complete meaning is given ("be filled"), then you are by definition saying that the Greek is superior to the English. Am I wrong? You use the phrase "they are too different", but you are not saying that they are "different but equal", are you?

Another question about "agapaw and philew":
(what? I don't deserve the Greek squiggly lines like you do for Jim? - I'm joking here) By the way, this is a far better so-called "example" of the weakness of English than "be filled", so no fair running away.

Oh, back to the question(s): You defined the two words, showing one (agapaw) to be of greater intensity than the other (philew), correct? If so, are all verses using these words limited without that understanding? Are the meanings exclusive? That is, are agapaw and philew somewhat interchangeable? [Warning, I am attempting to set you up. ]

This post was last modified: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:46 AM by Brother Tim.

Emphasis mine above

Okay, everyone ... classtime!

Answer the following questions using only your knowledge of English verb structure and your understanding of the context:

Which of the underlined words show a single instance of time?

Which of the underlined words show continuing action?

Since the word always only appears once, is it realistic to say that "giving thanks" is the only legitimately mandated command that is continuous, possibly along with the other -ing verbs>

And bonus questions for our resident Greek scholar. ( said with affection and no quotes ):
Verse 18 has be set apart to draw attention to it particularly.
Is the Greek verb form the same for "be ... drunk" as it is for "be filled"?
"Be filled" based on your previous posts means "continuous filling". Does "be ... drunk" means continuous drunkenness?
If your "new Christian" is expected to misunderstand "be filled", would he also assume that the same verse was speaking of a single instance of drunkenness? Or, instead, would he as he read the passage as a whole, get the impression that continued action was implied (factoring in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, not just English rules)?

One additional thought about English verb forms.

We teach our children that the words "shall" and "will" carry the same meaning, but are used with a different person/subject. By that I mean that both words indicate future action, and "shall" is used with the first person, "I" or "we", and "will" is used with second and third person.
Examples: I shall go to the park. They will go to the park.

In the Scriptures (and other documents as well, particularly legal forms) the word "shall" can indicate an imperative, either as a command or guarantee that an event is certain.
Examples:
As a command (in the negative) - Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
As a guarantee - in Ephesians 5:14 above, "shall give" is a guaranteed response from God based on an action by man, and not to be understood as simply an action by God at some point in the future.
As a future event - Genesis 12:12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

In other words, context is everything when making a determination on how a verb is understood. It is possible to understand the truth without digging out an analytical lexicon.

James, look at it this way.

Greek professors are to Bible Colleges and seminaries as Algebra teachers are to high school. It is a required class so that the mind of the student can be "expanded" to learn new things, but for the most part, the knowledge is often forgotten not long after the final test is taken, and it is usually not applied in the average student's life thereafter.

Ok there is a lot to address so I apologize in advance to the length.

Mucho respect for you saying that. I will also try to hold to that standard.

This deals w/ translation philosophy. We can’t get past preservation. So I don’t know how beneficial it will be for me to enter into this. But formal equivalence is more than just reflecting the message. It is closer to word for word literalness. I agree that the NT use functional/dynamical equivalence of the OT in some places. So it might be ok to advocate functional equivalence in some places. Then again inspiration supersedes our views of translation. Maybe we should only stick to formal equivalence. What do you think?

Of course you are wrong. I know that because I am write. Oops. I mean right.

What I am trying to say between the two languages is like the apples to oranges comparison. Both are fruit (languages). Both are tasty(although that is subjective). But they are very different from each other (apples are too different from oranges to be considered the same fruit). I don’t like this illustration so let’s not make it walk on all fours.

The point is, English is way too different to be able to communicate the subtle nuances of the language w/o making the English awkward and fumbly (is that a word?). I think this goes both ways because English has such an array of possibilities to say something. As Mongol Servant pointed out, the number of words alone makes it a language rich with rhythmic patterns, rhyming possibilities, and numerous word choices.

It is not about superior/inferior. I can’t tell you which is better – an apple or orange. I can just tell you that they are different. Not all languages are created equal. I am not in a position to say which. I am only in a position to state what I know of the differences between apple and orange. Or in the language case – Greek and English. I am not sure, but it seems that Mongol Servant is in less of a position to speak of the superiority of English. That is unless he is well acquainted with Greek. If that is the case, then I will heed his words much more.

Those definitions I gave are the general uses. But some writers can use them in a more specific way. They can be used interchangeable. But likely, when used in the same context, they are not. John 21 is difficult to say for sure. It just seems to me that Christ was making an emphasis with His word choice. Oh, and thanks for the warning.

You forgot “awake” by the way. Another is “arise” (you only do that once), “Shall give” (again that happens only once but w/ a continuous result), “are” evil (another you forgot and the days are not always evil nor will they always be), & “gave” (vs. 25 one more you forgot and only happened once).

All the rest. Class dismissed.

Yes the forms of the 2 verbs are the exact same. So the command (w/o the negation) would be “be continuously drunk.” But the command is to not be continuously drunk. That doesn’t mean the verse advocates any kind of drunkenness. It actually builds on the idea that it should never happen at any time. Your state of sobriety should be continuously sober.

I could not resist, but this rule isn’t followed in the KJV (Gen. 2:18 for “I will” but there are over 1,500 examples; and Gen. 9:2 for “you shall”).

Actually, “shall give” is a future tense in the Greek. But, there is a Greek rule for this too. Usually, if the NT is quoting a command from the OT, it will use the future tense not the imperative mood. So you were both wrong and right.

Unfortunately, it is sad that students don't apply what they learn. But you almost sound as if learning these languages are required but not needed. Did I pick that vibe up incorrectly?

This post was last modified: Thu Apr 03, 2008 01:48 PM by Greektim.