Augustine on the Need to Know Hebrew and Greek

No, I don’t think he did. He was describing the situation in early 6th century B.C. Israel (Judah plus the northern kingdom’s territories that had recently come under Jerusalem’s rule in the reign of Josiah) as being like that of the disorder and emptiness of the world at its creation. Let me guess: LDS?

I am not LDS. I can make no comment on their doctrine. What I do know is what Isaiah penned, chapter 45 verse 18 with regard to Genesis 1:2 where the Heavenly Father stated without question He did NOT created this earth in vain, using the very specific Hebrew words as found in Genesis 1:2.

And Jeremiah starts off chapter 4 with the reference to the northern kingdom of Israel (peoples, 10 tribes,) "If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto Me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of My sight then thsalt thou not remove.

Then in verse 3 Jeremiah addresses Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah gives warnings and call to repentance. Then is verse 22 Jeremiah sums up the state of mind of the people and in verse 23 Jeremiah uses those specific Hebrew words first used in Genesis 1:2 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (there is that non-existent verb even in italics in my KJV) *without form* and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood, and that is exactly what Jeremiah is describing. And obviously Peter understood what Jeremiah said about what Moses penned because Peter says IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,

that by the word of God the heavens were of *old*, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then *was*, being overflowed with water, perished:

Moses says there was a flood in Genesis 1:2 long before this earth was cleaned up to be inhabited as described starting in Genesis 1:3.

Isaiah 14:12- and Ezekiel 28:12 both give instruction as to why Genesis 1:2 took place, and Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new?' it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Why it is relevant and necessary to know and understand what was Written is told by Paul in ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples), and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

We have the 'script' that has already happened that is in the process of being played out again.

He says he isn’t but the doctrine is off, and is very similar to LDS, so...

I have no ability to comment on the doctrine of the LDS, but IF they 'preach' the WORD of Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 4:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:9-11, Isaiah 14:12-, Ezekiel 28:12- ICorinthians 10:11, IIPeter 3: and Ephesians 1:4 and on and on and on then what is to argue.

I do not have the time nor the inclination to spend my time fleshing out the doctrines of denominations... but it does not take long to discern IF a denomination has made up their own doctrine or IF it comes from the WORD.

Oh, I am not a he.

Indeed! Good points.

I assure you they do not preach the WORD. Having been LDS I am very in tune with the differences and I do not subscribe to the ‘all roads lead to Heaven’ theory. Certain things ARE doctrines of salvation, and Mormons disagree with Christians on the fundamentals.

And I apologize, I am also confused for a ‘he’ on FR, even though I am a ‘she’ as well.

R

I have a question. Have you studied the original languages yourself (if so how much) or do you base your linguistic analysis on the research of others?

Hebrew and greek are more than a bit helpful.. latin necessary for medical purposes but no scripture has latin as an original language .

Romans was written in greek... all inspired scripture is in Hebrew (Old Testament ) and greek (New Testament )..No Latin or Aramaic

Amen

All us who are western Christians -- Catholic or Protestant -- originally had the faith brought to our spiritual forefathers through men who spoke Latin.

They may have spoken Latin..but the scriptures are greek and hebrew.. so those would be the necessary languages to translate scripture.What they spoke is of no import in translation

If knowing the original language was of upmost importance all those that speak Greek would be saved..

We can trust those that do know the language to translate it with some accuracy because God protects His word..

To understand scripture one needs to be saved /born again by the holy Spirit..

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

**To understand scripture one needs to be saved /born again by the holy Spirit..**

Exactly what happens with Catholics when they are baptized.

Thanks for the bump!

That’s already been covered further up in the thread, but thanks for the bump.

The simple answer is both. I have a BA in Classical Greek and also extra graduate level study. I also have an almost BA (missing one course) in ancient Semitics (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Ugaritic, Akkadian etc.), and lots and lots of extra graduate study. But I also read what others are saying (it would be stupid not to do so). All in all, yes, I know the field pretty well.

On the other hand, all the education in the world is not going to help much if one does not believe and, thus, have the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. So, the bottom line is this, knowledge of the ancient languages helps significantly in the understanding of the Holy Scriptures if you have a firm and accurate grasp of their content and purpose, and their central truth, salvation by grace through faith for the sake of Jesus Christ. If not, such knowledge only makes you dangerous ... to yourself and to others.

My question was directed at JMT, not you.

My BA is Biblical Studies with an emphasis on languages (Hebrew, Koine and some Aramaic), I did some work with David Noel Freedman and Richard Friedman as well, that was wonderful.

My grad work is History - Ancient and Medieval (Latin, Egyptian (both Hieroglyphs and Demotic, Akkadian, Old and Middle English). I have done some self study of Ugaritic but not much as I am mostly a Medievalist now.

I agree with you completely, education is only half of it, and does help, but without the Holy Spirit and faith it is a danger.

My study of Biblical languages is part of what made me see the reliability of the Bible and showed me the errors of Mormonism and led me to a saving faith in Christ.

