Special Event - Conversation with Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace: Mark Lanier, 04/24/22
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2022
- Mark Interviews Dr. Bill Mounce and Dr. Dan Wallace. Bill and Dan were childhood friends and lived and took very different paths in their careers, as Greek Scholars, and both were joined together as members of the NIV Translation Committee. They discussed that journey in some detail, which included how each of them were led to the Lord.
Bill and Dan discussed why they wanted to learn Greek. Both have PHD’s and
are very well versed and very well known for their work in translating original
manuscripts from Greek to English. Both discussed their reason for pursuing Greek translation as a lifelong career. Bill has written a book titled “Basics of Biblical Greek” which has sold over a half a million copies.
They discussed in a very specific way how verses of the bible are translated and
the difficulty of deciphering the meaning of Greek translations into English Bible Versions, NIV, ESV, and KJV for example. They discussed this with respect to John 1:1, Luke 2:14, Matthew 6:13 and others.
The lesson was enlightening and motivated us to study the Bible and do our best to understand the meaning of the message therein.
Join us Sundays at 9:30am CST! Links below:
RUclips: / @biblicalliteracy
CFBC Website: www.championforest.org/worshi...
Facebook: / biblical-literacy-1956...
Thank you!!
Thank you so much for hosting these two great Greek scholars. I have benefited a lot from their works.
Watching this was like being a kid and watching your 2 favorite wrestlers wrestle in a tag match....like Kane and Undertaker or Stone Cold and The Rock. Very cool video. My Greek class uses Bill's Grammar but I also purchased Dan's to prepare myself in advance.
This is like a try-not-to-laugh video on greek grammar, it's hilarious, very informative, and I love it!
Great vid.
I knew Dan was going to say Harry Sturz was his Greek professor at Biola. Sturz wrote a great book regarding the Textual criticism and thevByzantine Tex. Well balanced and well presented. Highly Recommend.
48:10 "God never promises to deliver us from evil"
What folly.
I love this! Great interview! I've recently come to know about guys and their Greek knowledge. Fascinating! Looking forward to more interviews and learning more. Tons of good stuff here !,,,and how does that translate into the Greek? hahaha! Ich weiss nicht? 😅
Does anyone know the name of that new Croatian translation? And where i might get access or buy it online?
Wish you would use a black pen marker so it could be seen. Thankyou
Dear Daniel Wallace.
I am just a grain of dust on the weighting bowl, so I am of course very limited in every way. I don’t know that much language myself, and English is not my first language - but I enjoy both teaching and good, sound arguments. I have heard several of your lectures, and enjoy specially those about scriptures and history, the scientific stuff.
In your discussion here I note that you argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong about the doctrine of trinity.
And I note that you mention (34:52) that «Jehovah´s witnesses get this wrong because they take something that somebody after three or four weeks of Greek would get right.» If I understand you correct, you here assume or might even claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses must have had less than three or four weeks of Greek. Further, I guess that all those during history who have translated the Bible in the same untrinitarian way as they do, in you opinion must be in the same category. That those who don’t agree are not taught by the theologians.
.
Just a thought, on general basis. If knowing a language by heart results in understanding things right, how come the theologians of that time, the Pharisees on the one side, and the theological school uneducated first Christians on the other side had different view on the Scriptures? I guess that the Pharisees problem was not that they did not know their mother tongue well enough. - Agree?
From what you say during the discussion, I get the impression that you claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a Biblical teaching - and that you insist that the Bible must be translated according that view. As I see it, what comes first - step one should be to prove that a view, the doctrine of the trinity in this case - is a biblical teaching. As I see it, it would seems illogical to take step two before step one - and then «forget» to do step one. If to translate according an unproven idea, and then «prove» this idea by pointing to what is translated according this unproven idea, people will easily think that the Bible teach what such a translator thinks it should be, not knowing that step one never happened.
During several years, I have been speaking to a number of people that say they believe in the doctrine of trinity, and asked them if they please can show step by step - sentence by sentence - how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse. So far, nobody have been willing (n)or able. Therefore a challenge to you, and/or others who feel able and who have blood suger above knee level: Show step by step - sentence by sentence how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse, if you please. - In advance thank you very much :)
- Another thing. I note in another RUclips talk you argue that Gods name is Jahve, and (51:43 -49, in «Formatting the Word of God») you say that «…so Jehovah’s witness don’t really exist because there is no one known as Jehovah.»
