Wow! or HUH???

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73884#Comment_73884

the word is singular masculine.. Is this just a typo? Really strange?

Not a typo. Not strange. According to my Anchor and Jewish sources the term is normally collective i.e. "offspring". Collectives often become plural in translation. However, the Living Torah translates it "he".

Jeremy

"Seed" can be thought of as a singular or as a collective. The author could have chosen to use the singular to focus on the singular man/makind fight with the singular serpent.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73884#Comment_73884

Not a typo. Not strange. According to my Anchor and Jewish sources the term is normally collective i.e. "offspring". Collectives often become plural in translation. However, the Living Torah translates it "he".

This is really confusing me. So almost every other translation treats this as singular in translation? Why go the other way here? What would this mean theologically? Do the Jewish people consider this the savior(s) to be sent by God? I can understand that the "offspring" or "seed" can be plural. Since it is referred to as a singular though does this not focus the translation? I guess I just come back to that possible plural translation. How would current Jewish people treat this passage in the overall scheme of things as a plural?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73899#Comment_73899

How would current Jewish people treat this passage in the overall scheme of things as a plural?

The plural is used in some Christian sources as well as some Jewish sources. If you compare the passages that traditional Jewish sources consider Messianic it does not parallel which Christians read as messianic although there is overlap. Christian readings are not based upon Jewish readings but rather are read through the cross - a theological way of stating that Christian beliefs influence how we read the "Old Testament".

Your grammatical analysis is not quite accurate. When we refer to a flock of sheep - the flock is singular although there are many sheep. Were I then to the flock as individuals I would say "they look freshly shorn" ... that is the logic of the singular-collective--> plural pronoun. The isolated text does not definatively make the pronoun singular or plural ... one needs to look at:

use or allusion to the text elsewhere in Scripture to see if that provides a translation guide
look at the historical understanding of the text and the logic behind that understanding
literature of a similar date and genre to see if it provides any hints as to they intended meaning

Bible scholars should step in here. My part way through a first book of Hebrew does not make me an expert in Hebrew. But I do have the background to know how to approach the issue.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73903#Comment_73903

Howdy,

I'm not here to do anyone's homework but you'd all do well to look at the verbs used in Genesis 3:15. Take a few minutes to pick apart BRUISE in both places that it's used and see where that takes you.

You're going to get more help actually dissecting the Word than you're going to get from any other source. Your first tool of choice should always be The Word. If you need a Hebrew grammar or three and a few lexicons, that's OK. I use them all the time, but I use them to focus on The Word.

Also, keep in mind that the term Jewish in it's correct sense refers only to members of the tribe of Judah, inhabitants of Judeah, or followers of the Jewish religion. It doesn't apply to members of all of the other tribes of Israel, who are still here today. Read Genesis chapter 49.

Have fun with the verbs. It also will settle the singularity or plurality of the seed.

Mike

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73917#Comment_73917

It also will settle the singularity or plurality of the seed.

Mike, are you saying that knowing the verb/suffix forms will settle the question of whether the referent for זֶרַע is singular or plural (a particular descendant or descendants in general)?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73920#Comment_73920

Unfortunately the "seed" as a collective noun (plural idea) would also use verbs in their singular forms, so we cannot tell whether the "seed" in Gen 3:15 is singular or plural based on the number of the verb form alone. C.f. Gen 15:13 (גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ) or Gen 22:17 ( וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו) where instances of the same word (זֶרַע) are collective nouns (plural from context), but they use verbs in the singular form.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73932#Comment_73932

Unfortunately the "seed" as a collective noun (plural idea) would also use verbs in their singular forms, so we cannot tell whether the "seed" in Gen 3:15 is singular or plural based on the number of the verb form alone. C.f. Gen 15:13 (גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ) or Gen 22:17 ( וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו) where instances of the same word (זֶרַע) are collective nouns (plural from context), but they use verbs in the singular form.

Who says it's a collective noun in Genesis 3:15? The verbs here denote singularity. Not all uses of "seed" are collective.

Check out Genesis 17:7 where it is indeed used as a collective noun and is absolutely plural, based upon the plural pronoun. The verb here also denotes plurality.

And again we see it singular (non plural or collective) in use in Genesis 21:12 because of the use of the word Isaac. If you're not buying this, then take it up with Paul. He has something to say about it in Galatians 3:16.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Here Paul refers directly to Genesis 21:12.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73920#Comment_73920

It also will settle the singularity or plurality of the seed.

Mike, are you saying that knowing the verb/suffix forms will settle the question of whether the referent for זֶרַע is singular or plural (a particular descendant or descendants in general)?

Hi Damian,

Actually all I was saying was to look deeper. People stop looking at one word and don't consider context, they don't consider things like imperfect verb preformatives and afformatives. They need to actually get the grammar out and lay into the Hebrew. Taking one word in a sentence and staring at that is not going to clarify anything. Take a passage and tear it apart and make your own morphology for it.

I'd just like to see people care a bit more about the Word itself and gather and use the necessary tools to get into the Word. Reading other people's thoughts and ideas makes them followers of other people's thoughts and ideas. If they want to be followers of The Word then they ought to keep their attention and focus on that.

