PDA

View Full Version : Considering purchasing BDAG/HALOT



kitwalker
04-30-2007, 08:59 PM
I recently bought Bibleworks and am in love with it. I'm now considering purchasing BDAG/HALOT but am not sure if it is worth my money.

I did a search for help here but couldn't find a similar question, sorry if another thread has answered it.

Are they better than the standard lexicons? What do they offer that the standard ones don't? I'm interested in your opinions and if you can point me to some reliable reviews.

I'm currently a theological student planning (Lord willing) to work as a church pastor who will always refer to the Hebrew and Greek in sermon preparation.

Thanks a lot.

Michael Hanel
04-30-2007, 09:07 PM
There are two basic questions you want to ask. 1. Are BDAG and HALOT worthwhile as resources for reading the Bible in the Hebrew and Greek? 2. Are they worthwhile to own in BibleWorks.

To the first question, I don't think you will find anyone anywhere who will say they are not necessary. In my own background I have found that professors allow students to use other "learning" lexica the first year of Greek and Hebrew (although BDB is a rather difficult lexicon to use in book edition!), but if you move on to intermediate or advanced studies, you cannot really operate without BDAG and HALOT. They are *the* standard lexica for Greek and Hebrew respectively. Can you work with Hebrew and Greek without them? Yes, but your theological studies will be much poorer without them.

On to the second, it's not really that difficult considering what you've said already. You seem to have experimented some with BibleWorks and enjoy it. BDAG and HALOT will add the scholarly edge to an otherwise good lexical line-up in the standard package. The lexica integrate well, you can use them in the Resource Summary window, build reports with them, etc.

In my mind, two questions with two easy answers. Others will probably offer similar opinions :)

arggem
04-30-2007, 09:12 PM
Here is a link to a previous thread: BDAG/HALOT (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1097)

MGVH
04-30-2007, 10:24 PM
As Michael indicates, BDAG really is the standard. It is thorough, cites nearly all examples (when reasonable to do so), has an eye both on LXX and classical usage, and provides bibliography for further reference.

That said, you may want to consider as an alternative, the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT. (EDNT as a BW module HERE (http://store.bibleworks.com/EDNT.html) - at $119, it's not a matter of saving you much money over BDAG.) It has definite advantages over Kittel's old Theological Dictionary of the NT (TDNT) in that it really does try to be an exegetical resource.

There are plus/minus in relation to BDAG. E.g., I've been doing some work on Rom 1.18 and the term that shows up there: κατεχω. BDAG has quite a lengthy entry on the word and alerts you to two possible meanings for the word in Rom 1.18: "suppress" (1b) and as a legal terminus technicus meaning "lay claim to" (6). This makes for a significant difference in how we read the text (though not really a significant difference in the ultimate meaning of the phrase).
In EDNT, there is a shorter entry, that does note the "suppress" meaning for the word but not the other. What one does note in EDNT is an extended entry on the problematic use of the word in 2 Thes 2.6f. Looking back at BDAG I find a discussion just as long on these verses, but EDNT with its exegetical perspective may sometimes provide a more helpful summary to highlight the concerns than BDAG's grammatical/historical/linguistic analysis which prepares you for further research.

frdee
05-01-2007, 01:11 AM
Just a slight addendum to Michael Hanel's point: BDAG is the standard Lexicon for New Testament Greek (I don't think it has every word in the LXX - could be mistaken). The standard Lexicon for classical Greek is the big LSJ. My recommendation would be to buy BDAG and then, when you come into money, buy LSJ - it can really broaden the understanding of what different words can mean in different contexts (but it does not include all the NT examples like BDAG does).

I do like EDNT, but only as a supplementary Lexicon. You could make that your second purchase instead of LSJ. Then again, where would I be without Moulton and Milligan and my hard copy version of Spicq?

Michael Hanel
05-01-2007, 01:23 AM
Just a slight addendum to Michael Hanel's point: BDAG is the standard Lexicon for New Testament Greek (I don't think it has every word in the LXX - could be mistaken). The standard Lexicon for classical Greek is the big LSJ. My recommendation would be to buy BDAG and then, when you come into money, buy LSJ - it can really broaden the understanding of what different words can mean in different contexts (but it does not include all the NT examples like BDAG does).

Yeah sorry if that was unclear. You're absolutely right. BDAG is *the* lexicon if you're talking Greek NT. LSJ is *the* lexicon if you mean Greek generally, meaning classical Greek. Lampe is *the* lexicon if you mean Patristic Greek and Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie is probably a solid LXX lexicon (although I don't think it's going to ever be the best LXX lexicon. It is respectable for now.)

frdee
05-01-2007, 01:24 AM
Oops. You wanted reviews... For BDAG, see Rodney Decker's review at http://faculty.bbc.edu/Rdecker/bdag.htm. He also has links to other reviews and keeps an errata page (very short).

Halot is superb for etymology and if you ever do anything with Qumran, it will give you most (all?) of those words as well.
Review: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=590&CodePage=1161%2C590

kitwalker
05-01-2007, 01:53 AM
Thanks for all the replies so far. I'm using your responses to gradually gather ammunition for the proposal I will need to put to my wife :rolleyes:

Particularly interested in views from pastors...

Dale A. Brueggemann
05-01-2007, 05:33 AM
I recently bought Bibleworks and am in love with it. I'm now considering purchasing BDAG/HALOT.... Are they better than the standard lexicons? What do they offer that the standard ones don't?

If by your use of the term "standard" you mean "printed editions" of the lexicons. The advantages are noticeable. The linkage to your electronic Bible program is the key to it all, so that when you hover the cursor over a term, you get a gloss, and if you want a click will take you to the complete lexical entry. And inside those lexicon articles, all Scripture references are in turn hot-linked so that you can see them on-screen to check the usage while you're reading the lexical entry. The only reason I ever look at the printed texts now is if I need pagination for citation in footnotes. But the standard conventions for citing electronic versions of works like these are now available anyway.

If by "stanard" you mean compared to some other lexicon for Greek or Hebrew, the response is that HALOT and BDAG are the standard lexicons. Biblical Hebrew also has another old standard in BDB (Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs), but the current scholarly standard is HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Ludwig Koehler And Walter Baumgartner, subsequently revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm with assistance from Benedikt Hartmann, Ze'ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, Philippe Reymond, translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson © 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden).