After hearing some of the lectures of Nehemia Gordon - a hebrew professor who strongly agues and explains that Gods name is and is to be pronounced «Jehovah», I came to think that it would be interesting to listen to a discussion between you and him. I assume that since you have a strong opinion that «Jehovah» is wrong, you surely must have some arguments that you think could teach this hebrew professor something as important as this?
In case you also think so, I guess we both look forward to that discussion. Also he seems like a nice guy, so how could it hurt to ask - both of you being honest, brave hearted, humble truth seekers, I am sure.
But in case you don’t really feel that you are able to argue against Nehemiah Gordon on this topic, I guess you won’t. If wanting to have a head start, take a look at «Nehemia´s wall» (Yehovah Research) where he have several talks about Gods name, Jehovah - according him.
I thought slipped my mind. I came to think about Saul, later known as Paul. First he was an enemy of the christians, but in his defense, he was always an honest man. When he changed his way of looking at realities, he still kept on being honest. Based on this. Just a thought experiment, but imagine just for a second that Jehovah’s Witnesses have found the Truth, that they in fact are the true Christians. - Would you then want to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses?
Is Faith a gift? William Lane Craig says that faith is not a gift because of the grammar. I agree with Dr. Craig but I wanted to know what your take is
According the Bible, «Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.» - Hebrews 11:1.
Some footnotes:
“Assured expectation.” Lit., “a sub-standing.” Gr., hy·poʹsta·sis; Lat., sub·stanʹti·a. - “Evident demonstration.” Or, “convincing evidence.” Gr., eʹleg·khos; Lat., ar·gu·menʹtum. Compare John 16:8, ftn: “Will give . . . convincing evidence.” Or, “will reprove.” Gr., e·legʹxei.
Realities: Lit., “of things.” Gr., prag·maʹton.
According this - as I understand it, the Bible explains that «faith» is a result of/ based on solid, logical evidence that can be proved to be according facts. It is to have trust in something because there are solid, logical evidence that make you conclude that it is just like that.
«Faith» is also «a fruitage of the spirit», according Galatians 5: 22, 23.
Fruits tend to grow larger, if the conditions are good.
If to have «faith» in something, as the Bible explains the word, it is necessary to study the topic deeply. Contrast, Romans 10:2: "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge."
Wish they would have explained why they needed to specify its biblical greek...that is koine greek. Why that greek is not spoken by people and is only found in manuscripts
@Strongtower not really accurate. Greek in New testament is not grammatically correct in many places. It is not spoken greek. It's actually sign of being translated
"...and God has been being the word." ...και θεος ην ο λογος. What don't two academic scholars and a host advocating biblical literacy not understand about the imperfect tense, παρατατικος in Greek? It represents something that has/was started and continues, i.e. incomplete. And why do academic scholars mostly translate two different Greek tenses, aorist (at least in the indicative) and imperfect, as one English tense, past tense, a tense that does not even exist in Greek?
It is very discouraging to see that our biblical academics continue to follow a status quo established many hundreds of years ago during the protestant reformation, when translators, although pioneers, were beginners at Greek, mostly translating off of the Latin re-translation of Erasmus, since they were fluent in Latin.
Then they create all these complicated explanations to make the Greek fit an English language/grammar mindset! I understand the desire to translate into good English grammar and style, but when analyzing and discussing Greek itself, English, a language that would not even exist for well over a thousand more years, does not apply! Yet, in this case, "has been being" is proper English grammar, using the English present perfect continuous/progressive tense.
