Tagged Texts

Good afternoon, Been a long time since I've posted: so howdy. This may take a staff person to answer yet her it goes. I'm working through some verbal aspect materials. Porter and others. I think my tire old brain may be learning some things.

However. I know of no way to apply any of the information whilst using Logos (or any other Bible App) because it does not appear that there is any text tagged with the "new" thinking about the Greek verb.

Thanks for your time!

Bob the Preacher

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

However. I know of no way to apply any of the information whilst using Logos (or any other Bible App) because it does not appear that there is any text tagged with the "new" thinking about the Greek verb.

Probably correct! But what is the "new" thinking?

xnman

However. I know of no way to apply any of the information whilst using Logos (or any other Bible App) because it does not appear that there is any text tagged with the "new" thinking about the Greek verb. Bob the Preacher

Careful.... if it's new it's probably not bible, if it's bible it's not new.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272607#Comment_1272607

Careful.... if it's new it's probably not bible, if it's bible it's not new.

Okay, you need to educate me. Which book of the Bible is a Greek grammar? Is it esoteric Protestant trito-canonical? May I borrow your secret handshake to get a peek? [8-|] Grammar is a descriptive discipline that observes the rules that appear to be used by a native speaker of the language. While it changes more slowly than some disciplines, there is always progress in simpler and/or more accurate descriptions.

The "New View" or "Living Language" approach to Greek verbs is a recent development in the field of Biblical Greek studies. Traditional grammatical understanding had been heavily influenced by Latin grammatical categories, which led to interpreting Greek verbs primarily in terms of time (past, present, future). The new view challenges this perspective, arguing that aspect and Aktionsart (kind of action) are more central to understanding Greek verb forms than time is.

Key Points of the New View:

Aspectual Prominence: The argument is that Greek is primarily an aspect-prominent language rather than a tense-prominent one. Therefore, verbal aspect—whether an action is viewed as complete (perfective), ongoing (imperfective), or a combination (stative)—is considered more central to the meaning of the verb.

De-emphasizing Time: Time is considered secondary and is often determined by the larger context rather than the verb form itself. For example, the aorist is not always "past" but is better understood as portraying a simple, undefined action, the timing of which must be discerned from context.

Semantic Range: Under the new view, each Greek verb form is understood to have a broader semantic range, and its precise meaning in a given context is shaped more by its interaction with other linguistic features like mood, voice, and the lexical meaning of the verb.

Objectivity and Subjectivity: Some proponents also delve into how the 'subjectivity' of the speaker can affect the choice of aspect.

Aktionsart: This refers to the intrinsic, inherent type of action a verb denotes, such as punctiliar (point-like), iterative (repeated), durative (ongoing), etc. The new view emphasizes the interplay between aspect and Aktionsart in understanding the semantics of a Greek verb.

The new view has been the subject of ongoing debate but has been increasingly adopted in recent grammars and exegesis of Biblical Greek texts. It provides nuanced ways to approach Greek verbs, thus allowing for a more context-sensitive and dynamic understanding of the text.

answers Dave's earlier question. Philologist have known for at least half a century that Latin was much closer to Proto-Indo-European than Greek so their grammar should also show more difference.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272613#Comment_1272613

my quote - "Careful.... if it's new it's probably not bible, if it's bible it's not new."

Well...since you asked........ and I mean no disrespect but what I meant was ....The bible was completed about 96ad (not counting the 4 year argument of when Jesus was born)... And the bible is the complete message from God, basically the O.T. through Moses and such and the N.T. through Jesus Christ. (There are scriptures to support this).

Now given that... then all of the message from God is contained and given by 96 ad. I know some will not agree, but it is that simple. Which means the "new things" many are preaching today, did not come from God.

(ducks head and crawls under desk waiting for the fallout... lol )

Edit: As to the Greek grammar.... I'm not sure what you mean by "which book"... but basically the N.T. is considered Greek, Latin and Arabic if I'm not mistaken. Which book is which... I have not given that much thought to be honest.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272617#Comment_1272617

Now given that... then all of the message from God is contained and given by 96 ad.

Okay, I misunderstood your intent entirely and therefore, you misunderstood my humor. I thought you were saying that a new understanding of the Greek grammar was not possible because the Bible was complete. So, I (facetiously) thought that like the text of the Bible, the text of the grammar was inspired and frozen in time. Please don't go theological in a grammatical thread - its confusing and against the guidelines.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272618#Comment_1272618

don't know how what I first posted was theological.... just a statement of fact. Please don't read into my posts what is not there. Thanks.

Matt Hamrick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272617#Comment_1272617

my quote - "Careful.... if it's new it's probably not bible, if it's bible it's not new."

Well...since you asked........ and I mean no disrespect but what I meant was ....The bible was completed about 96ad (not counting the 4 year argument of when Jesus was born)... And the bible is the complete message from God, basically the O.T. through Moses and such and the N.T. through Jesus Christ. (There are scriptures to support this).

Now given that... then all of the message from God is contained and given by 96 ad. I know some will not agree, but it is that simple. Which means the "new things" many are preaching today, did not come from God.

(ducks head and crawls under desk waiting for the fallout... lol )

Edit: As to the Greek grammar.... I'm not sure what you mean by "which book"... but basically the N.T. is considered Greek, Latin and Arabic if I'm not mistaken. Which book is which... I have not given that much thought to be honest.