And as for NT Greek, BDAG is it (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Copyright © 2000 The University of Chicago Press. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker based on the Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und für frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English Editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker). Of course, you can supplement this standard with various other tools, many of which are already in BibleWorks or can be purchased as add-ons.


I'm currently a theological student planning (Lord willing) to work as a church pastor who will always refer to the Hebrew and Greek in sermon preparation.

A very useful tool for biblical Hebrew for routine classroom work and as a pastoral references is Holladay (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, edited by W.L. Holladay. Copyright © 1997 by Brill Academic Publishers). And it's in BibleWorks.

SCSaunders
05-01-2007, 08:48 AM
IMO, everyone's given you really good advice on BDAG/HALOT. Song of Solomon will give you really good advice for wifely proposals. (Just don't call her "Dode.")

That being said, though time is not money, God does want you to purchase it. Dale's advice is worth it's weight in hours.


... The linkage to your electronic Bible program is the key to it all, so that when you hover the cursor over a term, you get a gloss, and if you want a click will take you to the complete lexical entry. And inside those lexicon articles, all Scripture references are in turn hot-linked so that you can see them on-screen to check the usage while you're reading the lexical entry. The only reason I ever look at the printed texts now is if I need pagination for citation in footnotes. ...

alpha0r
05-01-2007, 11:10 AM
Kitwalker,
I have both the printed and electronic editions of BDAG. Now, I never open the large clumsy book and always use Bibleworks. I regularly translate large blocks of Greek text for my studies and having BDAG on computer saves me HUGE amounts of time. I also found that I use the lexicon more because I was too lazy to take out my printed BDAG. I would just use the gloss that pops up in Bibleworks. Also, though the resource summary window, you can go directly to how BDAG says a word is used in the passage you are working on. This feature is quite convenient because many entries are very long.

Steve Watkins
05-01-2007, 06:59 PM
WELL worth the purchase price. Buy it. Today. You won't be sorry.

kitwalker
05-01-2007, 10:26 PM
If by your use of the term "standard" you mean "printed editions" of the lexicons.

Sorry for the confusion. By standard, I meant the lexicons that come free with Bibleworks.

I'm well aware of how wonderful it is to hover a word and have the definitions brought to my attention straightaway. What I was getting at is that wouldn't all Lexicons have similar definitions?

But from what I can gather from the reviews and comments provided is that these extra modules provide further analysis of the words in the resource summary window that the standard lexicons do not.

I should also mention that I had a dream last night where I asked my wife if I could buy them if I sold my Xbox. I questioned her about it this morning. She said I could indeed buy them if I raised the money by selling something of mine. So I think I'll get them. I repented of wasting my time with the xbox a while ago and so have ceased playing it. It will be the final straw in removing the temptation from my life :)

So if these are not better than an Xbox you guys are all to blame! :p

Dale A. Brueggemann
05-02-2007, 05:47 AM
I should also mention that I had a dream last night where I asked my wife if I could buy them if I sold my Xbox.... if these are not better than an Xbox you guys are all to blame! :p

Whew! That puts a lot of pressure on us here. A new level of accountability for advice given in the forums.

SCSaunders
05-02-2007, 07:15 AM
So if these are not better than an Xbox you guys are all to blame! :pSounds like Adam's logic. ... Whaaaaaaat? I kiiiiiiiiiiiiid. I'm only jooooooking. :) [Seriously. I'm only joking. You're making a good switch.]

At our house it's Nintendo Wii. It's the nunchucks. Daddy loves the nunchucks.

http://i11.tinypic.com/6gvr5vp.jpg

Steve Watkins
05-03-2007, 01:12 AM
At our house it's Nintendo Wii. It's the nunchucks. Daddy loves the nunchucks.

:D Too funny. So, between Wii and BDAG/HALOT, nunchucks wins hands done, eh?

Kitwalker - are you a student in a biblical studies program, or a pastor, or someone doing regular exegetical research? If so - in any capacity - these two lexica are pretty important, and worth the cost. Even if exegetical work is just a 'hobby', I'd argue it's worth your consideration - they really do give an important dimension to your study. XBOX may be a steep price - but I think it'll pay off!

SCSaunders
05-03-2007, 08:20 AM
:D Too funny. So, between Wii and BDAG/HALOT, nunchucks wins hands done, eh?
Oh not at all Sir Steve! Daddy had these two right when they first came out. I'm a big believer in the way Dale worded the advantage.

But, I can't use either one of those with my daughters. With the nunchucks, we've had lots of quality daddy:daughter time. Word of caution: Stay. Away. From. The. Screen!

I do use both for my daughters. Whatever I dig up, I serve up. Neither are hamstrung by Sunday School audience age. It's my job to disconbobulate.

Steve Watkins
05-03-2007, 02:03 PM
I do use both for my daughters. Whatever I dig up, I serve up. Neither are hamstrung by Sunday School audience age. It's my job to disconbobulate.Excellent... Yeah, I've heard lots of 'broken TV screen' stories from disheartened Wii users. Keep on discombobulating!

SCSaunders
05-03-2007, 05:12 PM
Keep on discombobulating!Most certainly good sir, most certainly.

dhave
05-05-2007, 12:14 AM
I've owned the print version of BDAG for exactly 24 years. I've owned the BibleWorks BDAG module for nine months. I am certain that I've used BDAG 50 times more often -- not to mention more efficiently and more effectively -- in those nine months than I did in the previous 23 years and 3 months.

Buy the module. You won't regret it. If you do, then sell it on this forum to somebody else for $10 less than you paid. It should sell within a few days, at most.

But you won't sell it. I promise.

Buy the module.

MBushell
05-05-2007, 08:17 PM
No need to resell it. There's a 30 day return policy. Just say you don't need it and that's it.
Mike

Steve Watkins
05-06-2007, 04:39 AM
No need to resell it. There's a 30 day return policy. Just say you don't need it and that's it.
Mike

There ya go. Nothing to lose. But, you won't return it...

kitwalker
05-10-2007, 11:49 PM
Well I purchased them this morning and was using BDAG while writing a sermon on Matthew.

In reference to 'lose' in Matthew 10:39 (Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.) BDAG had:

Diehl(2 )lines 11-14: ‘One who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’).

