The undeniably controversial pastor Mark Driscoll weighs in on Logos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287137#Comment_287137

That sure sounds like a 'spicy' question.

Ted Hans

Thanks brother Mark for sharing. I enjoyed the article.

Pat Flanakin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287152#Comment_287152

This is not necessarily directed at Pastor Driscoll.

I find it curious that those pastors today that find the technology and other resources a time-saving means of sermon prep utilize the resources through those tools which were created by theologians spending thousands of hours researching the Scripture to understand as much of it as they could, without apology.

Why do you think they spent so much time? They could have sought shortcuts just as much as Pastor Driscoll. As Solomon stated in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun in terms of sin; therefore, laziness isn't a niche market.

I say this to indicate clearly that scholarship and theological study in the past doesn't excuse in-depth analysis and research still needed today. The reason is, and this is always going to be the truth, even in heaven, that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, can understand Scripture for you. That is between you, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ...PERIOD.

When we utilize commentaries and other resources in place of in-depth understanding of the original languages, isagogics, exegesis, hermeneutics, etc... to prepare sermons and teach, then we have determined to allow the scholarship of others to "understand" Scripture for that pastor who should seek to understand it FIRST from Scripture, then compare and contrast to former and contemporaneous scholarship.

Commentaries and works of former theologians have a place and they are essential, yet, they are not there as a crutch, but as an assistant...and assistants do not do the work for you, but enable you to get the work done that you are responsible for.

Pat Flanakin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287153#Comment_287153

Last thing...I am hard pressed to listen to a pastor who doesn't know the original languages because that pastor CANNOT on their own, exegete Scripture.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287155#Comment_287155

Last thing...I am hard pressed to listen to a pastor who doesn't know the original languages because that pastor CANNOT on their own, exegete Scripture.

I say this to indicate clearly that scholarship and theological study in
the past doesn't excuse in-depth analysis and research still needed
today. The reason is, and this is always going to be the truth, even in
heaven, that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, can understand Scripture for
you. That is between you, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit,
through Jesus Christ...PERIOD.

So, if I understand scripture you would find it hard to listen if I could not exegete scripture? If my purpose was to touch your heart you may not listen unless it also touched your mind? I am not being critical, but I do not think that a knowledge of the original languages is a pre-requisite to understanding when that arises between myself and the Holy Spirit in combination with the knowledge of past scholarship (at least to the extent that I trust the English Bible(s) I use together with a little Logos research).

I could have a wrong understanding but I may still disagree with your interpretation from a knowledge of the original languages. If one were to preach "God hates divorce" from Mal 2:16 would anybody be wrong especially when EBC states "God succinctly gave his verdict: “I hate divorce.”"? ESV does an end-run about that, HCSB has the man hating the wife, CEV has God hating the man and NKJV has God hating divorce! At the end of the day it would depend if the emphasis is on Mal 2:16 or on the subject.

Kevin A. Purcell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287311#Comment_287311

I am very sorry Pat that you are unwilling to listen to a person who doesn't have the right education. Can you please interpret 1 Cor. 1:27 for me?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287155#Comment_287155

I don't know ... I've read Pat's comment's several times. The final comment would seem to be a personal one.

But before he decided to expand his comments, I suspect there's quite a bit of truth in them. Especially about personal responsibility in studying.

My Dad preached for maybe 60 years. He had a stack of 3x5 cards that crossed over those 60 years, one for each sermon.

Recently I was down in Houston, showing him Logos and the text from soldiers near Arad, apparently while Babylon was busily paying Edom to needle Judah. But I asked him how long it took to prepare his sermons after 60 years. A few minutes?? Goodness, after preaching so many years. He said, no ... it took a full day.

I'm not sure how much greek and hebrew got mixed in. But that simple answer meant a lot.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287398#Comment_287398

As to the original languages, what about everyone sitting in the pew who doesn't know the original languages? are we then going to say that you should hold as suspect everything you learn on your own from scripture and pass it by someone with more knowledge? Are they incapable of exegesis scripture on their own? And how well does someone need to know the languages before the are able to handle the word of God competently. Do I need to be able to speak it fluently to truly understand the language?

