George Somsel said:

Who says I genuflect? 

Well I assume you don't send your [6] avatar either!  [:D]

~Butters [:)]

Now George. Surely you have to admit that when the pastor is in Navajo and you're in english, an interlinear at least gets you in the ball park.

Personally, absent a serious scholar (you), I very much doubt that reading the hebrew/greek 2,000 years later is of much value, except to confirm ones opinions. A schoolboy in a village near Ephesus at the time is more likely to grasp the 'correct' meaning.

Denise said:

Now George. Surely you have to admit that when the pastor is in Navajo and you're in english, an interlinear at least gets you in the ball park.

Personally, absent a serious scholar (you), I very much doubt that reading the hebrew/greek 2,000 years later is of much value, except to confirm ones opinions. A schoolboy in a village near Ephesus at the time is more likely to grasp the 'correct' meaning.

I'm hardly the only "serious" scholar of Greek.  How about Wescott, Hort, Swete, Smyth?  Oh, they're all dead white guys.  There would be plenty of Greek scholars if cemetaries quit teaching courses in "Methods of Genuflecting" and taught something worthwhile.  Soon Ministers will be as incompetent as public school teachers.

If I show up at one of your Navaho services, I expect an interlinear of the sermon (I can assure you that the Navaho line will be about as useful to me as the Greek line is to users of NT interlinears.  Make sure that's a reverse interlinear.

Butters said:

George Somsel said:

There would be plenty of Greek scholars if cemetaries quit teaching courses in "Methods of Genuflecting" and taught something worthwhile.

It's easy George.  I'll show you in all of 12 seconds.  

"The worshipper never feels taller than when he bows."  ~G.K. Chesterton 

~Butters 

I know it's easy, and I can most likely manage without instruction.  I was being somewhat ironic about some courses I heard of among education students when I was in college such as "Methods of Teaching Arithmetic."  I would say that the most important factor in teaching arithmetic is that you know it yourself.  BTW:  Did you know that education students consistently are the least proficient of any students on any campus? 

George Somsel said:

I'm hardly the only "serious" scholar of Greek.  How about Wescott, Hort, Swete, Smyth?  Oh, they're all dead white guys.  There would be plenty of Greek scholars if cemetaries quit teaching courses in "Methods of Genuflecting" and taught something worthwhile.  Soon Ministers will be as incompetent as public school teachers.

If I show up at one of your Navaho services, I expect an interlinear of the sermon (I can assure you that the Navaho line will be about as useful to me as the Greek line is to users of NT interlinears.  Make sure that's a reverse interlinear.

If you went to Asbury in the 1970's, you took 6 hours of Greek that you could not count toward your M.Div. because you were supposed to know basic Greek grammar before you started.  Now even Asbury has wimped out and lets them count those 6 hours of Greek as an elective toward their degree.  I am most disappointed in them.  Heretics!

Denise said:

I very much doubt that reading the hebrew/greek 2,000 years later is of much value

Denise would you do to a Doctor who had never studied and who knew little more than you about the human body? We, require most professionals to know their subject well and to know it first hand. The Rabbi and the Cantor are not simply required but expected to have a greater working knowledge of Hebrew than the average man, woman, or child. But, then we turn our eyes to the Minister, Preacher, and Bible teacher and our expectations significantly drop? [:^)] Are, not those the people who should in fact be the specialist and have an intimate knowledge of the sources or as close as one can get to the sources? Are, those not the people who should toil and struggle with the original language texts as often as possible?Or, is simple 2nd, 3rd, 4rth hand knowledge good enough?   

Bruce Dunning said:

I think this may also be driven by economics.

It may also be driven by the fact that seminaries know that the average Pastor has access to 2000 years of scholarship on his cell phone...

Paul Golder said:

Bruce Dunning said:

I think this may also be driven by economics.

It may also be driven by the fact that seminaries know that the average Pastor has access to 2000 years of scholarship on his cell phone...

To some degree yes.  

One thing that's been bothering me about some of the Logos marketing:  access to information is a very small part of wisdom, knowledge, and scholarship.  