That's a nice line and so I'm using it in the sermon. No idea who Diehl is though :rolleyes:

But in other words, I'm enjoying it already! Thanks a lot for all the encouragement to buy them! :)

frdee
05-11-2007, 03:32 AM
‘One who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’

The quote is actually from the lyric poet Tyrtaeus from the 7th cent. BC (look a little bit earlier in the BDAG reference) as recorded in fragment 8 in Diehl's edition of the Lyric Poets - Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. E. Diehl2 1936-42.

Glad to see you're already finding the dictionary useful.

kitwalker
05-11-2007, 03:38 AM
‘One who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’

The quote is actually from the lyric poet Tyrtaeus from the 7th cent. BC (look a little bit earlier in the BDAG reference) as recorded in fragment 8 in Diehl's edition of the Lyric Poets - Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. E. Diehl2 1936-42.

Glad to see you're already finding the dictionary useful.


Ahh, nice! That's what I get for skim reading.

It's such a good quote and fits so nicely with the passage. If you flee to save your life, you'll end up losing it. It makes you immediately think of all the passages that tell you to stand firm in your faith. Really good stuff!

Glenn Weaver
05-11-2007, 09:32 AM
Well, this is off-topic, but if I remember correctly, most casualities to an army occurred when the army turned its back and ran. These soldiers were defenseless. Essentially, the victor was the one who could make the enemy turn and be defenseless.

Glenn

Dale A. Brueggemann
05-11-2007, 11:12 AM
But of course, the most helpful thing about the BDAG entry is the note of very similar usage for the term appolumi (eg lose one’s life Mt 10:39; (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_MAT.10:39'))16:25; (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_MAT.16:25'))Mk 8:35; (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_MAR.8:35'))Lk 9:24; (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_LUK.9:24'))17:33; (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_LUK.17:33'))cp. J 12:25. (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/BwRef('BGT_JOH.12:25'))For this av. e`auto,n lose oneself Lk 9:25 ). The BDAG entries are like well-focused concordance listings.

Eagle
05-11-2007, 12:18 PM
Honestly, there's no point in buying the best critical tools if one doesn't know how to use them and doesn't care enough to learn.

Any lexicon, including old ones that come free, will give you lots to "think about." No need to pay for the newer ones unless you can understand what you're reading and citing.

Chris

Adelphos
05-11-2007, 12:28 PM
Well, this is off-topic, but if I remember correctly, most casualities to an army occurred when the army turned its back and ran. These soldiers were defenseless. Essentially, the victor was the one who could make the enemy turn and be defenseless.

As Bunyan, Gurnall, and others were fond of noting, there is no armour for the Christian's back in the register of weapons in Ephesians 6.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelation 21:8

frdee
05-11-2007, 05:12 PM
Ahh, nice! That's what I get for skim reading.


Don't be too hard on yourself. The way in which BDAG cites its references is not necessarily logical and takes a bit of practice. If you want to know what the various abbreviations stand for, you need to open the separate lexicon browser and then scroll down. In this case, you will find that Diehl2 refers to AnthLG. You will then need to continue searching to find that AnthLG refers to a series with various author/editors. Most of the time, such searching is not essential. Over time, many of the common references will be automatically recognisable. Patience, it's only the first week.

SCSaunders
05-11-2007, 05:16 PM
... care enough to learn.

Put on your trunks (guys, no speedos. PLEASE!)
Ride your bike to the pool
Walk over to the diving board at the deep end
Deep breaths
Lord's Prayer
"Phooey on the torpedos, full speed ahead" attitude
Van Halen's "Jump" blasting through your waterproof MP3 ear plugs
Splash! (The bigger the better)
Dog Paddle to the side of the pool
Get out
Repeat until you can swim
Teach someone else
Volunteer during Summers as a Lexicon Lifeguard

kitwalker
05-12-2007, 01:31 AM
As Bunyan, Gurnall, and others were fond of noting, there is no armour for the Christian's back in the register of weapons in Ephesians 6.


I hadn't heard that before and I like it a lot!! :)

Thanks again for all the encouragement from everyone to persist in learning from the best lexicons and understanding how to use them.

I love the term 'Lexicon Lifeguard' too!

SCSaunders
05-12-2007, 10:00 AM
Thanks again for all the encouragement from everyone to persist in learning from the best lexicons and understanding how to use them.I'm pullin' for ya! As Locke use to say on Lost, (Season 1 before the bean counters ruined it buy dumbing it down) - "Don't tell me what I can't do!" - meaning, "Don't tell me what I'm not cabable of!"

You're more than capable kitwalker, more than capable.

fibranz
05-15-2007, 04:46 PM
Sorry for jumping in so late but I have been following this thread and finally just had to ask; is there a problem with Gesenius? No one ever mentions that work and as far as I know it has never been offered by Bible Works. I have used it for years (mainly before I was able to use BW) because my copy is keyed to the Strong's numbers and for someone who is not fluent in Hebrew this has made word studies much easier.

Adelphos
05-15-2007, 06:14 PM
Sorry for jumping in so late but I have been following this thread and finally just had to ask; is there a problem with Gesenius? No one ever mentions that work and as far as I know it has never been offered by Bible Works. I have used it for years (mainly before I was able to use BW) because my copy is keyed to the Strong's numbers and for someone who is not fluent in Hebrew this has made word studies much easier.

Gesenius' Grammar is included with BW7 as a free module. Don't remember if it was also offered in 6 or not, but it's been around since at least the inception of 7.


Resources|Hebrew Grammar|Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar

SCSaunders
05-15-2007, 08:04 PM
Sorry for jumping in so late but I have been following this thread and finally just had to ask; is there a problem with Gesenius? No one ever mentions that work and as far as I know it has never been offered by Bible Works. I have used it for years (mainly before I was able to use BW) because my copy is keyed to the Strong's numbers and for someone who is not fluent in Hebrew this has made word studies much easier.Fibranz,

I'm assuming you are referring to this one (http://www.amazon.com/Gesenius-Hebrew-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament/dp/0801037360). I don't think anyone here will tell you there's a "problem." Maybe I'll be proven wrong. My brother used it for years when studying from the King Jimmy. His understanding of God's word wasn't any less than people using BDB, Holladay or HALOT [KB at the time].

I was at an intersection the other day in my 2000 Mitsubishi Mirage. A 2007 Hummer III pulled up next to me. I wasn't threatened. We both arrived at the same place. The only difference: I get 20 or so miles to the gallon; he gets 3 gallons to the mile.

