Is there an underlying philosophy that is shared between the teaching structure of the two sets, or were they developed independently?
They were developed together by Mike Heiser and Johnny Cisneros. They share the common philosophy behind them in these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LogosBibleSoftware#p/u/7/aCMwrfg0R7A
http://www.youtube.com/user/LogosBibleSoftware#p/u/6/L8IqVsX6dc4
Thanks Rosie, I had watched the videos already, but as I have sampled between the two sets I had noticed some differences, such as Mike's animosity toward lexicons which I didn't see in Johnny's work. Even the order in which the different areas are introduced seemed to be reversed, but maybe that is because Hebrew is read right to left rather than Greek which is left to right [:D]
Thanks Rosie, I had watched the videos already, but as I have sampled between the two sets I had noticed some differences, such as Mike's animosity toward lexicons which I didn't see in Johnny's work. Even the order in which the different areas are introduced seemed to be reversed, but maybe that is because Hebrew is read right to left rather than Greek which is left to right
Well, of course they are two individuals and are going to have their own different personal philosophies. I'm sure they did a lot of the planning together, but each one probably had more or less control over his own particular lessons.
Mike's animosity toward lexicons
Although his language may be a bit strong, I don't know that I would classify that as animosity. He seeks to show the limitations of lexicons, especially Strong's.
It seems that the target audience for the Hebrew lectures are those who have no language training. Thus, he discourages use of mode advanced lexicons as they contain more information that this target audience could profitably use.
Although his language may be a bit strong, I don't know that I would classify that as animosity.
Now, before everyone piles on in defense of Mike, his video's are the main reason that I bought the set, the goals that he stated in the introduction to to the set fit right in line with where I want to end up (although I am still skeptical about the 3rd year stuff). I am not fit to untie his sandals when it comes to his academic credentials in languages, nor am I passing judgement on him. The lexicon comment was made because it stuck in my mind as I compared the two sets.
Actually Jack, I think they both are which is why I was disappointed with the Greek set (Hey! I already know a lot of this stuff.), but I will be a good refresher, and I am sure that Johnny has much to teach me about the language and Logos. On the other hand, my wife is totally in love with it because she hasn't had any language training. Given the range of education on this board, I don't see how you it could be any other way.
Frankly, I am looking forward to the Hebrew, I never found time for it before and I have always regretted that. But I will probably get more day to day use out of the Greek, only time will tell.
It seems to me that the use of good lexicons could often be beneficial.
I so often am frustrated by the misinformation that those with no Greek background pick up from some radio preacher or other "teacher" (who doesn't read Greek either.) "The Greek word really means _____" when it means nothing of the kind. I could name some of the worst offenders, but will restrain myself.
Some of this ignorance could be straightened out by reference to a quality Greek lexicon.
It seems to me that the use of good lexicons could often be beneficia
Before we get too off track, I didn't start this thread to talk about whether the use of lexicons was a good or bad thing. I was looking to see if there was an underlying structure that both sets shared (I used the word philosophy which may have been ill advised) and if there was, to what extent.
Now if you all want to talk about the use of lexicons, have at it. Just don't blame me. [:P]
Now if you all want to talk about the use of lexicons, have at it. Just don't blame me.
I am sorry Terry. I am probably pulling off a little more but I truly have a question.
"The Greek word really means _____" when it means nothing of the kind. I could name some of the worst offenders
I do not want the offenders names. I guess I want to ask about this phrase "The Greek word really means_____". Do they really take it completely out of meaning? My example for this might be logos is word or message but they would say it really means "cat or feline?" Do they just use lesser tranlated words for it?
Ohh! I just thought of a word study I want to do!
Although his language may be a bit strong, I don't know that I would classify that as animosity. Not even when he said that he didn't know of a word study that any of his students had turned in that was any good because of their use of lexicons (Not a verbatim quote, since I can't type that fast)?
Touche! I had forgotten about that comment. [:$] I agree that a lexicon does not a word study make, but this does raise a question in my mind. Did he not teach his students how to do a word study?
Dr. Heiser made some comments on the flap over his lexicon comments here
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/06/learning-to-use-hebrew-and-greek/
I think his point is well taken in that lexicons can be best utilized by those with skill. I was done a disservice by my first Greek professor in that he required us to look up if BDAG classified a word's usage particularly prepositions. It set BDAG up as an infallible authority. The classification decisions that BDAG makes should be treated like an exegetical decision in a good commentary that should be evaluated fairly instead of blindly followed.
Dr. Heiser made some comments on the flap over his lexicon comments here http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/06/learning-to-use-hebrew-and-greek/ I think his point is well taken in that lexicons can be best utilized by those with skill. I was done a disservice by my first Greek professor in that he required us to look up if BDAG classified a word's usage particularly prepositions. It set BDAG up as an infallible authority. The classification decisions that BDAG makes should be treated like an exegetical decision in a good commentary that should be evaluated fairly instead of blindly followed.
Well, since no one wants to discuss my original question, let's talk about Lexicons instead.
Yup, I read his Blog entry, and what's more I agree with him for the most part although my experience wasn't similar to yours. Yes, I was required to have BDAG as well, but my instructor did not raise it to be the last word, it was a tool. The only real issue I have is the Mike (Dr. Heiser) spends so much time in the video (at least it seemed like a lot of time to me) stressing how badly lexicons are abused. As I watched the examples that he gave, my first thoughts were "You have got to be kidding, what kind of idiot would do a word study like that?" The problem is the same type of idiot that does a word study like that, will take Mike's vehemence against lexicons and disregard them as totally useless. If there is not critical thinking being applied to either end of the spectrum, then you are going to get abuses.
Now for more fun. BDAG and HALOT were both recommended for these videos by Logos, anyone notice how critical HALOT is to the Hebrew videos?
Just for the record, I don't hate lexicons. I think they are easily misused and, worse, allow the notion of choosing English glosses to become synonymous with word study. Yes, the word studies I got from a recent class showed all the marks of not thinking -- which prompted me to say something that needed to be said. Standard lexicons that don't go beyond listing glosses (or whose information does not include discussion), offer little help to beginners. They may do useful things for non-beginners (like group forms or occurrences by stems), but until someone understands why that's useful, it's of no help -- they are left to sifting glosses.
thanks Kevin!
I thought they recommended BDAG and CHALOT... Do you think it will be a problem that I don't have HALOT in my library? I probably won't get my DVDs for a couple of weeks yet as I am based in the UK...
I thought they recommended BDAG and CHALOT... Do you think it will be a problem that I don't have HALOT in my library? I probably won't get my DVDs for a couple of weeks yet as I am based in the UK..
My mistake Andy, it was CHALOT, not HALOT.
It seems to me that the use of good lexicons could often be beneficial. I so often am frustrated by the misinformation that those with no Greek background pick up from some radio preacher or other "teacher" (who doesn't read Greek either.) "The Greek word really means _____" when it means nothing of the kind. I could name some of the worst offenders, but will restrain myself. Some of this ignorance could be straightened out by reference to a quality Greek lexicon.
But that seems to be the very thing that Mike Heiser is trying to discourage - i.e., simply looking at a lexicon, seeing the various glosses/word choices, and deciding which one to use when saying "In the original Greek, it says/means...."
I.e., he wants lexicons - or better yet, theological dictionaries - to be the last tool the person reaches for after she/he has already done the other searches and examinations and readings and comparisons his word study method will take the person through (I've only just begun the Hebrew series, though - he may say something different later on).
So this kind of ignorance would not be straightened out by reference to a quality Greek lexicon, but would only be replaced by another kind of ignorance - due to letting a lexicon do the work instead of really doing a word study.