Bless you, brother.

I have a question. Have you studied the original languages yourself (if so how much) or do you base your linguistic analysis on the research of others?

I do not even know how to answer your question. All study into the original languages would have to be based upon the linguistic analysis researched by others. I study the Bible, and I remember as a teenager when I saved up enough money to buy a fairly expensive King James Version, reading the letter placed in the forward regarding disagreements the translators had when the 1611 translation was accomplished.

I was raised to believe things that are NOT Biblical, in a so called Bible thou shall do this and thou shall not do that. But it was for the owners of the organization purpose not for the teaching of the WORD.

No I do not have a 'degree' in Bible, or linguistics or analysis thereof... that seems to indicate purpose of making a case in a 'legal' sense based upon precedence of collective consensus. Rather than studying for the purpose of understanding what the instruction given literally and or symbolically was intended.

I still have much to learn, in view of the fact that Christ said Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things...

This was said before on word of the New Testament was ever recorded. And yet I cannot begin to characterize what level of where my own learning stands in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.

So best I can answer your question is, I am still a student in the WORD, which would included the need for and the ability to search out the languages used in original form to fully comprehend the meaning intended to be gained.

So unlike Belteshazzar and myself you have no experience in the original languages.

At least a basic knowledge of the Biblical languages helps immensely in properly studying and interpreting the Bible. Especially, if as you have implied, you study on your own.

It also provides checks and balances when relying on others work and interpretations. There is much misuse of the Bible out there.

And I am sorry but I seriously have by doubts, based upon your posts that your doctrines now are biblical either. Studying the Bible ALONE without some guidelines or training often leads to heresy.

I suggest that at a minimum you look into some Hebrew and Greek self teaching books.

Courtesy ping, Belt.

So unlike Belteshazzar and myself you have no experience in the original languages. At least a basic knowledge of the Biblical languages helps immensely in properly studying and interpreting the Bible. Especially, if as you have implied, you study on your own. It also provides checks and balances when relying on others work and interpretations. There is much misuse of the Bible out there. And I am sorry but I seriously have by doubts, based upon your posts that your doctrines now are biblical either. Studying the Bible ALONE without some guidelines or training often leads to heresy. I suggest that at a minimum you look into some Hebrew and Greek self teaching books. Courtesy ping, Belt.

I sure appreciate your advise. But with all your vast education into the Biblical languages did you know that the verb *WAS* placed in Genesis 1:2 as used in the King James Version is a nonexistent verb in the 'original' Hebrew language. I do not know who is or possibly more than one came to a collective consensus to change the verb 'to be' or 'became' to was, so I cannot judge their motive. However, what is, is that the overwhelming Christians I come into contact with think that the Heavenly Father made this earth void and without form and in and out of the deep waters.

Well second thought the majority read right over the fact that Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood. So IF your higher education is suppose to be impressing me as to what the 'original' writer Moses penned as divine WORD it is not happening.

But with all your vast education into the Biblical languages did you know that the verb *WAS* placed in Genesis 1:2 as used in the King James Version is a nonexistent verb in the ‘original’ Hebrew language.

- - - -
Yes it could be, but I disagree that it insists that there was another flood.

Um...”was” is the past tense of “to be”. Tenses in Hebrew are usually contextual or based upon grammatical structure so the present tense is most often used.

If I understand your blather properly, you are making false doctrine out of a question of tense. OY!

If your wordiness of formality is supposed to be impressing me, it is not. Some basic language courses might get your theology straight. It did mine when I was Mormon.

Yes it could be, but I disagree that it insists that there was another flood. Um...”was” is the past tense of “to be”. Tenses in Hebrew are usually contextual or based upon grammatical structure so the present tense is most often used. If I understand your blather properly, you are making false doctrine out of a question of tense. OY! If your wordiness of formality is supposed to be impressing me, it is not. Some basic language courses might get your theology straight. It did mine when I was Mormon.

I am told in John 1:1 In the beginning (that is what the word Genesis means, so we are sent back to Genesis 1:1.) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

My 'theology' comes from that WORD, wherein I am told in IITimothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine,

for reproof,

for correction,

for instruction in righteousness:

Now either the Heavenly Father is who He says He is or the whole thing is a hoax. And there is divine reason why the very specific words used in Genesis 1:2 are found as used by Isaiah, Jeremiah and in the Greek by Peter.

And 'was' is not the correct verb, because it gives the reader the impression that 'without form' and 'void' is the condition the Heavenly Father created this earth. And for the willing would see that by what Isaiah was directed to write in Isaiah 45:18... Not created 'tohu' but became tohu...

It makes no difference to me if people fit the description that Peter gives in IIPeter 3:5, and I do not need a Hebrew/Greek language class to understand this profile. I did not write what "WAS" Written, but I sure can test the fruit of those who ignore what "WAS" Written...

Not created 'tohu' but became tohu...

Something that goes from not being to "formless and void" being became the latter as it emerged from the former.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Augustine on the Need to Know Hebrew and Greek