There's an marketing video for Noet where some college kids are given an assignment to look into the history of how the word "Logos" has been used differently through time.  The young man promptly brings up his laptop and swipes it a bit and out pops a historical perspective on the word.  To me this is nearly farcical.  

Would, say, Socrates have benefited from being able to read, having access to billions of bits of information?  Sure, I suppose so; however, one could easily argue that it may well have had an untoward effect on him as well.  In any case, mere access to information would have played an infinitely small - if any - part of what made him a Socrates. 

Conversely, consider a person who has little scholarship, knowledge or wisdom - in that person's hands, that information can at best be useless, and at worst dangerous.  

~Butters [:)]

NB.Mick said:

At least I hear that doctors increasingly carry around a digital version of the Red Book 

Not only that, but current law in the States has caused most hospitals to adopt a complete paperless system, forcing all medical professionals to carry a tablet of some sort.

Super Tramp said:

I am just saying the availability to look it up on the internet does not replace Med School

True, but more concerning to me is that any school does not replace an apprenticeship (or to use the Christianese, discipleship) 

Super Tramp said:

Having access to or mastery of are two different things. I would not trust my doctor if he was referring to his iPad to treat me.

Sleiman said:

Super Tramp said:

Having access to or mastery of are two different things. I would not trust my doctor if he was referring to his iPad to treat me.

Good point, me neither. But what about trusting someone who uses an ipad while ministering to your soul instead of your body? 

I'd strongly suspect he was merely distracted, and was just checking his email.  [:D]

NB Mick said:

a fool with a tool is still a fool.

[:D]  I like that!  I'll try to remember it if my alzheimers doesn't kick in.

Sleiman said:

George Somsel said:

I'll try to remember it if my alzheimers doesn't kick in

At 39?  

He can't remember, but he recalls reading somewhere that it starts at 38 ... or 39 ... or something like that. Who are you again?

Bruce Dunning said:

Michael Childs said:

It should be a crime for a seminary to give an M.Div degree without requiring Greek and Hebrew, and not just the basic courses, but Greek and Hebrew exegesis courses as well.

If you went to Asbury in the 1970's, you took 6 hours of Greek that you could not count toward your M.Div. because you were supposed to know basic Greek grammar before you started.  Now even Asbury has wimped out and lets them count those 6 hours of Greek as an elective toward their degree.  I am most disappointed in them.  Heretics!

That seems to be the trend these days in many schools. I think this may also be driven by economics.

No, it's driven by the inclusion of many "practical" courses which crowd out the meat of the curriculum.  When I went to cemetery ALL those admitted had been Greek majors in college.  We then had three more years of Greek pounded into our thick skulls full of mush by Dr. Bastiaan Van Elderen (When he wasn't talking about archaeology).   Unfortunately, the Old Testament department wasn't so insistent on knowing the language well (which is why I went on to graduate school in OT).  At the end of our captivity we had to take proficiency exams in both languages as well as an oral on general theological topics.

Paul Golder said:

Always found traditional seminary focus intriguing.

Understanding that a typical pastor spends three to four hours teaching the Word and doctrine each week, and 60 to 80 hours in counseling and administration.

I sure hope that counseling == teaching the Word.

In terms of administration, the elder does need to exercise oversight, but it seems like much of the work could/should be delegated. I think a local church body does itself a disservice by insisting a pastor handle these tasks. Doesn't even have to be paid staff implementing administrative efforts.

Paul ... not when folks are still having their morning coffee.

This tool differentiates original-language word senses, helping you understand Scripture as its inspired authors intended.

Whew ~ I just scanned all of the pages in this thread and it is a long one!

My credentials are as follows: DPhil, Oxford OT Theology; MAT Fuller Seminary; Religion and Philosophy BA, Northwest University. I currently research, write and teach on-line for Fuller. Because I have traveled a lot in the course of my education and continue to travel a lot, I now purchase any books possible in electronic format. I teach language courses that include a Logos component and we use many (although not all) electronic resources for that. Mind you this is largely a practical matter: I am 5'4'' and prefer to carry cameras to hard bound books on journeys

That being said, I am perfectly happy for anyone, anywhere, anytime to read the Bible in any available version (except my students don't get to use the Amplified Bible). This thread reminds me of some of the 'food critical' stuff on FB in a way. My reply there and here as well is 'Only in a food-rich (text-rich) country could we afford to have this conversation. Elsewhere, folks are too busy trying to acquire three meals a day to worry about (insert topic here).