As far as the time involved in studying scripture goes, I can sympathize with the caution. One of the dangers I first saw myself falling into as I relied more on Logos (both V3 and V4) for my study is that the Word had just enough time to get to my head, but not enough time to soak into my heart. So I knew it well enough to preach a message but not well enough to have my life visibly altered by that truth 2 weeks later. Meditation will always be important and meditation will always involve time.

That being said I would like to point out that, as far as I read, Mark Driscoll did not say that he only spent 1 hour on his message. I seem to recall that he said his message was a compilation of much reading outside of the message, though not directly connected to the message. I think it is quite possible to so live in the Word that its truths are right at your finger tips. So much so that when you sit to prepare a message truth does not have to be re-formulated, but that truth naturally flows out of what you have already learned. I pray God would move me towards such a place, and break down every distraction that would cause me to have to continually re-learn His truth.

Charles Tondee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287398#Comment_287398

I agree with the sentiment that is being expressed, that study of God's word is to be thorough, and it should take time for that to happen. I do agree with some of the thoughts that are being expressed, especially complacency and laziness must be guarded against.

There is always the very real possibility of self-sufficiency when it comes to study or preaching God's word. I find study to be greatest when the Holy Spirit reveals to me just how much I didn't know about a passage that was familiar to me. It's not always in understanding the original language (though it might foster this) that it occurs this way, but usually as a product of prayer, study (original and english) contemplation, and meditation.

I believe the call to preach is a call to be educated in all facets of Biblical knowledge, but we must not understate the Importance of the Holy Spirit (which i do not think anyone is; just making the point) - 1 Corinthians 1-3 really emphasize, that it's not the human capacity to understand or human wisdom, that produces anything but the Spirit's power to illuminate and reveal. Now that doesn't negate the responsibility to personally study, but places emphasis upon what's truly important.

Let's not forget about the apostles, just common ordinary individuals from all walks of life, in acts 4.13 the KJV says they recognized they were unlearned and ignorant men (uneducated, common ESV) but took notice that they had been with Jesus. God uses the weak (common and ordinary) to confound the strong (or for that matter wise).

PS. Denise, thank you for sharing about your Father and his preparation; My father has been in the Ministry about 40 years and He studies constantly; He has given e a good example. It's funny my six year old came up to me the other day and commented "Daddy all you do is study, Why do you study all the time?" I hope to leave the same example of the Importance of Bible study to my children as my father left with Me.

To veer back on topic Logos is a great tool in study; it's only an instrument that when used correctly and effectively will aid in Bible study.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287409#Comment_287409

To veer back on topic Logos is a great tool in study; it's only an instrument that when used correctly and effectively will aid in Bible study.

[Y]

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287404#Comment_287404

I fear this discussion will generate more heat than light, but I'm jumping in anyway.

1) Unlike Muslims, for whom the Koran is only the Koran if it is in the original Arabic, we Christians view translations of the Bible as the Bible. Back in Christian beginnings, we picked up the Greek Translation made by Hebrews in Alexandria and ran with it. As easy as this general statement is to make, to apply this to specific cases is difficult. To pick a favorite whipping boy, is the Jehovah's Witness' "New World Translation" the Bible? If not, what about the mistranslations there are so bad to do this when there are gross mistranslations in many other translations which have been considered biblical? To be honest, I would lean towards it not being biblical because it messes up the Christological message, but I can admit I may be wrong in this...

2) It is certainly valuable to look at the Bible in the original languages. It is an extremely useful tool to do so. We disregard it at our peril. But is it really necessary for true faith? I would say it is not. The simple sunday school teacher can be the person used to create and nurture faith in people.

3) Logos Bible Software does remove some of the tedious work involved in exegesis. But I want to echo Luther that reading books don't make a theologian, but rather living, dying, and being damned. Logos is a useful tool when it connects me with people who have had struggles like I have had, so I can learn from their wisdom. But it also is very easy to just quote things outside of writers contexts and to make them say something they do not. I have no problem whatsoever when Logos lets me quickly investigate things, but recognize it does not remove me from the struggle to make sense of God and the World.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287424#Comment_287424

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287424#Comment_287424

I fear this discussion will generate more heat than light, but I'm jumping in anyway.

