Jump to content


Photo

Learning Hebrew/Greek


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 aBluya_*

aBluya_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 02:59 PM

I no longer have much faith in the current available versions of the Bible. At least as far as serious Bible study is concerned.

I was wondering if anyone out there knows the best way to learn Greek and Hebrew. I need an unbiased resource that won't let pre-set doctrine determine the meaning/definition of a word.

thanks so much for your help!

#2 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 02 January 2005 - 04:47 PM

Get a secular Greek dictionary, and do a course?
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#3 Huldah

Huldah

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,590 posts
  • LocationPleasantville

Posted 02 January 2005 - 04:54 PM

I no longer have much faith in the current available versions of the Bible.  At least as far as serious Bible study is concerned. 

I was wondering if anyone out there knows the best way to learn Greek and Hebrew.

J.W. Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek is a good 'teach yourself' book.

However,

I need an unbiased resource that won't let pre-set doctrine determine the meaning/definition of a word.

This is where your problem will continue as there are biases in the Greek manuscripts.

My Greek NT is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society and contains interpolations!
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." John 4.14

#4 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 07:15 PM

Unless you are one of these people who picks up languages like ordinary people catch colds, I can't really recommend that you learn Hebrew or Greek. There are pluses, but in my view the minuses outweigh them by far.

In order to become competent enough to make your own translations, again if you are an ordinary people like most, you will have to spend many, many hours of pretty hard work in order to learn enough to express a competent opinion. Anyone who learnt another language at school will testify to how much work they had to put in to pass a relatively easy examination.

May I make the simple suggestion that you buy a copy of the Online Bible or similar? I have an OLB, and it has about 12 different versions on it. I can move from version to version at a single click and make any comparison I need.

It would be most unlikely, if in your first 2 years or so of study of Hebrew or/and Greek, you would become sufficiently competent to argue with any of the translating Commitees. These, by and large, are fairly competent professionals, who have wrestled on your behalf with the complexities of many many passages. You or I may not always agree with their renderings, but surely, if 12 or so Committees can't come up with a decent translation of a particular verse, then you, as amateur no. 13, are not very likely to do any better.

From my observation of the 12 versions on my OLB, there is usually only relatively small amounts of variation in their renderings, and to be perfectly frank, I am coming to the conclusion that having all of these things is not taking me much further forward than my trusty AV/RV Interlinear Bible.

Sure, they've got older and more manuscripts to go at these days, and that may be a good thing, or it may not. But for our purposes, The Revised Version is an excellent tool. Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

I'm sorry not to be more encouraging, but realism is a great thing - and the benefit you would receive from 2 or 3 years of learning effort is probably going to be smaller than simply buying an OLB.

Sure it doesn't have the same pazazz as saying: Look I know Hebrew, and I can tell you that..., but it's far safer to rely on a consensus than venture your own translations.

Edited by Asyncritus, 02 January 2005 - 07:30 PM.


#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 07:18 PM

Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

But Asyncritus, you misunderstand. The whole point of the NET is that it allows me to think for myself, and doesn't let the translators rob me of the use of my brain cells.

I can see for myself what the original text says, and I can also read for myself why the translators have interpreted the text in the way that they have. Then I can make a decision for myself.

You can't do that with the RSV, the text wasn't designed that way. You have no idea of what's going on inside the translator's head, and you have no way of understanding the decisions they made.

#6 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 07:40 PM

Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

But Asyncritus, you misunderstand. The whole point of the NET is that it allows me to think for myself, and doesn't let the translators rob me of the use of my brain cells.

I can see for myself what the original text says, and I can also read for myself why the translators have interpreted the text in the way that they have. Then I can make a decision for myself.

You can't do that with the RSV, the text wasn't designed that way. You have no idea of what's going on inside the translator's head, and you have no way of understanding the decisions they made.

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? ( Apart from Jacob attacking...:eek:)

I'm trying very hard to download a copy of NET, to see what the hoopla is all about, but I haven't quite managed it yet. Brain cell problem. Or something!

Edited by Asyncritus, 02 January 2005 - 07:47 PM.


#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 07:45 PM

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Exactly, and that's what's so unfortunate about them. The advantage of the NET is that I can see the decisions which the translators have made, because they explain them in a footnote. Then I can make up my own mind.

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? (  Apart from Jacob attacking...:eek:)


Yes, many of them based on new textual data, or a superior translation work.

#8 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 07:48 PM

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Exactly, and that's what's so unfortunate about them. The advantage of the NET is that I can see the decisions which the translators have made, because they explain them in a footnote. Then I can make up my own mind.

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? (  Apart from Jacob attacking...:eek:)


Yes, many of them based on new textual data, or a superior translation work.

For instance?

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 02 January 2005 - 08:06 PM

For instance?