Oh, and I get a kickback from Logos for each Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar I can hawk here. [:P]

I might add, that some people may not agree with my take on these passages regarding "seed". I have no problem with that, as long as they prayerfully look into it for themselves.

Mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73962#Comment_73962

Mike, I didn't say that it's collective, actually I don't think it is, but I just wanted to point out that one cannot deduce whether the noun has been used as a singular or a collective based on the verb form alone. This is not a valid argument, due to the reasons I quoted.

I looked at Gen 17:7. I don't see any verbs with זֶרַע as the subject there, so I suppose we cannot draw any conclusion about verb forms and the noun being collective/ not collective using this verse.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73917#Comment_73917

Your first tool of choice should always be The Word. If you need a Hebrew grammar or three and a few lexicons, that's OK. I use them all the time, but I use them to focus on The Word.

Amen! Thank you, Mike, for "doing homage to the Son". Psalm 2

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73967#Comment_73967

I'd just like to see people care a bit more about the Word itself and gather and use the necessary tools to get into the Word. Reading other people's thoughts and ideas makes them followers of other people's thoughts and ideas. If they want to be followers of The Word then they ought to keep their attention and focus on that.

Mike,

Yes! And Amen again! I find your exhortation to be extremely appropriate to these forums!

People need to go to the Law and the Testimony!

People need to stop studying the tools - and just use them...and only in their proper place...

People need to STUDY THE WORD! PRACTICE THE WORD! TEACH THE WORD! Ezra 7:10

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73967#Comment_73967

I might add, that some people may not agree with my take on these passages regarding "seed". I have no problem with that, as long as they prayerfully look into it for themselves.

And I, for one, thank you for your contribution.

You caused me to look more closely than I otherwise would have....

God bless,

bob

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73917#Comment_73917

You're going to get more help actually dissecting the Word than you're going to get from any other source. Your first tool of choice should always be The Word. If you need a Hebrew grammar or three and a few lexicons, that's OK. I use them all the time, but I use them to focus on The Word.

Mike, I am sure you meant this to be positive. I have not yet received the Hebrew and Greek videos that are coming and I do not know the Hebrew or the first thing about doing a dissection on the word. The only thing that I have are the (English) translations and a few commentaries. This is the reason why I was coming here. My pastor said he was going to have to get back with me so he could look at that passage a little closer.

I am hoping to learn the original languages but for now I must rely on you'll to help me. What would I need to do to dissect this?

William

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74107#Comment_74107

Don't forget to compare the LXX when looking at OT texts. It is often helpful in informing us how those around the time of the NT understood the text, besides being the OT of the early Church. Not saying that it is definitive in this case but it always needs to be checked (and it is singular).

καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.

Septuaginta : With morphology. 1996, c1979 (Ge 3:15). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

The idea that this refers to Christ was present in Paul and used from the beginning, as Ireneaus makes clear in this quote from Against Heresies 5.21.1:

Christ completely renewed all things, both taking up the battle against our enemy and crushing him who at the beginning had led us captive in Adam, trampling on his head, as you find in Genesis that God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and the seed of the woman. He will be on the watch for your head, and you will be on the watch for his heel.” From then on it was proclaimed that he who was to be born of a virgin, after the likeness of Adam, would be on the watch for the serpent’s head. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the letter to the Galatians, “The law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.”¹⁰ He shows this still more clearly in the same epistle when he says, “But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman.”¹¹ The enemy would not have been justly conquered unless it had been a man made of woman who conquered him. For it was by a woman that he had power over man from the beginning, setting himself up in opposition to man. Because of this the Lord also declares himself to be the Son of Man, so renewing in himself that primal man from whom the formation of man by woman began, that as our race went down to death by a man who overcame, and as death won the palm of victory over us by a man, so we might by a man receive the palm of victory over death.

¹⁰¹⁰ Gal 3:19.

¹¹¹¹ Gal 4:4.

Louth, A., & Conti, M. (2001). Genesis 1-11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture OT 1. (90). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73972#Comment_73972

Mike, I didn't say that it's collective, actually I don't think it is, but I just wanted to point out that one cannot deduce whether the noun has been used as a singular or a collective based on the verb form alone. This is not a valid argument, due to the reasons I quoted.

I looked at Gen 17:7. I don't see any verbs with זֶרַע as the subject there, so I suppose we cannot draw any conclusion about verb forms and the noun being collective/ not collective using this verse.

From Biblical Hebrew - An Introductory Grammar by Page H. Kelley:

Page 427 in the Glossary:

Collective Nouns:

nouns that are singular in form but are capable of being singular or plural in meaning. Thus עַם may refer to "a people," requiring singular modifiers and singular verbs, or it may refer to a body of individual persons, "the people," in which in requires plural modifiers and plural verbs.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As far as Genesis 17:7 goes, you are indeed correct about there not being any verbs with זֶרַע as the subject there. I can see that you are one that actually goes and looks for yourself, which is a good quality. In this case the noun is collective and is shown to be plural by the words "after thee" and by the plural pronoun in "their generations".

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74121#Comment_74121

you know, I am all for going to the word. my most memorable studies are often those where I did a lot of the ground work myself. So I agree with this "go to the word" thing. At the same time, my Hebrew is pretty poor. My Greek is a tad better, but has been out of use a long time (I have the greek vid pre-pubs to help get back into it a bit more).