Keep studying the Good Book!

Adelphos
05-15-2007, 09:44 PM
I'm assuming you are referring to this one (http://www.amazon.com/Gesenius-Hebrew-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament/dp/0801037360).

Oh! My mistake.

By all means, let's have this one, too. If any of the .CHM gurus will be willing to undertake it, of course. ;)

Mark Eddy
05-15-2007, 11:36 PM
BDB is Gesenius. Brown, Driver, and Briggs took a later edition of Gesenius' lexicon (11th), and made some corrections and additions. The Tregelles translation of Gesenius goes back to 1859, which I believe is the one you have in mind. I don't know what it offers that is not in BDB. (Unless it avoids the historical-critical reading of the OT which is so prevalent in BDB and HALOT.) But I doubt if the older translation of Gesenius provides better English glosses for the Hebrew words.
You shouldn't need Strongs numbers in a lexicon in BibleWorks, because just placing the cursor over a Hebrew word automatically brings up the correct lexical entry in BDB, and if you really want Strong's numbers, just display the Strong's numbers with KJV, NAU, etc. and you can see a quick defintion that way as well.
Just my way of saying that there seems to be no need for the older translation of Gesenius.
Mark Eddy

Eagle
05-16-2007, 01:30 AM
Fibranz,

I'm assuming you are referring to this one (http://www.amazon.com/Gesenius-Hebrew-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament/dp/0801037360). I don't think anyone here will tell you there's a "problem." Maybe I'll be proven wrong. My brother used it for years when studying from the King Jimmy. His understanding of God's word wasn't any less than people using BDB, Holladay or HALOT [KB at the time].

I was at an intersection the other day in my 2000 Mitsubishi Mirage. A 2007 Hummer III pulled up next to me. I wasn't threatened. We both arrived at the same place. The only difference: I get 20 or so miles to the gallon; he gets 3 gallons to the mile.

Keep studying the Good Book!

Actually, the H3 gets 16 mpg city/20 hwy.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of BDB vs. HALOT. I mean, sure, if all you want is a definition, BDB is not wrong all that often. But if you have to go "off-road" and actually research a word more deeply, you might want to look at articles after 1910. You also might want etymologies based on roughly contemporaneous languages, rather than on classical Arabic from 1500 years later!

I teach Hebrew, and I have my students buy the BDB as their first lexicon. It's OK -- good to cut your teeth on, much cheaper than HALOT. (Having it in electronic form defeats the purpose of learning to find roots, though.) Then at the end of the course, when they've learned how to think about the roots of words, and we've discussed some of the shortcomings of BDB, I tell the ones who want to go on that it's worth buying HALOT.

It all depends on what you want to do. BDB is competent and will open up some avenues of thinking. HALOT is definitive and up to date. Although it doesn't always come to the right conclusions either (IMO), it at least reckons will as much of the available information as possible.

Staying with your car metaphor, there were cars in 1910. Given the state of mechanical engineering then, those early cars are marvels. But they are no match for the cars of 2007. So it is with BDB and HALOT.

Bottom line: If you don't understand why you need HALOT, you almost certainly don't need it. But for heaven's sake don't go around making pronouncements about it in that case. :rolleyes:

Chris

SCSaunders
05-16-2007, 08:00 AM
Bottom line: If you don't understand why you need HALOT, you almost certainly don't need it. But for heaven's sake don't go around making pronouncements about it in that case. :rolleyes:
IMHO, spoken like a true tenured academician, in which the goal is to "wrestle with the issues" or "interact with the views," so you can debate your colleages through journal articles. Articles that will most certainly look better with HALOT footnotes (I love it when the footnotes are so copious, they crowd out the abstraction-on-steroids content).

I'm sure you can guess my take on who doesn't know why they need HALOT: It's the professionals in halls of academia and not the shepherds in the house of God.

There's no problem [I believe that is where this current digression in the thread started] for someone who hasn't had Hebrew classes using the Gesenius. Coupled with the context they'll arrive at the Author's/author's intended message. The intended message is what will bring the flock to maturity, though probably not a student to a PhD.

My experience over and over and over is that only the professionals think reading the Bible with the help of some of the tools should be left out of the hands of the less degreed. I say get them in thier hands and as fast as possible with software like Bible Works. Progress over time and not perfection after a 16 week course will be wisdom enough.

Kitwalker, don't sell back your lexicon, stick with it. It's not rocket surgery.

Chris, when it comes to the life-changing message of the Word of God, I'll have you talk to my brother. Gird your loins Prof. He's outside your small box paradigm

Agree to disagree.


PS
Actually, the H3 gets 16 mpg city/20 hwy.Think hyperbole Prof. Hyperbole. Don't let academia dry out your humor glands

Eagle
05-16-2007, 11:32 AM
IMHO, spoken like a true tenured academician, in which the goal is to "wrestle with the issues" or "interact with the views," so you can debate your colleages through journal articles. Articles that will most certainly look better with HALOT footnotes (I love it when the footnotes are so copious, they crowd out the abstraction-on-steroids content).

I'm sure you can guess my take on who doesn't know why they need HALOT: It's the professionals in halls of academia and not the shepherds in the house of God.

There's no problem [I believe that is where this current digression in the thread started] for someone who hasn't had Hebrew classes using the Gesenius. Coupled with the context they'll arrive at the Author's/author's intended message. The intended message is what will bring the flock to maturity, though probably not a student to a PhD.

You really need to ask yourself why you're so threatened by academia and academics. Academia helps to bring the scriptures alive, to bring about an ever fuller picture of the world of the Bible and the work of God in history. If you've never experienced it that way, that's your loss.

You're really good at picking fights and creating divisiveness. One of us works in both academia and the church, loves both, and sees some good and bad in both. The other one sits on one side of the line and lobs grenades.

Despite your self-image as a funny, warm guy, you strike me as a pretty frightened, negative person. You seem to spend a lot of time putting down the things you don't have (or are not), in order to make yourself feel better. Good luck with that project. I'm out.

Chris

Glenn Weaver
05-16-2007, 11:37 AM
The forum is for discussion of BibleWorks only. Please take this discussion elsewhere.

Glenn

SCSaunders
05-16-2007, 11:58 AM
The forum is for discussion of BibleWorks only. Please take this discussion elsewhere.