  • Places in which the translation of the KJV has a trinitarian bias (the trinitarian bias in the NET is minimal to negligible, and they openly reject most of the classic trinitarian 'proof' texts, whilst providing textual data for the decision)

  • Places in which the KJV has a poor translation which Strong's won't fix (Zechariah 13:6 for example, and a host of places in which numbers are inaccurate and have been corrected with other textual data)

  • Insights into the meanings, derivations, and cultural context of certain words or phrases (especially where anti-pagan polemic is in view)


#10 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 05:28 AM

Good man. I really must have a look at it.

As I can't get a download, could you scan a page on so I can have a look? Who knows, we may agree on something after all!

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 08:32 AM

You can download it directly here.

#12 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 09:12 AM

You can download it directly here.

Thanks Fort. It's downloaded and I'll have a good look at it.

And thx Dave for helpfulness above and beyond the call of duty!

#13 aBluya_*

aBluya_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 09:53 AM

"Unless you are one of these people who picks up languages like ordinary people catch colds, I can't really recommend that you learn Hebrew or Greek. There are pluses, but in my view the minuses outweigh them by far."


You are very right Asyncritus, i didn't exactly think that one through. I DON'T learn languages all the well, i was just frustrated with all the versions. And comparing version to version is a useless undertaking in my mind. I want ONE version!!!!

It seems logical (in a way) that God's Word should have one translation, or one true translation. As it does in Greek, and Hebrew, of course those are the original. But you don't see them changing the Greek, or Hebrew Bible just because their language has evolved over the years.

I want the True Greek Vulgate, isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?

If so, why do no modern versions use it? Did everyone forget how the RCC tried to destroy orthodox Christianity? and how they are likely still trying? (possibly by pacifying us with corrupt text)


I am by no means a scholar or expert in Church history, but i've learned enough to never trust anything connected with the RCC. I am just baffeled by how quickly everyone forgets the insane doctrine, and horrific history of the RCC.

#14 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 03 January 2005 - 10:20 AM

I want the True Greek Vulgate


There's no such thing as the Greek Vulgate. There's only the Latin Vulgate - and it's not the best translation available.

isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?


No. The TR is riddled with inaccuracies. :book:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#15 aBluya_*

aBluya_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 10:39 AM

I want the True Greek Vulgate


There's no such thing as the Greek Vulgate. There's only the Latin Vulgate - and it's not the best translation available.

isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?


No. The TR is riddled with inaccuracies. :book:

i'm sure it does, when compared to all the RCC corrupted texts.

#16 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 January 2005 - 12:27 PM

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

Edited by Flappie, 03 January 2005 - 12:30 PM.

"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#17 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 12:50 PM

I can't really see how we as amateurs can really hope to find/create a definitive version of anything.

We are compelled to (or should I say, I am compelled to) rely on the professionality of the translators and textual researchers who do this work. By now, given the many hundreds of fragments and codices and I don't know what else, I imagine that they are about 99.999% of the way to reconstructing exactly what the original texts were. That is far in excess of the existing sources of any other ancient book.

We are then left to the mercies of the translators, which is the real bugbear.

But given that the said translators are scrutinised very minutely, I imagine, by their peers, they are forced, by sheer peer pressure, by conscience, and by professionalism to translate accurately. If say, a translated verse is wildly wrong, then soon in the technical papers produced by other scholars, there will be much criticism and mockery of the idiot(s) who produced this garbage. Not in so many words, but more politely.

So I believe that the line I, as amateur #14, take is the most sensible one. I rely on consensus - because I think it is highly improbable that there is a general translators' conspiracy to defraud the general public. They are above all else, individualistic, and intelligent - which tends, but does not guarantee to, produce correct work.

Between 12 of them (as in OLB) they probably have the correct translation somewhere. And if of the 12, 8 say yea, and 4 say nay, then I go with the 8. I would be a fool to do otherwise. If it's 6 and 6, then I'll have a look at my new NET download and then decide. Failing that, I will look at the context, and make my own mind up.

I don't think we can do any better.

Edited by Asyncritus, 03 January 2005 - 12:53 PM.


#18 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 January 2005 - 01:03 PM

Bit of a strange thing to say for someone who uses a lexicon to make a point. Apart from Youngs literal translation, howmany of those 12 have earth in Revelation 6:4? Why aren't you going with the majority in this case?

Edited by Flappie, 03 January 2005 - 01:04 PM.

"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#19 aBluya_*

aBluya_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 03:05 PM

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

could i get a source on that?

#20 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 January 2005 - 06:03 PM

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

could i get a source on that?

I don't have a source available, you could look up the history of the TR though. It was compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century, based on documents no older than the 10th century. In fact, some verses that were missing from his sources he translated back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. So not exactly the original faithfully guarded, not even a document itself, but a compilation.
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users