That said, it could be perceived as a bit heavy handed to those (i don't feel it, however, myself) who don't know languages that much, if we badmouth their going to 2nd hand sources like commentaries or dictionaries to get at truth. Who is to say God isn't working even in that study? I believe He has and does work in that. Even with greek and Hebrew knowledge, many are not experts and still have to rely on others' work (even dictionaries and lexicons can have their mistakes and opinions) to form understanding about the use of grammar and syntax in those foreign languages. I also remember enough about Hebrew and greek that knowing those does not solve all exegetical problems. Sometimes it makes it more frustrating because we see how ambiguous some texts are. At those times we might allow our a priori theology to dictate our interpretation (not always a good idea).

Let's remember that our Lord gave some to be teachers . . . to lay a foundation . . . so that the body can build itself up. Those teachers might teach orally, or by written word. Either way, if they are God ordained, we should heed their teaching, investigate it (like the Bereans) to the best of our ability all the while calling upon the Lord to give us wisdom and understanding . . . which he does without fault.

Alex Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74146#Comment_74146

This is just another case of sloppy translation as far as I'm concerned. As has been pointed out, 'seed' is a collective, and sometimes the context defines whether it is singular or plural, sometime it doesn't. Often the word is translated 'descendants'. To me, that is a dishonest translation, or a poor one at best. Descendants is plural, it cannot be singular. If a translator finds 'seed' too obscure for the average reader, why not use another English collective such as offspring, leaving the reader the option of either application rather than leading them down a blind alley just to reflect the translator's bias.

Alex Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74148#Comment_74148

Just as another aside to think about - this is another thing that complicates translation as opposed to the reader in an original language.

For example, when WE read the Greek or Hebrew, we have to choose another word to express the original. That word almost certainly does not reflect the total meaning of the original, and most likely also contains some meanings not found in the originals. We are forced to choose. The readers to whom the language was natural did not have to make this choice of a word, only the meaning since he would know the meaning could be taken in several ways. For example, look at John 3:3-7. When we translate, we have to choose whether the word means born again, or born from above. The native reader did not - he might misapply it as Nicodemus MAY have - but he did not have to choose a word which left him no choice in the matter.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74151#Comment_74151

When the LXX translators did their work they similarly had to make those choices. When Paul chose to state in Galatians 3:16 "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ" he chose to understand the OT in a particular way that was foreign to anyone's prior assumptions. Obviously, the literal (Jewish) descendants of Abraham took both the Hebrew and Greek rendering as referring to them collectively as the seed but Paul understood that actually it meant the singular and was referring to Christ.

Did Paul misread the text or did he chose a better translation? Obviously, he understood what people thought it meant but he made clear what it 'really' meant. Jesus often did similar things. Today's translators have to take into consideration the fuller meaning imbued by the NT understanding of the OT text. Mary was a "virgin" who also happened to be a "young woman." How should we translate Isaiah 7:14? The NIV committee really had a go at this and Bruce Waltke has vigorously defended keeping it as "virgin." What will happen in the 2011 revision? What truly reflects the meaning of the text? This can't just be a discussion about words and paragraphs but has to take into account an entire history of translation and understanding of those translations.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74121#Comment_74121

I suspect that Kelly cannot be entirely right here (I don't use Kelly; I use GKC), because this appears contrary to what I've seen in the bible. Do you think the word זֶרַע is meant to be singular in Gen 15:13 or Gen 22:17?

To investigate the matter I tried looking at all instances where the noun עַם is the subject taking a verb. I looked at all הָעָם of Genesis and Exodus so far (no time for the whole bible [;)]). I may have missed one or two but the overwhelming instances of the verbs used by עַם is singular. And most (12/16=75%) of the plural ones either have modifiers to the noun (min, kol) or follows a singular verb in the succeeding clause(s) after waw(s).

Singular verbs: Gen 41:55, Ex 1:20, Ex 4:31, Ex 5:12, Ex 12:27, Ex 12:34, Ex 13:17 (one sing and one pl in the next clause after a waw), Ex 14:5, Ex 16:4 (one sing, one pl in succeeding clause after a waw), Ex 17:2, Ex 17:3 (x2), Ex 17:6, Ex 18:13, Ex 18:14, Ex 18:15, Ex 18:23, Ex 19:9, Ex 19:16, Ex 19:23, Ex 20:18, Ex 20:21, Ex 24:3, Ex 32:1 (x2), Ex 32:6, Ex 32:21, Ex 32:31, Ex 33:4, Ex 33:10 (x2), Ex 36:6.

Plural verbs: Ex 13:17 (see above), Ex 14:31, Ex 15:24 (sing in the App), Ex 16:4 (see above), Ex 16:27 (after min), Ex 16:30, Ex 19:8 (after kol), Ex 20:18 (1x after kol, 2x in succeeding clauses after a waw) Ex 32:3 (after kol), Ex 32:6 (in the succeeding clauses after a waw), Ex 33:8 (after kol), Ex 33:4 (2x both in the succeeding clauses after waws), 36:5

So my conclusion is that one cannot look at a singular verb and say that the noun is singular and cannot be collective. This is not valid argument. Though when a verb is plural then the noun is likely collective. Of course one also has to take into account of other reasons whereby the number in nouns and verbs may not agree (poetic license etc).