1) Unlike Muslims, for whom the Koran is only the Koran if it is in the original Arabic, we Christians view translations of the Bible as the Bible. Back in Christian beginnings, we picked up the Greek Translation made by Hebrews in Alexandria and ran with it. As easy as this general statement is to make, to apply this to specific cases is difficult. To pick a favorite whipping boy, is the Jehovah's Witness' "New World Translation" the Bible? If not, what about the mistranslations there are so bad to do this when there are gross mistranslations in many other translations which have been considered biblical? To be honest, I would lean towards it not being biblical because it messes up the Christological message, but I can admit I may be wrong in this...

2) It is certainly valuable to look at the Bible in the original languages. It is an extremely useful tool to do so. We disregard it at our peril. But is it really necessary for true faith? I would say it is not. The simple sunday school teacher can be the person used to create and nurture faith in people.

3) Logos Bible Software does remove some of the tedious work involved in exegesis. But I want to echo Luther that reading books don't make a theologian, but rather living, dying, and being damned. Logos is a useful tool when it connects me with people who have had struggles like I have had, so I can learn from their wisdom. But it also is very easy to just quote things outside of writers contexts and to make them say something they do not. I have no problem whatsoever when Logos lets me quickly investigate things, but recognize it does not remove me from the struggle to make sense of God and the World.

I agree that the original languages are not only useful, but would contend that for a minister of the word they are absolutely essential. I am amazed when I hear some seem to indicate that they think prayer is the golden road to understanding a passage. I sometimes wonder to whom some of these are really praying and must conclude in some cases that they are praying to themselves. A passage can be understood from a translation providing that translation is accuarate in that passage (so stated because all translations fail at some point). Understanding a passage requires both an understanding of the meaning or the original text (which might possibly be gained through a translation) together with a deep consideration of its intent and therefore of its implications. Sometimes I think we get too many sermons which are prepared in 10 minutes (perhaps a slight exaggeration).

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287465#Comment_287465

so, i'm getting the drift several of us have differences on matters related to Mark and/or the Bible and/or original languages.

could this get heated? Yeah!

Will it? NO! because we are all thoughtful, logos forum abiding members. . . [A]

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287465#Comment_287465

I agree that the original languages are not only useful, but would contend that for a minister of the word they are absolutely essential. I am amazed when I hear some seem to indicate that they think prayer is the golden road to understanding a passage. I sometimes wonder to whom some of these are really praying and must conclude in some cases that they are praying to themselves. A passage can be understood from a translation providing that translation is accuarate in that passage (so stated because all translations fail at some point). Understanding a passage requires both an understanding of the meaning or the original text (which might possibly be gained through a translation) together with a deep consideration of its intent and therefore of its implications. Sometimes I think we get too many sermons which are prepared in 10 minutes (perhaps a slight exaggeration).

I would agree that a minister of the word SHOULD care enough about the word to want to know the original languages, but essential? You are someone who has spent quite a time with the fathers. Many of them didn't know Hebrew... Many of the Latin Fathers didn't seem to consult the Greek much. I would argue that languages are part of the "bene esse" rather than "esse". I would add that when a minister of the word no longer sees this as being "bene", there is a problem. Your point about the temptation to bow down and pray to our minds own idols rather than the true God, is, of course a valid one and certainly a danger in our culture.

Of course, feel free to disregard anything I say. I'm not a minister of the word and so only speak for myself. <g>

Dennis Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287155#Comment_287155

Pat, I understand what you are saying but times change and tools change, it doesn't necessarily mean people/pastors are being lazy who utilize them. As for not listening to Pastors who lack knowledge of original languages, I have not experienced any great revelation from these so called individuals who have attended seminary or Bible college, for many of them it seems the only original language that mattered was the good ol' King James language. I am not a schooled linguist when it comes to the Greek but I do try and use the tools I have available to me thru logos and find it fascinating how limited the English language is when it comes to expressing the true literal understanding of the scriptures. So many words we take for granted are not even in the Bible, such as Holy, Church and Trinity but yet their original language counterparts convey so much more about these words when used in their intended context and scope and historical/cultural setting.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287465#Comment_287465

A passage can be understood from a translation providing that translation is accurate in that passage (so stated because all translations fail at some point).