Glenn
Sorry Glenn. My Bad. I won't discuss this any further.

Sorry Chris. My sincere apologies. Offline I'd be glad to share with you what I learned from my instructors, books, personal experience, housing and part time employment during my four and half years at Dallas Theology Seminary. My wife will then join in. She was on staff there. Nutshell - Your elitest attitude toward someone wanting to purchase a fine piece of software hackled me. Trying to bolster your case by letting us all know that you're an instructor didn't impress me much. Sorry.

I'm finished.

Adelphos
05-16-2007, 03:17 PM
BDB is Gesenius. Brown, Driver, and Briggs took a later edition of Gesenius' lexicon (11th), and made some corrections and additions.

Just out of curiosity, I always thought that Gesenius was more conservative than BDB, especially Driver. For example, do you know what Gesenius' position on the Tetragrammaton was?

For some reason -- and I may very well be wrong on this -- I thought Gesenius' view on the Tetragrammaton and other matters was opposite to that of Driver, which would of course color a number of the changes made by BDB.

This is just trivia, but does anyone know?

Eagle
05-16-2007, 04:18 PM
Dallas Theology Seminary.

Just please tell me you didn't boldface that because you think it's impressive.

I raised the point about my teaching because it was relevant to the use of the two books in question. Your reaction was bonkers.

Chris

p.s. Interesting that a search on the DTS Web site for "Saunders" doesn't turn up a darn thing.

kitwalker
05-16-2007, 10:12 PM
Saunders, can you enable email from other members in your user options? I don't want to go 'off-topic' in the thread.

Thanks.

SCSaunders
05-17-2007, 07:05 AM
Saunders, can you enable email from other members in your user options? I don't want to go 'off-topic' in the thread.

Thanks.Just took care of it kitwalker. Feel free to email me any time.

bobvenem
05-17-2007, 10:20 AM
Just out of curiosity, I always thought that Gesenius was more conservative than BDB, especially Driver. For example, do you know what Gesenius' position on the Tetragrammaton was?

For some reason -- and I may very well be wrong on this -- I thought Gesenius' view on the Tetragrammaton and other matters was opposite to that of Driver, which would of course color a number of the changes made by BDB.

This is just trivia, but does anyone know?


If I recall correctly (from my non-DTS days :D ), BDB was informed by the multiple-document/multiple-author theories prevalent in the late 19th century, while Gesenius was not. This accounts for their being considered less conservative than Gesenius.

This, of course, is open to correction. Anyone?

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 01:47 PM
If I recall correctly (from my non-DTS days :D ), BDB was informed by the multiple-document/multiple-author theories prevalent in the late 19th century, while Gesenius was not. This accounts for their being considered less conservative than Gesenius.

You are spot on about that, Bob. Driver, who was roundly refuted by R. D. Wilson circa the 1920's, was a fanatic about the Documentary Hypothesis and it colored everything he had to do with BDB. That's why I suspect there's quite a bit of difference between Gesenius' early work and the later BDB.

One tell-tale entry to see if there's a dichotomy is to took up Gesenius' entry on the Tetragrammaton and compare it to BDB, but since I don't have the Gesenius lexicon I can't do that.

Just a curiosity.

Of course, I would think that the key to studying Hebrew or Greek would be to get the student to the point to where he doesn't even need a lexicon, except for certain in-depth studies.

I heard scuttlebut that in the next few years accredited institutions would require their Hebrew teachers to be able to speak Hebrew and English fluently before they were hired and granted tenure.

I hope this is true, not only for Hebrew, but for Greek as well, for he who can merely read a langauge, and yet cannot speak it, is not even remotely fluent in that language, as anyone who can speak a second lanague knows how vast the difference is between being able to merely read and a langauge and actually speak it. As anyone who can actually speak a second language knows, the difference is greater than night and day.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 02:49 PM
I heard scuttlebut that in the next few years accredited institutions would require their Hebrew teachers to be able to speak Hebrew and English fluently before they were hired and granted tenure.

I hope this is true, not only for Hebrew, but for Greek as well,

That's hilarious! And this is the strangest bulletin board ever. Where do you get this stuff?

Biblical Hebrew and Greek are not spoken languages. Modern Hebrew and Greek are different languages from their classical forms. Especially Greek. A native Greek speaker in my classical Greek class years ago failed out, because the languages are so different.

Can a good professor of biblical languages cite texts orally and formulate forms orally? Yes, typically. Can they speak classical Hebrew and Greek fluently? Of course not. The halls of most Biblical Studies departments would literally be empty if that were made a requirement.

There are probably some Israeli scholars, native speakers of modern Hebrew, who would claim to be able to do something like what you're suggesting. But it would be a little bit like being able to speak Klingon. Or like being able to speak Chaucer's English.

Man is this board weird. Why do I continue to get sucked into posting?

Chris

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 03:04 PM
Especially Greek. A native Greek speaker in my classical Greek class years ago failed out, because the languages are so different.

How uninformed you continuously prove yourself to be. Native Greeks grow up on the Greek Bible, the Greek classics, et cetera.

And if you had even a basic understanding of Greek, you would know how close modern Greek is to Koine/Biblical Greek. Certainly, some of the forms have changed, almost all of them in past sixty or eighty years, but there is not a native Greek on the planet above the level of junior high who can't read the Bible or the classics straight through without a blip.

In short, the Greek langauge didn't change hardly at all for almost two millenia, and that only in the past hundred years or so.

And of course it's pretty much the same with Hebrew.

My, my. From the content of all your posts, it seems to me (and others, I'm sure) that you ought to be a student, not a teacher, for your statements continuously betray your lack of knowledge of the Biblical langauges, especially Greek.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 03:33 PM
if you had even a basic understanding of Greek, you would know how close modern Greek is to Koine/Biblical Greek. Certainly, some of the forms have changed, almost all of them in past sixty or eighty years, but...

In short, the Greek langauge didn't change hardly at all for almost two millenia, and that only in the past hundred years or so.

From Wikipedia:


"A series of radical sound shifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_shift), which the Greek language underwent mainly during the period of Koine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine), has led to a phonological system in Modern Greek that is significantly different from that of Ancient Greek. Instead of the rich vowel system of Ancient Greek, with its four vowel-height levels, length distinction, and multiple diphthongs, Modern Greek has a very simple system of five vowels. This came about through a series of mergers, especially towards /i/ (iotacism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism)). In the consonants, Modern Greek has two series of fricatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricative) in lieu of the Ancient Greek voiced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced) and aspirated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspiration_%28phonetics%29) voiceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless) plosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plosive). Modern Greek has not preserved length distinctions, either in the vowels or in the consonants."