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74171#Comment_74171

Please refer to my edited post above. I guess I screwed up the first attempt.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74146#Comment_74146

this "go to the word" thing

Hi Dan,

Why did you put go to the word in italics and call it a thing? (Not a rhetorical question - I really want to know) It comes across to me as dishonoring to the Word of God, or as an insinuation that it is somehow different than what God has said to do--almost like it is strange doctrine..

That said, it could be perceived as a bit heavy handed to those (i don't feel it, however, myself) who don't know languages that much, if we badmouth their going to 2nd hand sources like commentaries or dictionaries to get at truth.

The point is that the Word is preeminent and 2nd hand sources are as nothing compared to it. In fact, 2nd hand sources are not actually sources, they are resources at best. God's Word alone must be our source. Lifting and exalting the Word of God is a righteous and necessary thing to do - not a heavy handed thing. Keeping 2nd hand resources in perspective to the Word is our responsibility; no badmouthing was done, just "goodmouthing" the Word of God. Magnifying the Word of God is in far too great demand these days.

No one NEEDS to know the languages to get at Truth. We need the Word and God's Holy Spirit. We need to sit at Jesus' feet and listen to Him in His Word- that is necessary, the only necessary thing. We need to remember that the Word is more important than our necessary eating and drinking (Job). We need to remember that we live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God - we do not live by anything else.

God has magnified His Word together with His Name. He tells me so in His Word. He also tells me everything, absolutely everything that I need for life and godliness are found in the true knowledge of Him. I believe Him. The result of my belief is that I go to the Word first and foremost. I don't negate tools, but I don't put them on the same level as God's Word. I am not saying that you are doing this. I say this because the "tools" have had their measure of praise filled to the brim and God's Word is far too often left neglected. Things ought not to be this way.

God's Word is pure unadulterated Truth. That cannot be said for any resource- not even one. God promises to stand over His Word to perform it. That cannot be said for any book or any man. God declares that His Word accomplishes what He sends it for. No other resource can give a guarantee like that. Yes, God can use resources any time He wants, I am not saying otherwise. I am saying that God's Word is being slighted by even being compared to them. No one needs anything more that God's Word and His Holy Spirit to understand His Truth revealed in His Word. He has promised to lead and guide us into all Truth and Jesus prayed that God would sanctify us in Truth - His Word. I'm just saying let's ALWAYS start there and let's STAY there waaaayyyy longer before seeking help, confirmation, or contradiction from 2nd hand resources.

Most people do not really know the Word of God because they have listened to what others have said, in place of sitting quietly, and personally, diligently studying the very Word of God Itself for themselves.

I am not upset with you Dan. I want you to know that. But I want to say that in the month or so that I have been using the forums to learn how to use my Logos 4 I have been amazed at the waves, sometimes even bristling, that seem to be caused by simply saying that God's Word is the only Truth.

It came across to me that you were trying to protect someone from my exaltation of the Word and my exhortation to study It more. That could cause someone to believe that they cannot know the Word of God without 2nd hand resources. I want people to hear and believe that they can study God's Word for themselves and know Truth for themselves. (I, of course, am not advocating never checking yourself out with other godly believers, especially people with a teaching gift, whether in person or in a book.)

The problem isn't with the tools. The problem is that people have believed a lie. (I am not saying you, just speaking in general, and from experience with hundreds and hundreds of people through the years). The lie is that they can't understand the Bible for themselves. They believe the Bible is too big, or too confusing, or can only be learned or understood by a seminarian. The truth is that you can know Truth for yourself if you study God's Word. And you don't need a degree, a teacher, or even Bible software to do it. Teachers are a gift that God has given to the church and I am so thankful to Him for His gift. But they are not necessary - useful, but not necessary.

I commended Mike because it was refreshing to hear someone lift up the truth about studying God's Word. I wanted to encourage him, hopefully, to do it again, and again, and... Why? Because in all truth, the forums of Logos (the last month's worth) are not lifting up the Name of the Lord as they should be. And they are not friendly to those who do so. There should not be any resistance to one doing so--the forums are in God's sphere - it's His universe, He owns it all and has all rights over it. His Name is to praised from the rising to the setting of the sun - even in Logosland. He will not share His glory with another.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74496#Comment_74496

No one needs anything more that God's Word and His Holy Spirit to understand His Truth revealed in His Word.

Sharon,

sister...respectfully, I agree that w should study the word and do as well as we can before just taking the word of every commentary we have, but if we need nothing more than just the book and the Holy Spirit...then we've all spent a lot of cash for nothing. [:D]

I'm trying to get at what you're saying so i don't misunderstand you....

You're not saying that (for example) I can open my English translation and just read it, study it...and the Holy Spirit will just "give the the real interpretation" of the passage?

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I've met many people who say we don't need anything but the word and God will tells us what his word means....by "impressions" "feelings" or " "confirmation."

Can you elaborate or be more precise about the sentence above?

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74502#Comment_74502

I am as theologically conservative as they come, but we need to be careful here when we speak of “sticking to the word”

If all you need is the text and the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to take the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have a blessed bible study even if you have never heard of those languages.