I will certainly not debate the great value in knowing the original languages. I certainly wish I knew them better myself. However in the end, isn't everyone dependent upon a translation? Your comment about prayer and how we can end up "praying to ourselves" got me thinking about this. When I use a translation I am dependent upon the Translators understanding of the original languages and the biases they bring to the translation process. However if I knew Greek, I would simply be the translator in the process. Therefore rather then depending upon someone elses translating skills I am dependent on mine. Either way, that passage is being translated into the language I am using.

Study is important. Study is the natural product of someone who sincerely cares. But study without the Holy Spirit is nothing more then my opinion vs. someone elses. So why should I think my fallibility is less substantial then theirs? Holy Spirit + Careful study + Humility is a powerful combination. Logos can do great things for that Careful Study part.

Charles Tondee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287469#Comment_287469

I think the bit on prayer to oneself is a little overstated or maybe that is the purpose. I don't think it's the golden road, as there must be serious personal effort and work put into the passage. Prayer is not a shortcut to understanding. If the things of God are spiritually discerned, there is nothing wrong with invoking the aid of the "one who will guide you into all truth" Not a shortcut, but the one who aids in spiritual discernment.

George I do agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentence!

I think Kenneth summed it up wonderfully with Point 2 of his post, with the original languages we disregard at our own peril. Yet I have a sunday school teacher at the church I pastor who knows nothing of Original languages, but studies the Word of God constantly, faithfully teaches and applies it, (I sit in and listen to our teachers) and has an impact on his students who are growing tremendously in their walk with the Lord. Greater than that He is probably the best witness I have ever met.

I understand the point that is being made by both Pat and George. I can see both sides. I went to a few churches, which preached the English translation sufficed and was all you needed, and found their message was extremely shallow and usually everything boiled do this get this results. I find Balance is the key to many areas in the Christian Life (NOT SAYING ANYONE HERE IS UNBALANCED).

As a child of God, I crave the deeper things of the Bible, and find for myself, I am unsatisfied with shallow preaching. That is reflected in my study of God's Word, I desire to understand the scriptures and that requires deep study and meditation.Problem is there are many who have no desire to study the Bible, no concern for growing deeper in relationship with Him and they occupy space within a church. ( I appreciate these forums because its not just scholars and pastors but includes many lay people who demonstrate they have a desire to know God's word)

We might not agree on every point, but I thank the Lord for each of you and your desire to know Him more deeply through His Word. These forums have helped me tremendously by seeing other peoples viewpoints.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287469#Comment_287469

because we are all thoughtful, logos forum abiding members. . .

Dan, you need to remember the final form of the sigma. [:@] (not really)

Charles Tondee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287482#Comment_287482

Study is important. Study is the natural product of someone who sincerely cares. But study without the Holy Spirit is nothing more then my opinion vs. someone elses. So why should I think my fallibility is less substantial then theirs? Holy Spirit + Careful study + Humility is a powerful combination. Logos can do great things for that Careful Study part.

[Y]

Mike W

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287469#Comment_287469

Will it? NO! because we are all thoughtful, logos forum abiding members. . .

[Y][Y]

I agree that study of the original language is very valuable however other aspects of interpretation are important as well (Historical context for example). I'm sure we've all heard ministers make a point based on an outdated understanding of the language (aorist tense anyone?) or a nuance of a word where the overall picture of scripture did not support this (Jn.21:16 comes to mind) I believe that the variety of resources that LOGOS provides and the ability to access them quickly can make the time we have to devote to study much more productive. I think that may have been the point of Mr. Driscoll's comment.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287495#Comment_287495

I am not going to get involved in this discussion any more than to say that Jesus used a translation. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287501#Comment_287501

I am not going to get involved in this discussion any more than to say that Jesus used a translation.

Prove it.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287506#Comment_287506

I am not going to get involved in this discussion any more than to say that Jesus used a translation.

Prove it.

If I may use Colbert Logic on this one...[[Sarcasm_Mode=ON]]

1) Jesus spoke the red letters of my red letter KJV

2) The KJV is a translation

3) Ergo, Jesus used a translation which was printed almost 1600 years later when he was preaching and teaching.

