Hush, You Don't Speak Greek

[Beth O]

The Scholars will especially find this interesting.

http://fundamentalpreaching.org/media/12-30-07pm.mp3

[BigSuze]

Well, I am not sure what exactly to make of this sermon. I do not think that people who study Greek are trying to "improve" the Bible. Perhaps it is good that some people learn Greek just to make sure the new translations don't wander too far afield! No one speaks classical Greek or Koine Greek anymore, so this preacher's argument is a tad disconcerting as far as that goes. One could, if one wanted to, speak the ancient language for academic purposes, I suppose, a CS Lewis and his buddies did, but what would be the point since it is no longer a spoken language? (Other than the academic challenge of it all...) The New Testament vocabulary is finite...you can purchase a dictionary that has every NT word in it parsed. I do not believe it is necessary to know how to say, "Go to the store and buy yourself a new shirt" in classical or koine Greek in order to know Greek well enough to read the original language of the New Testament or the classical authors. Learning Greek is a privilege. Anyone who is so motivated will find an enormous blessing in doing so.

[MsSophie]

Doing a Greek word study really brings the scripture alive for me.

[Obadiah]

Beth:

I'm not an audio kind of person, so I haven't listened to the sermon you linked to. (Actually tried to, but when he hadn't said anything of substance in the first 5 minutes, I stopped.)

I figured it was probably yet another KJVOnlyist bashing of people who read the biblical languages, and, from the subsequent comments, I suspect my intuition was spot on.

Is this guy saying one has no right to read the Greek NT if he doesn't speak Greek? If so, he should direct his criticism at the KJV translators -- I'd be willing to bet none of those guys were fluent in conversational Greek (not to mention conversational Hebrew, which was not even a spoken language outside Jewish liturgical circles in 1611). Your preacher is reading a translation made by people who didn't speak Greek -- I guess if he'd been around in 1611 he'd have told them to hush?

[Beth O]

Beth:

I'm not an audio kind of person, so I haven't listened to the sermon you linked to. (Actually tried to, but when he hadn't said anything of substance in the first 5 minutes, I stopped.)

I figured it was probably yet another KJVOnlyist bashing of people who read the biblical languages, and, from the subsequent comments, I suspect my intuition was spot on.

Is this guy saying one has no right to read the Greek NT if he doesn't speak Greek? If so, he should direct his criticism at the KJV translators -- I'd be willing to bet none of those guys were fluent in conversational Greek (not to mention conversational Hebrew, which was not even a spoken language outside Jewish liturgical circles in 1611). Your preacher is reading a translation made by people who didn't speak Greek -- I guess if he'd been around in 1611 he'd have told them to hush?

Well, I can tell you didn't listen to the whole sermon. His point was that the KJV translators did in fact know Greek as "Scholar's" don't know today. They not only could look up Greek meanings for words in a Greek Lexicon, but they actually could speak Greek. During that time it was more common for Scholars to speak both Greek and Hebrew.

He's telling those that don't speak Greek conversationally and think they are able to "correct" the Bible and in fact have attempted to do just that with the modern versions... to Hush. He's not saying it's not good to study Greek or to read Greek. But if you don't feel it is worth listening to, I'm certainly not going to explain the whole sermon to you.

I just wanted to share an old post of mine:

There were 54 men selected in the translation of the KJV. Not only were they scholars, they were men of faith in God. Fallible men led by the Holy Spirit in truth.

They were divided into 6 groups , 2 groups were located at Westminster, 2 at Cambrindge and 2 at Oxford.

KJV is based on the 6 previous English translations:

1. Tyndale Bible - 1526
2. Coverdale Bible - 1535
3. Matthews Bible - 1537
4. Great Bible - 1539
5. Geneva Bible - 1560
6. Bishops Bible - 1568

7. KJV - 1611

For 270 years after, no other major translation was produced.

For 270 years we had the Holy Bible in the KJV. Now we have over 50 English versions, with drastic changes to God's Holy Word. Unless of course you think we were without God's Holy Word for 270 years? I think not. God said His Word is Perfect and would be preserved through out every generation. I believe God!! Amen!

[Obadiah]

Beth:

Well, I can tell you didn't listen to the whole sermon.

Since I actually said that, your observation is less than spectacularly intuitive.

His point was that the KJV translators did in fact know Greek as "Scholar's" don't know today. They not only could look up Greek meanings for words in a Greek Lexicon, but they actually could speak Greek. During that time it was more common for Scholars to speak both Greek and Hebrew.

I'd like to see some documentation for this claim. It especially strains credulity that the KJV translators spoke conversational Hebrew, since (as I also pointed out above) Hebrew was not operational as a conversational language in the 17th century.