Likewise, I am thankful to live in a day and time where such rich resources are available. In any case, of course one should try to be polite and considerate, but I say: We have a feast: let us join in and celebrate the Lord's goodness towards us.

Elizabeth Hayes said:

Whew ~ I just scanned all of the pages in this thread and it is a long one!

My credentials are as follows: DPhil, Oxford OT Theology; MAT Fuller Seminary; Religion and Philosophy BA, Northwest University. I currently research, write and teach on-line for Fuller. Because I have traveled a lot in the course of my education and continue to travel a lot, I now purchase any books possible in electronic format. I teach language courses that include a Logos component and we use many (although not all) electronic resources for that. Mind you this is largely a practical matter: I am 5'4'' and prefer to carry cameras to hard bound books on journeys

That being said, I am perfectly happy for anyone, anywhere, anytime to read the Bible in any available version (except my students don't get to use the Amplified Bible). This thread reminds me of some of the 'food critical' stuff on FB in a way. My reply there and here as well is 'Only in a food-rich (text-rich) country could we afford to have this conversation. Elsewhere, folks are too busy trying to acquire three meals a day to worry about (insert topic here).

Likewise, I am thankful to live in a day and time where such rich resources are available. In any case, of course one should try to be polite and considerate, but I say: We have a feast: let us join in and celebrate the Lord's goodness towards us.

So, since others don't have the resources we have we should simply hit the big issues and forget the rest?  [:O]

Paul Golder said:

William Gabriel said:

Does your seminary combine the exegesis and preaching in the same class?

I was just making a point that for centuries seminaries have made Biblically astute Pastors, (ie. Greek exegesis), while most have put what most Pastors spend their time doing on the "back burner". Some even to the point of ignoring all the other areas of a Pastors profession. (things like conflict management, organizational budgeting, superintendence concepts, and relational studies, to name a few of the things a Pastor deals with on a daily basis)

Granted this is changing, and I believe that most of the change is good. So, while I would welcome a man that handles well the Greek and Hebrew as a teacher in our church, I would desire a man just as well trained in martial counseling if he were to lead our flock.

How about one trained in the martial arts?  [;)]

 Amen! That's truth and another thing the argument we are having here is one that has been done time and time again. Here is something from 1918. Let's see the writer feels as if seminaries are pushing out Biblically astute Pastors in Greek exegesis?

The Minister and His Greek Testament

J. Gresham Machen

The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two principal causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament.

The former objection is merely one manifestation of the well known tendency in modern education to reject the "humanities" in favor of studies that are more obviously useful, a tendency which is fully as pronounced in the universities as it is in the theological seminaries. In many colleges the study of Greek is almost abandoned; there is little wonder, therefore, that the graduates are not prepared to use their Greek Testament. Plato and Homer are being neglected as much as Paul. A refutation of the arguments by which this tendency is justified would exceed the limits of the present article. This much, however, may be said—the refutation must recognize the opposing principles that are involved. The advocate of the study of Greek and Latin should never attempt to plead his cause merely before the bar of "efficiency." Something, no doubt, might be said even there; it might possibly be contended that an acquaintance with Greek and Latin is really necessary to acquaintance with the mother tongue, which is obviously so important for getting on in the world. But why not go straight to the root of the matter? The real trouble with the modern exaltation of "practical" studies at the expense of the humanities is that it is based upon a vicious conception of the whole purpose of education. The modern conception of the purpose of education is that education is merely intended to enable a man to live, but not to give him those things in life that make life worth living.