I just couldn't resist...

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287544#Comment_287544

[:D] Kenneth

jwsheets

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287153#Comment_287153

I have a theology degree, and I study from the original languages. I am appreciative for the tool that these things are in my study of Scripture. But I would be hesitant to say that a knowledge of the original languages is a necessary prerequisite to knowing, understanding or living the truths taught in the Bible. First, Jesus didn't use the original text, He used the Septuagint - a translation. Second, the Bible (both testaments) were written to primarily illiterate peoples who didn't even have access to a the Bible in any form. It is not Father, Son and Holy Book (even if it is a Greek book). Hearing, believing and responding under the influence of Holy Spirit is all that is required. But I do love the original languages tools in Logos [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287544#Comment_287544

If I may use Colbert Logic on this one...[[Sarcasm_Mode=ON]]

1) Jesus spoke the red letters of my red letter KJV

2) The KJV is a translation

3) Ergo, Jesus used a translation which was printed almost 1600 years later when he was preaching and teaching.

I just couldn't resist...

Give me that old King James version;
Give me that old King James version;
Give me that old King James version;
It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Moses;
It was good enough for Moses;
It was good enough for Moses:
It's good enough for me.

Sing it, folks ! [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287551#Comment_287551

Jesus didn't use the original text, He used the Septuagint

Prove it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287577#Comment_287577

Oh, George ... everyone KNOWS Jesus went to Sepphoris Bible College, which at the time had one of the better alexandrian greek programs. It was Matthew that was the big question mark.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287608#Comment_287608

Oh, George ... everyone KNOWS Jesus went to Sepphoris Bible College, which at the time had one of the better alexandrian greek programs. It was Matthew that was the big question mark.

You mean he didn't go to Tiberias Technical Training School?

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287501#Comment_287501

I am not going to get involved in this discussion any more than to say that Jesus used a translation.

Maybe Jesus didn't., but many of the authors of the New Testament appear to have used the LXX, not the "original Hebrew" (which itself in parts may be a translation from Akkadian or Sumerian? - just guessin').

Plus, words are just symbols. When spoken, they're air/sonic wave pressure against the ear drums, which is translated by brain nerves, and when written, they're simply colored photons intercepted by the eye and electrically sent to and translated by the brain.

In fact, everything we sense is, in a sense, a translation and interpretation.

Reading the above in the right state of mind can cause you to achieve enlightenment.

Edwin Bowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287622#Comment_287622

I believe that it is agreed that the everyday language that Jesus used was not Greek. When we read the Gospel accounts of Jesus, we are reading a translation.

Brother Mark

Although some of us won't be able to resist commenting on Pastor Driscoll's lightning-rod methods/doctrine/ethics/etc.... I was only aiming to share Yet Another Prestigious Person's (YAPP) endorsement of Logos.

....And thank you pastor Driscoll for the controversy we've all enjoyed in the thread... (seriously, you just KNEW the sparks would fly with that one hour of prep comment, but who knew it would zag in this direction?)

Pat Flanakin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287369#Comment_287369

I am very sorry Pat that you are unwilling to listen to a person who doesn't have the right education. Can you please interpret 1 Cor. 1:27 for me?

Mr. Purcell, are we referring to those with the gift of pastor-teacher, or believers in the church in general? I have no doubt that those with worldly sub-average IQs can be gifted with pastor-teacher abilities through the HS and go on to get educated well and teach.

There are pastors-in-name-only who don't have the gift who are lauded as having it, no doubt you would agree. Of course God knows who they are, but the Bible defines a pastor's responsibility quite clearly, apart from the sheepfold.

Lastly, by right education, I take you are referring to where I state that I am hard pressed (not implacably hard pressed) to listen to a pastor who doesn't study and prepare sermons based on knowledge of the original languages. I stand by that statement.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287892#Comment_287892

Lastly, by right education, I take you are referring to where I state that I am hard pressed (not implacably hard pressed) to listen to a pastor who doesn't study and prepare sermons based on knowledge of the original languages. I stand by that statement.