The moment you admit that you need help understanding what was writing in the original languages (the function of an English translation), it is the moment you should also realize that you also need help understanding other aspects behind the meaning of the text (grammar, history, culture, parallels, and so on).

Having Scripture interpret Scripture is a very good principle (and a must) and one should be careful not to endanger the supremacy of the word of God.

I have been in seminary for the greater part of the past decade, I am about to obtain the terminal degree in my field but to be honest, the more I learn the more I realize how little I know and how much help I need from the Holy Spirit and from those who have studied the Bible.

How is reading a commentary any different from asking a question in this forum or asking a question to a pastor. In many cases it is a better solution since the one writing the commentary has spent more time pondering the issue than your average forum user or pastor.

The Bible acknowledges that believers will need help from others when it comes to understanding the Word of God (that is why teachers are number three in the pecking order in the Church (1 Cor 12:28)).Good commentaries or similar works serve the same function as the teachers in the Church. The only difference is that is it primarily through writing.

Of course, one must use discernment when receiving teaching (in the Church, during a Bible study, in commentaries and so on) and some of what is given will be simply worthless. But let us not denigrate the importance of the teaching ministry in the Church (despite the various forms it might take).

Reading what more learned persons have to say is also important in order to rescue us from our own limitations, bias, and blind spots. We tend to read the text to confirm what we already believe, works like commentaries (if used with discernment and judiciously as part of our own effort to wrestle with the text) are very helpful to force us to examine aspects that we might have overlooked, to give us background information leading us to understand the text like the original audience would have.

The question is not whether or not one must take advantage of what others have to say (including in commentaries), the question is what kind of persons are we listening to (or reading ) and whether or not what is written honors the Word of God and contributes to a better understanding of its message.

What appears to be respect for the word of God (by distorting the right meaning of the “Bible” alone), can easily turn into arrogance and contempt for the Word if we stubbornly refuse the insight of those that are more learned and therefore negate the impact of the ministry of teaching in the Church.

This is why I need to carefully compare my interpretation with what others have said or written and see if I got too much or too little from the text and if I did not less my personal experience and preferences override what the Word has to say.

It is in no way a pleasant experience especially when it causes you to reevaluate your beliefs, but there is no better way to honor the Word of God (after obeying it of course but to properly obey you need to have the proper understanding of what is written )

No man is an island, especially not when it comes to the study of the word of God

Alain

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74534#Comment_74534

No man is an island, especially not when it comes to the study of the word of God

Alain

Thanks Alain, your comments are appreciated and well received by me. As usual a blessing.

Ted

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74543#Comment_74543

No man is an island, especially not when it comes to the study of the word of God

Alain

Thanks Alain, your comments are appreciated and well received by me. As usual a blessing.

Ted

I agree...I wish I could have said it so clearly.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74502#Comment_74502

I'm trying to get at what you're saying so i don't misunderstand you....

Thank you. I want to bring Him glory by speaking His Truth. I don't want you to misunderstand me at all.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I've met many people who say we don't need anything but the word and God will tells us what his word means....by "impressions" "feelings" or " "confirmation."

Oh, my, my, no![:O] I said nothing whatsoever about impressions or feelings. ( I think I can picture the "type" of your "many people". I have met them too, way too often, if we indeed are talking about the same persuasion and I assure you that I am not in that category at all.) I am talking about studying the whole Bible, in its context, book by book, looking for clear, repeated doctrine methodically, meticulously, carefully, observing tell you are cross-eyed [;)], observing some more[:|], praying the whole time that God would open your eyes to behold wonderful things from His Word, inductively studying whole-part-whole rythym, eventually doing more and more cross-references, then word studies, then commentaries and other lexical aids, all the while continuing to observe the Word prayfully and diligently; lining everything up with the Word.

If I find that I have come up with some new-fangled doctrine contrary to 9 out of 10 scholars, then I would need to go back to the beginning of the study process and start over, not missing a step, and asking God to show me where I was wrong. (Although I can tell you that if you seek Him in His Word, listening to every word He speaks, keeping each word in its context, prayerfully guarding the Treasure, that will be an almost impossibility to come up completely at the other end of the spectrum. Notice I said almost an impossibility to be completely wrong. Meaning, careful observation of the text will get you Truth - not the corner on Truth - but a handle on Truth. Do you see the difference in what I am saying?)

To elaborate on the sentence you quoted: Let's say you were on a desert island, stranded there without hope of rescue. If you had the Bible and the Holy Spirit, you would have all you need. His Word is Truth. The Spirit is Truth. The Spirit will lead you into all Truth. If you were truly seeking Him, He would teach you Himself- through His Word and His Spirit. The same is true if you were providentially rescued from your island - you would still have all you need in His Word and His Spirit. However, once you are back among the populace you now have access to a plethora of tools (some of Satan, some of the flesh, and some of the Spirit). Will you avail yourself of these? Surely, I think, although with much discernment and prayer - lining each word of them up to the Word of God. What doesn't line up - throw it out. What lines up, consider it and if pertinent, even perhaps make a note of it in your Bible. Do you think we can agree so far? I hope so.