I hate to be the party pooper but you are mistaken.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272617#Comment_1272617

As to the Greek grammar.... I'm not sure what you mean by "which book"... but basically the N.T. is considered Greek, Latin and Arabic if I'm not mistaken. Which book is which... I have not given that much thought to be honest.

All of the NT was written in Greek, nothing in Latin or Arabic. There has been discussion if something (esp. Matthew) might have been drafted in Hebrew and then translated, but it seems this was not the case. On the other hand, the direct speech recorded/summarized in the Gospels and Acts might have been originally spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic or even Latin in some cases, but we don't have information about that except for a few remarks by Jesus that were retained and identified in the Gospels as to their language.

Now given that... then all of the message from God is contained and given by 96 ad. I know some will not agree, but it is that simple. Which means the "new things" many are preaching today, did not come from God.

Sorry to be frank, but here you are fully missing the boat. The OP is asking about changes the understanding of Greek language. Let me use an example you may have heard of, or at least can look up easily. All of the hieroglyphic messages hammered into stones in Egypt many hundreds of years ago were given by their authors and contained on such stones, unchanged. Many of them were plain to see. However, all understanding of those hieroglyphs from the Middle Ages up unto 1824 (when Champollion translated the Rosetta stone inscription) were wrong and often pure fantasy. People simply interpreted the hieroglyphs wrong because they went to them with wrong preunderstandings and not enough knowledge. Thus the interpretation of hieroglyphs changed (in this case dramatically) with the increased understanding about old-Egytian language that came through Champollion. This change was "new things", but for the good of the understanding of the old, given and unchanged message. Are there crazy people reading crazy things from the hieroglyphs, such as alien UFOs landing in Egypt thousands of years BCE and building the pyramids? Yes there are. Do they have anything to do with language specialists working on understanding the meaning of things written thousands of years ago? Not in the least.

The "new" understanding of the Greek usage of verbs is by far less disruptive than my example. I think there are books in the Logos catalog that describe this (possibly it has become so mainstream as to be part of Greek learner's grammars) I haven't heard about theological disruptions coming out of it.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272721#Comment_1272721

Thanks for the responses. I was not trying to start anything. I may be the only one, but I have come to believe that after 96 ad God didn't speak to man any more. I use Heb 1:1-2 as support. I don't find the bible saying God spoke through anyone else in these last days.

I know on Logos forums there are many different beliefs... I respect that.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272734#Comment_1272734

Thanks for the responses. I was not trying to start anything. I may be the only one, but I have come to believe that after 96 ad God didn't speak to man any more. I use Heb 1:1-2 as support. I don't find the bible saying God spoke through anyone else in these last days.

Nobody argues against your conviction here (there may be arguments, but they go beyond the scope of this forum). The topic of this thread is something completely different. Even if your position was correct, and even if everything that God spoke to man from around 10 BC to 96 AD was infallibly, exhaustively, completely and without any error put down in the Greek autographs of the NT, nobody argues against that in this thread. In fact, such a position would even more want to rightfully and correctly exegete those Greek texts.

The topic of this thread is understanding what those Greek manuscripts mean, here especially in the nuanced meaning of the Greek verbs.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272734#Comment_1272734

I may be the only one, but I have come to believe that after 96 ad God didn't speak to man any more. I use Heb 1:1-2 as support. I don't find the bible saying God spoke through anyone else in these last days.

How do I get you to understand that in the forums I don't care if you are a cessationalist or what you use to support that belief. It is completely irrelevant to the use of Logos software. It is appropriate to ask for resources that present a cessationalist position or perhaps to mention that you do/don't hold that position as a reason for wanting recommendations. But it is NOT appropriate to say what scriptures convinced you of your position. I am genuinely having trouble figuring out why you don't get that -- and that is something I am generally fairly good at. When you turn a thread from grammar to theology to me it seems like you are either "trying to start something" or "trying to force your beliefs on me". What am I missing?

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272822#Comment_1272822

I may be the only one, but I have come to believe that after 96 ad God didn't speak to man any more. I use Heb 1:1-2 as support. I don't find the bible saying God spoke through anyone else in these last days.

How do I get you to understand that in the forums I don't care if you are a cessationalist or what you use to support that belief. It is completely irrelevant to the use of Logos software. It is appropriate to ask for resources that present a cessationalist position or perhaps to mention that you do/don't hold that position as a reason for wanting recommendations. But it is NOT appropriate to say what scriptures convinced you of your position. I am genuinely having trouble figuring out why you don't get that -- and that is something I am generally fairly good at. When you turn a thread from grammar to theology to me it seems like you are either "trying to start something" or "trying to force your beliefs on me". What am I missing?

My apologies.... I Don't mean to frustrate anyone... was just explaining my comment, which you asked for.

Edit: I spent some time this morning (started at 3 am) going through forums and reading my posts and yours and others replies. I agree, some of my posts appear to "hijack" a thread as you say....I didn't mean too, but I see it more clearly now. I will stop posting. And I do apologize.

Kevin S. Coy, OFS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272848#Comment_1272848

I will stop posting

Do not stop posting...you have lots to offer. You add a lot of insight to the forums with your knowledge and wit.

KSC

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272848#Comment_1272848

I will stop posting. And I do apologize.

Apology accepted. Don't stop posting ...just stay on topic. When you stay on topic, you're a valued forumite. I'd miss you.