Pat, I appreciate your tone and the way you have put your position forward. Given the parish to which I belong, it may well have been 40 years or more since I've heard a Sunday sermon from someone who wasn't comfortable in the original languages. However, since we expect sermons daily I've heard many sermons that were not built on hours of study that particular week but were built on years of study and life experience. Because of this, I have a different take than you on how I judge a sermon - I judge a sermon based on the quality of the message not on the preparation of the message.

That being said, I suspect that I could get you to reword your statement to something closer to "I more easily trust a pastor to present a high quality sermon if I know that they spend time in study and know the original languages." Stated in that way, I would agree with you. [:)]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287892#Comment_287892

Lastly, by right education, I take you are referring to where I state that I am hard pressed (not implacably hard pressed) to listen to a pastor who doesn't study and prepare sermons based on knowledge of the original languages. I stand by that statement.

Well each to their own, I would gladly listen to sermon by Billy Graham any day...

-Dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287924#Comment_287924

Lastly, by right education, I take you are referring to where I state that I am hard pressed (not implacably hard pressed) to listen to a pastor who doesn't study and prepare sermons based on knowledge of the original languages. I stand by that statement.

Well each to their own, I would gladly listen to sermon by Billy Graham any day...

-Dan

Without intending to show any lack of respect for Billy Graham who is something of an icon, a distinction needs to be made regarding gifts. Billy Graham is an evangelist. Others are pastors. Some need milk while others need meat. I would hope that by now I am beyond the bottle stage and would not be interested in a sermon by Billy Graham.

Matt Hamrick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287577#Comment_287577

Jesus didn't use the original text, He used the Septuagint

Prove it.

[Y][Y][Y]

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287929#Comment_287929

Hi Pat and George, I did not think that I would want to get involved here but find the views interesting and am very gracious for the mild tone this discussion has had when it could have very easily went bad quickly, so thanks to all involved so far. Pat & George, I am curious about your thoughts on this subject and my question is not trying to make a rebuttal (although I am sure it will sound as if it is) but to dig into your thoughts a little deeper. [:)]

My question is: Would you consider the requirement of fluent knowledge of the original languages as important for a pastor in the year 1800 as necessary as it is for today? The reason I ask is because I would imagine (no knowledge if this is actual fact) that we have a lot more trained in the original languages today than we did back then and it seems that the Gospel message has survived and been passed on by those who were not necessarily trained in any other language than their own.

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287924#Comment_287924

...I would gladly listen to sermon by Billy Graham any day...

As would I. It isn't as though Billy is an uneducated bumpkin by contrast... having a Bible college diploma and a Bachelor's in Anthropology, but, alas, not fluent in the original languages. Yet. He is arguably one of the mightiest evangelist of this century, due to his simple and personable presentation of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.

It isn't as though there is anything wrong with a scholarly approach, and like many reading this, I appreciate a message that incorporates an intellectual appeal (which may be equated to familiarity with original languages as well as with the "fresh bread" of long hours of preparation). That being said, I'd never exchanged the power of God (cf: (Holy Spirit unction as defined by Ravenhill, for example) or the Godly wisdom of an uneducated farmhand-turned-preacher by the call of God for any number of erudite and classically trained expositors who ably communicate with my head but not my heart... perhaps because they haven't experience the Gospel in their heart. [^o)]

Indulge me a little (more?) preaching to the choir: The reference to a wise but uneducated preacher is predicated upon wisdom that is the gift of God (James 1:5). Not the worldly definition of wisdom that follows the progression of information leads to knowledge leads to understanding leads to wisdom.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287937#Comment_287937

My question is: Would you consider the requirement of fluent knowledge of the original languages as important for a pastor in the year 1800 as necessary as it is for today? The reason I ask is because I would imagine (no knowledge if this is actual fact) that we have a lot more trained in the original languages today than we did back then and it seems that the Gospel message has survived and been passed on by those who were not necessarily trained in any other language than their own.