Okay, here's where I think you have misunderstood me, and where I obviously need to explain more fully. If, once you had access to your tools, would it be possible to forget that all you really needed was His Word and His Spirit? Would it be possible to place the tools on the same level as the Word, either by elevating the tools to high, or lowering the preeminence of His Word, or both? I think it's possible and in fact, I think it's probable that many, many people do just this. They think the answers are in the tools. The foundation, the context, if you will, must be determined by the Word of God. And rightfully without the tools until their proper timing. If you remember, I said in my earlier post that the tools are useful, just not needed. The Scripture is needed and useful. All Scripture is profitable, only some tools are profitable and none can compare with the claims made by the Word.

Perhaps I need to explain "me" a little so you may understand I do not speak flipantly or judgmentally in my defense of the honor of the Word above all other resources. I guess maybe I am wondering if you all think I am a flake because I am disturbed that the Word is not receiving its rightful place in these forums. I have spent the last 20 years studying the Bible by the simple inductive method alluded to above. Every week of those 20 years I have spent approximately 50-60 hours per week seeking God in His Word, asking HIm to open my eyes so that I might behold wonderful things in His Word, asking Him to open my ears so that I may clearly hear Him, asking Him to open my mind that I might fully understand His Word, and laboring in my studies above and beyond my own strength and even health sometimes, in order to know Him, in order to handle His Word accurately, in order to teach His children very carefully, in order to please Him in all I do.

Isn't it interesting that you brought up feelings and impressions? That is not even a little of what I am about...

I think if you will go back and read my earlier post, perhaps you might find you hear a little more of what I am trying to say. You know, just simple observation...[;)]

Really, in all honesty, I appreciate your post because you asked to understand. Let me know if you do.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74534#Comment_74534

I am as theologically conservative as they come, but we need to be careful here when we speak of “sticking to the word”

Alain,

I did not use the phrase you quote, did I? I talked about going to the Word first and staying there longer. However, Paul tells us to guard the Word and as disciples we are to "adhere to" Jesus' teachings, so perhaps you did not mean anything negative by it. I believe, in the context of the Word, we need to stick to it as closely as we can though.

f all you need is the text and the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to take the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have a blessed bible study even if you have never heard of those languages.

Are you saying you can only have a blessed Bible study if you know the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Are you saying the Holy Spirit is not able to bless me by showing me Truth in an English version as close to word for word that I can acquire? No, I don't believe you really are, but if I took your statement and remanufactured it to an "if..then" scenario, that is how it might look. Alain, your rhetorical remark is not edifying. I did not state an absolute statement without context. You took it out of context and added additional erroneous reasoning to it in order to conquer. That is not needed. There is no fight here.

The moment you admit that you need help understanding what was writing in the original languages (the function of an English translation), it is the moment you should also realize that you also need help understanding other aspects behind the meaning of the text (grammar, history, culture, parallels, and so on).

Again, I did not say that original languages were of no help, in fact, I believe if you will reread both of my posts you will find that I did say they were helpful. What I also said is that they are not necessary. Robert asked me to elaborate on that and I did, if you will be so kind as to read my third post in this thread.

No man is an island, especially not when it comes to the study of the word of God

Alain

I won't comment on the rest of your post except for your last comment. In the context of this thread, you have insinuated several things. Your comment about arrogance combined with the island quote are seen as intended arrows. I in no way tried to state or imply that all I needed was ME. I said all anyone really needs is the Word of God and His Holy Spirit because that is what God says in His Word - so it's true.

I stated in an earlier post that it amazes me to see the waves caused by lifting up the Word of God as He, Himself has done. Once again, I am amazed. I will not, however, cease to praise Him for Who He is and what He has done-and that includes His Word. I wrote in my earlier post that I commended Mike because I wanted to encourage him to continue to encourage others to study the Word first. And no matter how unfriendly these forums are to lifting up the Word of God, as long as God has me here learning how to use Logos 4, I will continue to encourage everyone to study the Word first and foremost.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74502#Comment_74502

sister...respectfully, I agree that w should study the word and do as well as we can before just taking the word of every commentary we have, but if we need nothing more than just the book and the Holy Spirit...then we've all spent a lot of cash for nothing.

BTW Robert,

Having invested in Logos for almost 20 years, which is no little amount of cash. [:)] I still say that if I had none of it all (Logos, that is) , I still would have everything I needed for life and godliness in the true knowledge of Him found in His Word through His Spirit.[;)]

Sharon

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74625#Comment_74625

Sister Sharon, i hope you do not take this the wrong way. I think you have read too much into Alain's comments than is warranted.

He was simply bringing balance to the conversation by putting the other side of the argument. I took his remarks as a general comment for consideration, and you will notice he did not quote anyone.

Again, you are not the only one on this thread who has mentioned in paraphrased words stick to the Word. So i do not believe you should think all his remarks are directed at you.

I am glad though you have clarified your position. Every blessing

Ted

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74632#Comment_74632

Ted,

I took Alain's comments to refer to me because, other than Mike's original comments, no one else had commented. Perhaps I missed a page. If others had commented as well, then I surely would not have considered the remarks to be referencing me.

I did notice that he did not quote anyone using the "quote tool", yet the first remark was an obvious reference to my words rather than to Mike's. I will ask him rather than speculate.

