Now, this is a thread I am really enjoying. While Prax and Mike have not yet contributed a great deal of their knowledge and insight to the discussion, I expect them to follow along in the footsteps of Maximilian, pelathais and rabbiriley. I wish more folks on this forum would follow along with this discussion, they would learn much in correctly understanding the Bible form the worldview of its authors.
I would only add the following notes for consideration and then step aside:
First, to paraphrase some old class notes: Even though we have the N.T. translated from several different Greek manuscripts, the style and grammar in the Greek form reflects a Hebrew worldview and approach to communication and instruction. That is,
(1) We are working with a conceptual form of communication (Hebraic verb-based language) vs. the Greek (and English) noun-based, abstract languages. To understand the complexity of the subject, note the extended use of Greek words required to convey (translate) the Hebrew Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint. Also, each contributor to the N.T. writings had to add (create) or modify (including combining) a great number of Greek words to ‘translate’ the Hebrew thought patterns and expressions (including Hebrew idioms) into the Greek language form(s). Reference: See any late addition Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon and the included reference section for Greek words and terms unique to each N.T. writer.
(2) In the Hebrew language and though pattern (required understanding to correctly interpret biblical Hebrew communications), there are technically only two tenses in the Hebrew language, perfect and imperfect.
While each word in the Hebrew can have up to seven different ‘tenses’ or grammatical values (bin yan), what we are stuck with is, within the Hebrew mindset, two expressions: future tense or past tense. Something will happen or it has already happened (this is one major reason why it can be so difficult to understand biblical prophecy in both the Old and New Testaments). While the specific bin yan of a word within a particular passage will determine if the word is passive, intensive, a command, or reflective. It will also identify the word’s associated usage according to gender, numeric value and establish whether if it is to be used in its singular or plural form. This conceptual approach was carried over into writing in the N.T. By translating the Greek text back into Hebrew, both the grammar and Hebrew idioms make ‘perfect’ sense.
(3) Frequently, scriptural interpretation of the N.T. also falls victim the Western abstract approach to language, i.e., we have little to no problem of taking a single sentence out of the scriptures, or, for that matter just a portion of a sentence, and expounding upon it for ‘hours’, i.e. we often take a few words out of the Bible as study them as if they had little or no relationship to the rest of scripture, e.g.
Act 2:38. When we do connect ‘stand alone’ verses together, we often will take bit and pieces of other scriptures that contain the same English word in them and tie them together into whatever fashion that seems to make sense to us, and wonder why some of our doctrines then conflict with one another.
(4) The entire Bible is a semi-sequential ‘unveiling’ of God to His creation. As a result, the Hebrew approach to understanding the scriptures is ‘find the conceptual thread’ and follow it to its conclusion. Then, this has to be understood from the knowledge that not all biblical threads were concluded until the advent of Jesus Christ.
What makes all of this so difficult is that we attempt to catch the ‘thread’ of a biblical concept by using the English language in our own cultural and historical context, rather than in the original language, and understanding its context within the author’s history, religion, and culture.
While all of this seems to be an impossible task, unless one is an original biblical language scholar, it is doable! However, casual reading of scripture, or the committed study of the word in order to ‘prove’ a doctrine or theological position will usually lead one into error (a false or incomplete understanding of scripture).
Second. While there is much more that could be added to this, I submit but one example of the challenge to those who would be teachers:
Up until the late 1800’s almost every Western religious leader/teacher was knowledgeable in the Greek, Latin and even in Hebrew. This allowed them to translate, when necessary, original writings in order to pull out the relevant interpretation and applications from scripture. Preaching from a few notes was unheard of. Sermons were written down, in order to be read from the pulpit, not to be presented as an expository performance.
This allowed the preacher to ‘explain’ (present, interpret, apply) scripture in a way so as to teach the congregation the word of God, rather than just preaching ‘about’ the word.
Consider what the term ‘perfect’ means to you. What pictures do you conjure up in your mind as to what that term means, and how it should be applied in any communication (written or oral) concerning an event, idea, or situation.
The following is one of my favorite examples.
Linear Mode