"Noticeable changes in grammar (compared to classical Greek) include the loss of the dative case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case), the optative mood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optative_mood), the infinitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive), the dual number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_%28grammatical_number%29), and the participles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle) (except the past participle); the adoption of the gerund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund); the reduction in the number of noun declensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension), and the number of distinct forms in each declension; the adoption of the modal particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_particle) θα (a contraction of ἐθέλω ἵνα > θέλω να > θε' να > θα) to denote future and conditional tenses; the introduction of auxiliary verb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb) forms for certain tenses; the extension to the future tense of the aspectual distinction between present/imperfect and aorist; the loss of the third person imperative, and the simplification of the system of grammatical prefixes, such as augmentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augment_%28linguistics%29) and reduplication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication). "Just a few little things, right?

So, go ahead, name me some biblical studies profs in North America or Europe who speak classical languages fluently... Not who can speak the modern languages fluently, ones who can speak classical languages fluently.

Let's be clear, when someone can "speak a language fluently," it means they can formulate thoughts, enunciate them in the correct idiom, and pronounce things correctly. Maybe you're talking about something else?


there is not a native Greek on the planet above the level of junior high who can't read the Bible or the classics straight through without a blip. I never said they couldn't read it. Many people can do that.


And of course it's pretty much the same with Hebrew.
Now you're showing your ignorance. Even biblical Hebrew has multiple forms, usually called Classical BH and Late BH (we could add Archaic BH as found in old poetic texts). The differences between CBH and LBH are subtle compared with the significant shifts of Rabbinic/Mishnaic Hebrew.

Hebrew was not a conversational language for the better part of the Common Era (although it was certainly learned and read consistently). Modern Hebrew was invented just before the 20th century. It has certain things in common with RH/MH, although it also harks back to BH in certain terminology; these are not always helpful, e.g. "aron" as in "ark (of the covenant)" means "closet" in Modern Hebrew. Of course Modern Hebrew has its own innovations and changes, but I have worked with Modern Hebrew speakers on BH, and it is definitely a whole different language!

Wikipedia also has a bit on phases of the Hebrew language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew

Anyway, bottom line, all details aside: Name me some biblical studies profs in North America or Europe who speak classical languages fluently.

Chris

p.s. I'm going to take a wild guess about you, Adelphos. I'm going to guess that you spend most of your foreign-language time on koine NT Greek, not realizing that in such a tiny corpus (and one you had probably already memorized in English), it is dead easy. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you have branched out more, you would have a better idea about the diachronic changes in languages, etc. You would certainly have a better idea about Hebrew.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 03:43 PM
btw, with that, I really am going to bow out, and force myself not to check back. You know what they say about wrestling a pig....

Chris

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 04:00 PM
Wikipedia??? Wow, what a scholar.

Even if all you quoted from Wikipedia were accurate, the changes are so minute that they don't effect the premise one iota. As I acknolwedged, the forms have undergone change, and the dative has almost been done away with modern Greek, except in literary writing, but all that's happened is a simplified langauge that is still able to convey the same meaning.

And if you think a a modern Israeli can't read the Tanach and comprehend what he's reading then you dwell in in an isolated cloud of delusion.

All the little details you posted were, I suppose, meant to try to obfuscate these facts.

Because you're not actually familiar with Hebrew and Greek, you wouldn't know this, of course.

And that fact is, if you can't speak Hebrew, you are not even REMOTELY close to being fluent in Hebrew in any way, shape or form. Same with Greek.

One reason native Greeks who are fluent in English have ZERO, and I mean ZERO respect for MODERN anglo-Greek scholarship is because modern anglo-scholars who can't speak Greek don't have a clue as to real-world Greek, not only present time, but Biblical time as well.

And as for the scuttlebut about instructors being required to actually be able to SPEAK Hebrew, a paradigm you ridiculed (obviously because you couldn't put three sentences together in conversationsal Hebrew if your life depended on it), this was posited on b-Hebrew a few months ago by a number of people in which, if I read it right, the consensus agree that it was a good thing, for, as I said before, the difference between being able to merely read a language and speak it is greater than the difference between night and day.

You ought to know this, being an instructor and all.

One of the biggest rackets in the world these days is getting people to pay an instructor to teach him a language the instructor can't even speak. My, my. A fool and his money certainly are easily parted.

Ben Spackman
05-18-2007, 04:07 PM
This level of vituperation really isn't called for.

And FWIW, a native Grecian was in Greek 101 with me, and failed the class. She did not continue with Greek 102.

I would, however, consider it a good thing for teachers to be able to speak the modern versions of the languages they teach, if possible.

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 04:12 PM
And FWIW, a native Grecian was in Greek 101 with me, and failed the class. She did not continue with Greek 102.

Learning grammar is wholly different than learning a langauge. The books I've seen teach grammar, not Greek. There is a WORLD of difference.

I have native Greek friends who can speak English flawlessly. They can also read the Greek classics and the Bible in Greek flawlessly, one of them even having majored in the classics.

And yet -- and I can say this by actual experience -- there are occassions where he couldn't accurately parse a given word in a given circumstance.

He's not a grammar expert, but I can assure you he understands the Greek langauge far, far, far better than any anglo instructor you can name.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 05:35 PM
I guess I just can't help myself... oh well.

In other words, what you meant to say was that you think instructors of biblical languages ought to be able to speak the modern derivations of those languages. Or rather, other people think that, and you misquoted them because you don't comprehend the differences between ancient and modern languages.

Ben S. is correct. Ideally, everyone who teaches biblical Hebrew would benefit to a degree from knowing every Semitic language, including Modern Hebrew, Arabic, etc. In practice, for obvious reasons, that does not happen -- especially among biblical studies scholars, because we are not pure linguists, but hybrids of various fields: history, literary theory, theology, etc., etc.

The people on "b-Hebrew" who said that only people fluent in the modern languages should teach the ancient ones are either Jewish (for obvious reasons modern Hebrew is emphasized in Jewish circles, a phenomenon I won't judge), or they're a very special kind of linguistic snobs. I know they're out there, but they are hardly mainstream in biblical studies. And I guarantee you that the criterion they mentioned is not going to go into effect anytime in the foreseeable future in American or Europe (in contrast to, say, Israel and Greece).