Thank you, Ted.

May I ask you... What do you mean "the other side of the argument"? Are we not on the Lord's side? To exhort others to "Listen to God's Son" as God commanded us to do should elicit "Amens!" Why is encouraging others to study the Word of God more considered an unbalanced conversation, rather than the dead center of God's will?

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74646#Comment_74646

Alain,

Was your post in response to any of my words?

Sharon

Greg Hoerter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74534#Comment_74534

Amen Alain! The sin of Pride sometimes makes us think we can interpret the Word better than the 2000 years of Fathers, Doctors, Theologans, and Saints that have handed down the truth for our benefit. Always test, but if your interpretation is an unfounded interpretation, chances are your test is not valid!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74647#Comment_74647

Was your post in response to any of my words?

Sharon

Excuse me for butting in at this point but if one replaced "Alain" with "Martha", I would find this post mildly offensive. If I had written the post written by Alain, it would have been carefully written to not name any names but to have individuals recognize for themselves whether intentionally or unintentionally their post might have been a stimulus to the post. Because we do not hear the inflections nor see the bodily language, it is easy for threads to devolve into flame wars. Neutrality of language and removal of accusatory language is necessary for forums to work. For this reason, I would not be pleased if this post were directed to me. I butted in because for Alain to respond this way could be inflammatory, for me - I have no vested interest.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74683#Comment_74683

Was your post in response to any of my words?

Sharon

Excuse me for butting in at this point but if one replaced "Alain" with "Martha", I would find this post mildly offensive. If I had written the post written by Alain, it would have been carefully written to not name any names but to have individuals recognize for themselves whether intentionally or unintentionally their post might have been a stimulus to the post. Because we do not hear the inflections nor see the bodily language, it is easy for threads to devolve into flame wars. Neutrality of language and removal of accusatory language is necessary for forums to work. For this reason, I would not be pleased if this post were directed to me. I butted in because for Alain to respond this way could be inflammatory, for me - I have no vested interest.

Alain,

I asked whether your post was in response to any of my words because Ted thought it wasn't, whereas I thought it was. I want to know so I can address anything that might be unclear between our posts. I asked you directly because that is the right thing to do. When Ted voiced his opinion, I listened to him and I wanted to find out if I was wrong, so I went to the source. What has been taken as mildly offensive was not intended to be.

Sharon

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74703#Comment_74703

Alain,

I asked whether your post was in response to any of my words because Ted thought it wasn't, whereas I thought it was. I want to know so I can address anything that might be unclear between our posts. I asked you directly because that is the right thing to do. When Ted voiced his opinion, I listened to him and I wanted to find out if I was wrong, so I went to the source. What has been taken as mildly offensive was not intended to be.

Sharon

Sharon,

Ted was right on!

I was not responding to any post in particular, I was not targeting or quoting anyone. Reading the thread merely brought to mind some past conversations I had with some people and I wanted to bring some balance to the issue (between the negative critical approach and a naïve (and erroneous) view of what faithful bible interpretation is all about).

I was speaking in general against a position (or attitude) that is regrettably far too common among evangelicals.

As such I did not distort or misrepresent your posts since I was not responding to them.

If you take yourself out of the equation (as in “it was not a response to your posts”) and consider a more general audience, my point becomes clear.

I am going to leave it at that and just see the whole thing as a big misunderstanding due in part to the intricacies and limitations of online communication (if anything, the whole situation made me smile).

Let us just get a good laugh out of the whole thing and think nothing of it [:P]

in Christ,

Alain

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74717#Comment_74717

Thanks for the response Alain!

I appreciate it.

Laughing, huh?[:P]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74703#Comment_74703

What has been taken as mildly offensive was not intended to be.

Sharon

Excellent. Kudos to both you and Alain for working this out ... and not needing me to butt in.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74171#Comment_74171

I suspect that Kelly cannot be entirely right here (I don't use Kelly; I use GKC), because this appears contrary to what I've seen in the bible. Do you think the word זֶרַע is meant to be singular in Gen 15:13 or Gen 22:17?

To investigate the matter I tried looking at all instances where the noun עַם is the subject taking a verb. I looked at all הָעָם of Genesis and Exodus so far (no time for the whole bible ). I may have missed one or two but the overwhelming instances of the verbs used by עַם is singular. And most (12/16=75%) of the plural ones either have modifiers to the noun (min, kol) or follows a singular verb in the succeeding clause(s) after waw(s).

Singular verbs: Gen 41:55, Ex 1:20, Ex 4:31, Ex 5:12, Ex 12:27, Ex 12:34, Ex 13:17 (one sing and one pl in the next clause after a waw), Ex 14:5, Ex 16:4 (one sing, one pl in succeeding clause after a waw), Ex 17:2, Ex 17:3 (x2), Ex 17:6, Ex 18:13, Ex 18:14, Ex 18:15, Ex 18:23, Ex 19:9, Ex 19:16, Ex 19:23, Ex 20:18, Ex 20:21, Ex 24:3, Ex 32:1 (x2), Ex 32:6, Ex 32:21, Ex 32:31, Ex 33:4, Ex 33:10 (x2), Ex 36:6.