As to the respective linguistic knowledge of KJV translators and modern "scholars" (I note you consistently put this word in quotation marks, in an obviously derisive manner), I don't know whether the KJV guys knew Koine Greek better or worse than today's translators. But I know for a fact they had significantly less knowledge of biblical Hebrew. As the foremost example, our knowledge of Hebrew has been greatly enhanced in the last 80 years from the discovery of the Ugaritic language. Ugaritic was the language of the Canaanites who inhabited the holy land before the Israelites moved in. It is remarkably similar to Hebrew (one might compare the similarity of Spanish and Italian) and has provided a treasure trove of insight into biblical Hebrew syntax, morphology, lexicography and prosody. This wealth of information was simply unavailable to the KJV translators.

He's telling those that don't speak Greek conversationally and think they are able to "correct" the Bible and in fact have attempted to do just that with the modern versions... to Hush.

Conversational fluency in modern Greek would likely be helpful in studying ancient written Greek, but by no means prerequisite. If your preacher has the gall to tell a man like Daniel Wallace he has no right to speak authoritatively on NT Greek, he's got his head buried even deeper in the sand than most KJVOnlyists.

And no one's trying to "correct the Bible" -- we're merely endeavoring to correct KJV's mistakes in their translation of the Bible.

God said His Word is Perfect and would be preserved through out every generation.

I assume you're referring to Psalm 12:6-7, whose abuse by KJVOnlyists has been well documented as bogus. If you'd like, I could share the relevant exegesis in capsule form on this thread. But what you're saying here doesn't make any sense, Beth. God's word was written in Greek and Hebrew, not in English. To "preserve" means to "maintain (something) in its original or existing state" (so says my dictionary). An English Bible is not a Hebrew/Greek Bible "in its original state." Your preservation argument falls flat on its face before it even gets off the ground.

Unless of course you think we were without God's Holy Word for 270 years? I think not.

What about the 1500 years between the inspiration of the NT and the publication of KJV, Beth? Were we without God's Holy Word all that time?

I believe God!!

See, here's the essence of the problem, Beth. When you equate believing in KJVOnlyism with believing God, you imply that everyone who disagrees with your man-made doctrine disbelieves God. This is why KJVOnlyism is the single most divisive issue in the body of Christ today.

I don't much expect you to listen. KJVOnlyists are the poster children for the "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" approach.

[Beth O]

God reveals Himself to those that belong to Him through His written Words. It must be preserved in the language that His people speak. So, yes, for 270 years those that speak English had His perfect preserved Word. Here is a site on the History of the Bible.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Here is the history of the Bible before 1400 ad

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html


Who were the
King James Version
Translators?
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm#toc

Go to the bottom of the article to find....BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS

[matheteou]

God reveals Himself to those that belong to Him through His written Words. It must be preserved in the language that His people speak. So, yes, for 270 years those that speak English had His perfect preserved Word. Here is a site on the History of the Bible.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Here is the history of the Bible before 1400 ad

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html


Who were the
King James Version
Translators?
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm#toc

Go to the bottom of the article to find....BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORSVery good and informative closing paragraphs at greatsite, thanks for pointing us to it:
As Christians, we must be very careful to make intelligent and informed decisions about what translations of the Bible we choose to read. On the liberal extreme, we have people who would give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad.


But equally dangerous, is the other extreme… of blindly rejecting ANY English translation that was produced in the four centuries that have come after the 1611 King James. We must remember that the main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to get the Bible out of the chains of being trapped in an ancient language that few could understand, and into the modern, spoken, conversational language of the present day. William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day… as he boldly told one official who criticized his efforts, “If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!”


Will we now go backwards, and seek to imprison God’s Word once again exclusively in ancient translations? Clearly it is not God’s will that we over-react to SOME of the bad modern translations, by rejecting ALL new translations and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The Word of God is unchanging from generation to generation, but language is a dynamic and ever-changing form of communication. We therefore have a responsibility before God as Christians to make sure that each generation has a modern translation that they can easily understand, yet that does not sacrifice accuracy in any way. Let’s be ever mindful that we are not called to worship the Bible. That is called idolatry. We are called to worship the God who gave us the Bible, and who preserved it through the centuries of people who sought to destroy it.

[Beth O]

Very good and informative closing paragraphs at greatsite, thanks for pointing us to it:

Yes, I understand the point of those paragraphs. Although, the problem is not that the modern versions updated the language alone, it's that the modern versions have changed the text and in places deleted full passages. So I can disagree with the article at that point.

Hopefully, you learned something of the history of the Bible, as that is why I posted the article. They do a very good job on the history of the Bible.

[Obadiah]

Beth:

Nice bios of the KJV translators. They were certainly very competent in their knowledge of the biblical languages (although the descriptions of these men cited there are so effusive as to border on hagiography).

But that's not the point. No one -- certainly not I -- will question the bona fides of King James' team. I'm not saying KJV is a lousy translation, just an imperfect one.

And, unless I missed it in my reading, none of the flowery bios substantiated your claims about these guys chit-chatting in biblical Hebrew.