I know this is going to drive you nuts, but here it is: I personally know a large cross-section of the biblical studies faculty at top U.S. research institutions in Bible and religious studies, and they do not, with rare exceptions, speak even modern Hebrew and Greek fluently (let alone classical Greek and Hebrew, which, to reiterate, are not spoken languages).

If anything, the students coming out of biblical studies programs are less linguistically competent than they were 50 years ago, because "literary theory" and other au courant subdisciplines are squeezing out the hardcore language work a bit.

You still haven't named a scholar. You have now cited your expert source, which was another internet bulletin board. And you fault my choice of sources? Sorry I didn't feel like retyping large sections of books for you and chose to quote Wikipedia instead. You're so charming, you really inspire one to want to work hard for you...

Chris

Eagle
05-18-2007, 05:38 PM
He's not a grammar expert, but I can assure you he understands the Greek langauge far, far, far better than any anglo instructor you can name.

I have heard modern Hebrew speakers pull out this argument in matters of the interpretation of biblical Hebrew (not to me, thank God). It's unbelievably presumptuous -- the equivalent of me telling a Shakespeare expert who happens to be a native Japanese speaker that I understand Shakespeare better because of my Anglo roots. It's thinly-veiled racism.

Chris

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 05:57 PM
You still haven't named a scholar.

You just demonstrated that you can't follow a basic argument: the point was, there isn't anybody in most anglo establishments these days who can fulfill the basic requirement of being able to speak the langauge they teach.

That was one of my points, which you obviously missed, and which is why the learning of anglo-greek especially is so far out of accurate kilter that it boggles the mind.

Your racial accusations have no validity on the matter, so I'll pass them by.

What does show, and it shows like bright sparklers on the fourth of July, is that you don't have a clue as to how and why the difference between merely reading and speaking a languge can affect the whole linguistic paradigm.

Though this will undoubtedly be lost on you, the fact is, there is less difference between modern spoken Greek and Biblical Greek than there is between modern English and Elizabethan English, and even more so is this true with Hebrew, excluding slang and such like.

Thus, your objections about speaking ancient dialects has no force whatsoever.

In short, you clearly don't understand the continuity between the two, nor how critical that continuity is in truly understanding a language.

For just one example out of multitudes of examples, all one must do is read the short article following to discover how far astary, and how absurd, modern Greek anglo-scholarship is, for there is not a native Greek I know, nor is there a native Greek my native Greek friends know, who would subsidize a multitude of definitions in modern lexicons, like this example --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm

Steve Watkins
05-18-2007, 07:55 PM
@a'(-hl,[]y: bc,[,&#170;&#247;-rb;d>W hm'_xe byvi&#228;y" %R:&#226;-hn<[]m;(


o` lo,goj u`mw/n pa,ntote evn ca,riti( a[lati hvrtume,noj( eivde,nai pw/j dei/ u`ma/j e`ni. e`ka,stw| avpokri,nesqai&#197;



In our passionate pursuit of scholarship and textual study, let's not overlook what God actually says to us in the text.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 08:02 PM
You just demonstrated that you can't follow a basic argument: the point was, there isn't anybody in most anglo establishments these days who can fulfill the basic requirement of being able to speak the langauge they teach.
Yes, it's amazing that all these tenured professors can't speak a non-spoken language. Wait...

Actually, I'm glad that we can now see the lay of the land. You, Adelphos, have just condemned nearly the entire professorate of biblical studies in the US, from Yale to Emory and from Duke to Fuller (and even the mighty minds of Dallas Theological Seminary) as incompetent to carry out their teaching and research missions. So far you have done so on the authority of a BBS comment. Would you like to elaborate on your qualifications to judge all these poor souls? Or the magic of being able to speak a "dead" language?


there is less difference between modern spoken Greek and Biblical Greek than there is between modern English and Elizabethan English, and even more so is this true with Hebrew, excluding slang and such like.

You must have a very low view of the Greek students whom Ben S. and I mentioned, because I guarantee you we wouldn't fail a course on Elizabethan English taught at the leisurely pace of a foreign language. Could it be you're... wrong?

Chris

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 08:24 PM
Or the magic of being able to speak a "dead" language?

Tsk, tsk. Neither Hebrew nor Greek is a dead langauge, but it doesn't surprise me that you think they are since you know absolutly nothing of spoken Greek or Hebrew (and yet you comment on it as if you do), and since the differences of biblical Greek and Hebrew from their modern equivalents are more minor than in the differences between modern English and Elizabethan Enslish, the benefits of speaking and comphrehending both are lost only on someone like yourself who can speak neither, and who hasn't a clue as to the benefits of being able to do so, and who is clearly oblivious to the ignorance that accrues from not being able to do so, as my brief aforementioned article demonstrated in just one case out of an endless number of cases.

You belittle beginners for not knowing how to use a lexicon, but yet you can't even get by without same. My, my.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can read the Hebrew Tanach and the Greek NT without having to touch a lexicon, and who can then expound in Hebrew and in Greek what they have read, and nobody with an ounce of genuine knowledge in Hebrew and Greek would accuse them of speaking a dead langauge.

Steve Watkins
05-18-2007, 08:43 PM
Chris, you are a teacher of God's Word - an equipper of those who will become the undershepherds of Christ's flock. Don't just equip them in scholarship. Heed Paul's words -

Parakalw/ ou=n u`ma/j evgw. o` de,smioj evn kuri,w| avxi,wj peripath/sai th/j klh,sewj h-j evklh,qhte( meta. pa,shj tapeinofrosu,nhj kai. prau<thtoj( meta. makroqumi,aj( avneco,menoi avllh,lwn evn avga,ph|( spouda,zontej threi/n th.n e`no,thta tou/ pneu,matoj evn tw/| sunde,smw| th/j eivrh,nhj
(Ephesians 4:1-3)

Scott,

hT'a'(-~g: ALð-hw<v.Ti-!P,( AT+l.W:aiK. lysiK.â ![;T;ä-la;
(Proverbs 26:4)

It seems to me that this thread has exhausted its usefulness, that the banter is unbecoming of those whose authority is the God of the Living Word, and that, at the very least, it should be taken elsewhere.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 08:49 PM
You belittle beginners for not knowing how to use a lexicon
I did no such thing. I tried to save someone hundreds of dollars that he didn't need to spend on a tool. I hope someone would advise me the same if I ever entertained the thought of buying, say, a nail gun. A hammer works fine for all the nailing I'll ever do, and the BDB would work fine for kitwalker, at least for the time being.


there are plenty of people who can read the Hebrew Tanach and the Greek NT without having to touch a lexicon, nd who can then recite in Hebrew and in Greek what they have read,
Yes, those people are speakers of modern Hebrew and Greek who also have extensive training in biblical languages and interpretation. If, on the other hand, you mean that any native speaker of modern Hebrew and Greek can do that, you are manifestly wrong. They can't even sound out the words properly, and in the case of many OT passages, they certainly can't explain what they mean. The NT is, as I have said, much easier going. And since your experience is confined to it, it doesn't surprise me that you think this way.