Plural verbs: Ex 13:17 (see above), Ex 14:31, Ex 15:24 (sing in the App), Ex 16:4 (see above), Ex 16:27 (after min), Ex 16:30, Ex 19:8 (after kol), Ex 20:18 (1x after kol, 2x in succeeding clauses after a waw) Ex 32:3 (after kol), Ex 32:6 (in the succeeding clauses after a waw), Ex 33:8 (after kol), Ex 33:4 (2x both in the succeeding clauses after waws), 36:5

So my conclusion is that one cannot look at a singular verb and say that the noun is singular and cannot be collective. This is not valid argument. Though when a verb is plural then the noun is likely collective. Of course one also has to take into account of other reasons whereby the number in nouns and verbs may not agree (poetic license etc).

Hi Amy,

I have not had an opportunity to go over what you obviously spent some time putting together, but I shall endeavour to do so. I wanted to ask you if you havd any references to collective nouns and their relationship to verbs in your GKC? I'm curious to take a look at that. I have a printed GKC here in my library.

Thank you,

Mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74833#Comment_74833

The collective nouns are addressed in GKC §123 (P.394-5 in my hardcopy). But neither GKC nor Jouon-Muraoka (Rev) (§135) makes a statement like Keller, not that that might mean anything. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74857#Comment_74857

The collective nouns are addressed in GKC §123 (P.394-5 in my hardcopy). But neither GKC nor Jouon-Muraoka (Rev) (§135) makes a statement like Keller, not that that might mean anything.

Thank you, Amy. I was just looking for references to Genesis 3:15 in my Logos resources and I came up with this in A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, & Jan H. Kroeze) where the authors translate Genesis 3:15. This is based on the pronouns used and not the verbs:

§36.1. Personal Pronouns

Do you have this resource available in Logos?

I'll take a look at your references in GKC and Jouon-Muraoka tonight when I get home from work (I work swingshift) as it's wind-down time now. I'll also get out the Weingreen, Seow, and whatever else I can dredge up on my shelves here and spend some time on this. I have no doubt that you are on to something that I need to take a deeper look at. At my age I seem to forget more than I soak up anymore. [:P] Thanks!

Mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74857#Comment_74857

The collective nouns are addressed in GKC §123 (P.394-5 in my hardcopy). But neither GKC nor Jouon-Muraoka (Rev) (§135) makes a statement like Keller, not that that might mean anything.

Hi Amy!

Thanks to you, I found it in my Logos 4 GKC at :

§ 123. The Representation of Plural Ideas by Means of Collectives, and by the Repetition of Words.

I have Jouon-Muraoka here in print (2 volume set) and I'll look it up there tomorrow and in Lambdin as well. Thanks for the project. This will keep me busy for a week or so. [:D]

Mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74887#Comment_74887

P.S. - I HAD to go read the GKC entry on collectives before I could get some sleep. [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74889#Comment_74889

Amy and MikeM...

thanks for the direct links to Logos resources...

and please...keep this conversation going (and if you could "dumb it down" slightly) so the rest of us can follow and benefit... [:D]

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74890#Comment_74890

Amy and MikeM...

thanks for the direct links to Logos resources...

and please...keep this conversation going (and if you could "dumb it down" slightly) so the rest of us can follow and benefit...

Yes please, me too.

Ted

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74889#Comment_74889

P.S. - I HAD to go read the GKC entry on collectives before I could get some sleep.

Okay take care. [:D]

Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74887#Comment_74887

I have Jouon-Muraoka here in print (2 volume set) and I'll look it up there tomorrow and in Lambdin as well. Thanks for the project. This will keep me busy for a week or so.

Mike, I got an idea for you. [:D] Why don't you investigate the matter by looking at the OT text for the answer? You could run a word study with your L4 on the word זֶרַע, and then look at all the sentences where the word is translated as "offspring", "children", "descendent" and so on, determine which sentences have the word as a subject, and look at the verb form of the verb which the word זֶרַע uses and see if they're singular or plural. Then you'll find the answer to your question (I haven't done that yet but I think I know the answer already [;)]).

That would beat looking up one textbook after another, because (1) the textbooks may not have your answer, (2) what is written in a book does not necessarily mean that it must be correct, and (3) what is worse, sometimes one book may not agree with another, then you'll be as lost as you started.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/75438#Comment_75438

Mike, I got an idea for you. Why don't you investigate the matter by looking at the OT text for the answer? You could run a word study with your L4 on the word זֶרַע, and then look at all the sentences where the word is translated as "offspring", "children", "descendent" and so on, determine which sentences have the word as a subject, and look at the verb form of the verb which the word זֶרַע uses and see if they're singular or plural. Then you'll find the answer to your question (I haven't done that yet but I think I know the answeer already).

...

That would beat looking up one textbook after another, because (1) the textbooks may not have your answer, (2) what is written in a book does not necessarily mean that it must be correct, and (3) what is worse, sometimes one book may contradict with another, then you'll be as lost as you started.

Have you guys seen the thread where I posted a video showing how to do a word study on the pronoun he, and Kevin Becker followed up with a video on why a word study on the pronoun isn't sufficient and he showed how to do it on the noun seed? (I wasn't wanting to jump in on this particular exegetical discussion but wanted to use that as an excuse to make a training video on how to use some Logos features)

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/9406.aspx