In the second place, the modern minister is neglecting his Greek New Testament because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament in general—less interested in his Bible. The Bible used to be regarded as providing the very sum and substance of preaching; a preacher was true to his calling only as he succeeded in reproducing and applying the message of the Word of God. Very different is the modern attitude. The Bible is not discarded, to be sure, but it is treated only as one of the sources, even though it be still the chief source, of the preacher's inspiration. Moreover, a host of duties other than preaching and other than interpretation of the Word of God are required of the modern pastor. He must organize clubs and social activities of a dozen different kinds; he must assume a prominent part in movements for civic reform. In short, the minister has ceased to be a specialist. The change appears, for example, in the attitude of theological students, even of a devout and reverent type. One outstanding difficulty in theological education today is that the students persist in regarding themselves, not as specialists, but as laymen. Critical questions about the Bible they regard as the property of men who are training themselves for theological professorships or the like, while the ordinary minister, in their judgment, may content himself with the most superficial layman's acquaintance with the problems involved. The minister is thus no longer a specialist in the Bible, but has become merely a sort of general manager of the affairs of a congregation.

The bearing of this modern attitude toward the study of the Bible upon the study of the Greek Testament is sufficiently obvious. If the time allotted to strictly biblical studies must be diminished, obviously the most laborious part of those studies, the part least productive of immediate results, will be the first to go. And that part, for students insufficiently prepared, is the study of Greek and Hebrew. If, on the other hand, the minister is a specialist—if the one thing that he owes his congregation above all others is a thorough acquaintance, scientific as well as experimental, with the Bible—then the importance of Greek requires no elaborate argument. In the first place, almost all the most important books about the New Testament presuppose a knowledge of Greek: the student who is without at least a smattering of Greek is obliged to use for the most part works that are written, figuratively speaking, in words of one syllable. In the second place, such a student cannot deal with all the problems at first hand, but in a thousand important questions is at the mercy of the judgment of others. In the third place, our student without Greek cannot acquaint himself with the form as well as the content of the New Testament books. The New Testament, as well as all other literature, loses something in translation. But why argue the question? Every scientific student of the New Testament without exception knows that Greek is really necessary to his work: the real question is only as to whether our ministry should be manned by scientific students.

That question is merely one phase of the most important question that is now facing the church—the question of Christianity and culture. The modern world is dominated by a type of thought that is either contradictory to Christianity or else out of vital connection with Christianity. This type of thought applied directly to the Bible has resulted in the naturalistic view of the biblical history—the view that rejects the supernatural not merely in the Old Testament narratives, but also in the Gospel account of the life of Jesus. According to such a view the Bible is valuable because it teaches certain ideas about God and his relations to the world, because it teaches by symbols and example, as well as by formal presentation, certain great principles that have always been true. According to the supernaturalistic view, on the other hand, the Bible contains not merely a presentation of something that was always true, but also a record of something that happened—namely, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. If this latter view be correct, then the Bible is unique; it is not merely one of the sources of the preacher's inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say. But, if so, then whatever else the preacher need not know, he must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret and defend it. Especially while doubt remains in the world as to the great central question, who more properly than the ministers should engage in the work of resolving such doubt—by intellectual instruction even more than by argument? The work cannot be turned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only to themselves, but must be undertaken energetically by spiritually minded men throughout the church. But obviously this work can be undertaken to best advantage only by those who have an important prerequisite for the study in a knowledge of the original languages upon which a large part of the discussion is based.

If, however, it is important for the minister to use his Greek Testament, what is to be done about it? Suppose early opportunities were neglected, or what was once required has been lost in the busy rush of ministerial life. Here we may come forward boldly with a message of hope. The Greek of the New Testament is by no means a difficult language; a very fair knowledge of it may be acquired by any minister of average intelligence. And to that end two homely directions may be given. In the first place, the Greek should be read aloud. A language cannot easily be learned by the eye alone. The sound as well as the sense of familiar passages should be impressed upon the mind, until sound and sense are connected without the medium of translation. Let this result not be hastened; it will come of itself if the simple direction be followed. In the second place, the Greek Testament should be read every day without fail, Sabbaths included. Ten minutes a day is of vastly more value than seventy minutes once a week. If the student keeps a "morning watch," the Greek Testament ought to be given a place in it; at any rate, the Greek Testament should be read devotionally. The Greek Testament is a sacred book, and should be treated as such. If it is treated so, the reading of it will soon become a source of joy and power.

MJ. Smith said:

supported by history? only if you are selective both in time and location.

I find that my thoughts are best expressed by broad sweeping generalization. [;)]

MJ. Smith said:

Greek ... useful yes, required no

"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White