The rest of your post is drivel, unworthy of a reply. You have no basis from which to criticize me.

Chris

Eagle
05-18-2007, 08:57 PM
Chris, you are a teacher of God's Word - an equipper of those who will become the undershepherds of Christ's flock. Don't just equip them in scholarship.

Part of the shepherd's job is to protect the flock from the wolves (John 10:12). Twice now I have found this board to be a haunt of some pretty foul denizens (Rev 18:2). I think I would be doing the rest a favor if I stuck around and shook things up a little more. This place could use a little diversity in and among the "King Jimmy" crowd.

Chris

Steve Watkins
05-18-2007, 09:05 PM
Part of the shepherd's job is to protect the flock from the wolves (John 10:12). Twice now I have found this board to be a haunt of some pretty foul denizens (Rev 18:2). I think I would be doing the rest a favor if I stuck around and shook things up a little more. This place could use a little diversity in and among the "King Jimmy" crowd.

Chris

Protecting against wolves is one matter. Becoming emotionally (pridefully) invested and turning the forum into a venue for personal defamation is another. Things have taken a step beyond merely confronting wrong ideas, and godly humility is clearly running thin.

Adelphos
05-18-2007, 09:14 PM
If, on the other hand, you mean that any native speaker of modern Hebrew and Greek can do that, you are manifestly wrong. They can't even sound out the words properly, and in the case of many OT passages, they certainly can't explain what they mean. The NT is, as I have said, much easier going. And since your experience is confined to it, it doesn't surprise me that you think this way.

Wow? Your elitism and lack of knowledge on these matters is astounding.

In fact, my native Greek friends can "sound out the words" perfectly, and as has been shown, modern pronunciation is virtually identical to Koine/Biblical pronunciation, and furthermore, they can very easily explain what they mean, especially if they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Conversely, it is anglo-Greek scholars who can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, that have no clue as to the real force and definitions of numerous words and clauses.

Nor is my experience confined to the NT. I learned Hebrew long before I learned Greek, so once again, you demonstrate just how uninformed you are on all these matters.

The fact that you don't understand even the basic premises of this matter is enough for me. You can have the last world.

Eagle
05-18-2007, 09:32 PM
Protecting against wolves is one matter. Becoming emotionally (pridefully) invested and turning the forum into a venue for personal defamation is another. Things have taken a step beyond merely confronting wrong ideas, and godly humility is clearly running thin.

The appeal to humility can be simply a means of silencing. They said the same thing to or about Jesus and the Israelite prophets: that they lacked humility. Not saying one of us is analogous to Jesus and the prophets. I am saying that people who call for humility are not always on the right side.

And hey, thanks for calling me a fool in your earlier post! Noted!

Chris

Eagle
05-18-2007, 09:34 PM
they can very easily explain what they mean, especially if they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.

Eagle out.

jakemccarty
05-18-2007, 09:35 PM
[quote=Adelphos;11254]Tsk, tsk. Neither Hebrew nor Greek is a dead langauge, but it doesn't surprise me that you think they are since you know absolutly nothing of spoken Greek or Hebrew (and yet you comment on it as if you do), and since the differences of biblical Greek and Hebrew from their modern equivalents are more minor than in the differences between modern English and Elizabethan Enslish, the benefits of speaking and comphrehending both are lost only on someone like yourself who can speak neither, and who hasn't a clue as to the benefits of being able to do so, and who is clearly oblivious to the ignorance that accrues from not being able to do so, as my brief aforementioned article demonstrated in just one case out of an endless number of cases.

You belittle beginners for not knowing how to use a lexicon, but yet you can't even get by without same. My, my.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can read the Hebrew Tanach and the Greek NT without having to touch a lexicon, and who can then expound in Hebrew and in Greek what they have read, and nobody with an ounce of genuine knowledge in Hebrew and Greek would accuse them of speaking a dead langauge.[/quote

You do know that Masoretic Hebrew is much different from Classical Hebrew, right? And you do know that there are significant differences between CBH and LBH, right?

I've taken Modern Hebrew and to some degree it is helpful--but I think your expectations are quite low when it comes to reading Hebrew. Without knowledge of the comparative Semitic languages, your understanding of the Hebrew found in the Bible will be limited. After all, did Ezekiel see electricity? No!

Adelphos, I'm impressed by your tenacity and I'm glad that you have such a thourough knowledge of all these classical and modern languages. It has taken me years of very hard and completely dedicated work just to get basic knowledge in just some of the many fields you've mastered. You are obviously without equal in the scholarly world and I think that you ought to apply for the next Hancock Chair. :)

Eagle
05-18-2007, 09:43 PM
I've taken Modern Hebrew and to some degree it is helpful--but I think your expectations are quite low when it comes to reading Hebrew. Without knowledge of the comparative Semitic languages, your understanding of the Hebrew found in the Bible will be limited. After all, did Ezekiel see electricity? No!

Adelphos, I'm impressed by your tenacity and I'm glad that you have such a thourough knowledge of all these classical and modern languages. It has taken me years of very hard and completely dedicated work just to get basic knowledge in just some of the many fields you've mastered. You are obviously without equal in the scholarly world and I think that you ought to apply for the next Hancock Chair. :)


Jake McCarty, you don't know how happy I am to see you. And if I spot your name tag in San Diego, I'm buying you a beer.

Chris

admin
05-19-2007, 10:19 AM
This thread is closed and has been moved to the non-BW discussion forum.