First, I would not agree that we have more trained in the original languages today than previously. You may not be aware of this but some of the Founding Fathers of the United States who were not even in the ministry could read Greek and Latin (I'm not sure about their knowledge of Hebrew). While our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew has improved qualitatively, I don't think that quantitatively (on a percentage basis) there is an improvement. Secondly, while those who do not know the original languages can preach the gospel effectively, there is always a danger involved that they will fall victim to some charletan who wishes to deceive by wrongly presenting the meaning of the texts. One who does not know the languages puts himself at the mercy of any commentator who wishes to forward a non-biblical agenda. While we have more, and frequently, better translations than previously, we also have those such as one who came up for discussion recently who has "taught" himself Hebrew and who pretends that he has found some significant facts regarding the texts. Does he mislead regarding the message of the texts? I frankly don't know. All I know is that he really doesn't know Hebrew though he sets himself forth as being an authority which is all I really need to know to evaluate whether I want to pay attention to him. He probably has deceived himself that he knows Hebrew. For those who would be leaders in the church I think it essential that they have a reasonably adequate knowledge of the language in order to assure that what is being taught is not some abberant opinion based on nothing actually in the historical texts which are the basis from which the Church draws its teaching.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287942#Comment_287942

...I would gladly listen to sermon by Billy Graham any day...

As would I. It isn't as though Billy is an uneducated bumpkin by contrast... having a Bible college diploma and a Bachelor's in Anthropology, but, alas, not fluent in the original languages. Yet. He is arguably one of the mightiest evangelist of this century, due to his simple and personable presentation of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.

It isn't as though there is anything wrong with a scholarly approach, and like many reading this, I appreciate a message that incorporates an intellectual appeal (which may be equated to familiarity with original languages as well as with the "fresh bread" of long hours of preparation). That being said, I'd never exchanged the power of God (cf: (Holy Spirit unction as defined by Ravenhill, for example) or the Godly wisdom of an uneducated farmhand-turned-preacher by the call of God for any number of erudite and classically trained expositors who ably communicate with my head but not my heart... perhaps because they haven't experience the Gospel in their heart.

Indulge me a little (more?) preaching to the choir: The reference to a wise but uneducated preacher is predicated upon wisdom that is the gift of God (James 1:5). Not the worldly definition of wisdom that follows the progression of information leads to knowledge leads to understanding leads to wisdom.

We have in the OT the story of Balaam in which it is shown that God can even use a jackass for his purposes. Such, however, is not the means by which God ordinarily chooses to work. If we rely on those who are only qualified to provide milk rather than other items necessary for the maintainence of health, we will find (and are finding) a weak church. Billy Graham was good for the function in which he served, but more is needed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287937#Comment_287937

Rick ... 1800? That would be a time when even a president (of the US) had a Bible in greek, latin, french and of course english, and read all fluently.

I suspect it's the congregation that might have changed over time.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287955#Comment_287955

Thanks George and Denise [:)]

I guess my perception may not have been factual at all (glad I put that little disclaimer in there).

EDIT:

Rick ... 1800? That would be a time when even a president (of the US) had a Bible in greek, latin, french and of course english, and read all fluently.

Denise you got me! I forgot that the www. = World Wide Web and there is a vast community here. Also, I was thinking of the early settlers here in the United States and did not even consider that there is a whole world out there. Thanks for the reminder. It seems as if some days I am living in my own little world [:$]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287942#Comment_287942

due to his simple and personable presentation of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.

I might add that my deepest level of respect for Billy Graham comes from his character. Unfortunately many have preach a solid Gospel only to make its impact through them shipwrecked because of a fall into hypocritical immorality. One of the reasons I so respect Jonathan Edwards (after reading Marsden's Bio and Affections) despite our disagreements is because of his desire to live fully what he taught. I pray the Lord deliver me to such a level of spiritual discipline.

Sorry for rabbit trailing the rabbit trailing.

All I will add to what I have previously said about this Greek and Hebrew stuff is....poor Aramaic. It always gets the shaft.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287963#Comment_287963

All I will add to what I have previously said about this Greek and Hebrew stuff is....poor Aramaic. It always gets the shaft.

What can I say? If life gives you the shaft, use it as a tool. You need to consider the reason for the relative neglect of Aramaic -- not much of the OT is in Aramaic. If, however, one wants to understand some of the Jewish traditions following the OT, Aramaic is of importance. The Targums were in Aramaic as is the Talmud. Also, Syriac is the lineal decendent of Aramaic. Eastern Christianity has largely been ignored -- possibly due to lesser familiarity with its language.