Logically, if you translate it "...and the word was God," with an English past tense verb, then that just states that it *was* true in the past. It does not semantically follow that it is still true! Then maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses could be right, that Jesus isn't what he was anymore! The irony in the video's discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses botching that verse is that if it is translated properly using the imperfect tense, mapping to English present perfect continuous/progressive tense, then this is a much more powerful statement of the deity of Jesus Christ, having to do with God "being" the word without ceasing, without completion. How would the Jehovah's Witnesses now insert an indefinite article, yielding, "In origin has been being the word and the word has been being toward the god and 'a' god has been being the word"? They like to use the rationalization that the word was a "godlike" one. Note that their theory is of Michael the archangel changing into Jesus the man (and only a man) in the virgin birth, then being annihilated in death, then being re-created as Michael the archangel again (and in this they deny the resurrection, since nothing that died rose). But now, with the imperfect tense, keeping to the original word order, and agreeing that the "word" corresponds to Jesus (per John 1:14) what are they going to say? That "a god" "has been being" Jesus? Now it would follow that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8).
Therefore, the legacy of translation of the imperfect tense into past tense and switching the word order around according to the long-standing translation tradition helps Jehovah's Witnesses. They can just levy the same sort of complaint as I have, that modern day scholars are just making things complicated, and that their explanation, by contrast, is simple, that the "word was a god" means he was a "godlike" one. After all, Psalm 82, "you are gods," and Jesus' quotation of it in John 10 as well, does not deify the leaders of Israel. Nor does Exodus 7:1, "I will make you god to Pharaoh," deify Moses. Nor does 2 Cor 4:4 deify Satan as "god of this world." But when θεος is in the subject of the sentence, and λογος is the predicate nominative, then the emphasis is on θεος, God; the intransitive, linking verb ην, and in fact the whole predicate, ην ο λογος, describes a characteristic of God, that he "has been being the word," and then this naturally maps to verse 14.
But getting back to my complaint, that of modern academia just following teaching traditions handed down over the centuries, why is it that the fallacy is so very clear to me, a retired career professional electrical/computer engineer with no biblical language diploma or other formal academic credentials whatsoever, but these top guys who have taught seminary and written books and get invited to interviews like this miss it in some very basic places? And this isn't the only place. This is just one example of so many that I have come across. Ah, but an academic student must conform to the teachings of his academic professor, at least to academically pass his academic testing regimen, and then some of those students go on to be academic professors, just repeating the paradigms that they were taught by rote, not daring to dissent or exercise any critical thinking skills.
"Biblical literacy." This is what we need more of. Even most professing Christians have not read even a translation of the Bible once through, let alone resolved to learn Koine Greek, which is such a simple, mechanical language, κοινη/koine/common Greek, the language rapidly disseminated by the solders and follow-on administrators of Alexander the Great, i.e. not by the academics and philosophers, a language so much simpler and more straightforward than English by far! I am convinced that anyone who is in a position of teaching/analyzing/expositing New Testament scripture should learn the language, learn it well, and not just parrot out whatever he hears, yet the majority of them don't go further than a Strong's number and gloss.
The author of John sure does like the word, doesn't he? ην appears as many times in chapters 1-3 of his gospel as it does in all of Matthew.
But isn't this a case of how verb tenses can mean something different for different words in different use cases?
For example, I'd point out that the first sentence in THIS comment "the author of John's gospel..." contains two present tense forms of _TO-DO,_ but they actually express a non-punctilliar past tense.
We also often say, "hi I was calling you to.." to express "hi I am calling you to..."
These conventions are carried out thoughtlessly, effortlessly by native mother tongue English speakers but are often the source of confusion for ESL learners: who are given to assume an unwarranted rigidity to English lexicography & grammar. (Hence the often awkward tense-expressions of non native speakers). "I can tell you're doing it right by the book you studied in Hong Kong, but that's actually not quite right in this case."
In Greek, it seems like a voiceless, non-conjugate "to be" is best expressed by our past "was."
*My now-60 year old mom always wanted two boys but alas I was her only son.*
*Indeed, I still am her son. But you know what I mean.*
Or ratherI should have said 'what I meant' at the time that I typed this comment... seeing that I most likely will have forgotten about it by the time you read this. Or should I say, by the time you are reading this? See what I'm saying?
Language isn't paint by numbers. It's not learned, it is acquired or maybe better put, (actual fluent facility in) language is something absorbed.
Mat2
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt. 15 And _has been being_ (ην / ἦν) there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
He _was_ there until the death of Herod. (Herod is dead).
also, I absolutely love your zeal for defending the truth that JESUS is THE MIGHTY GOD.
I loved what you wrote and look forward to hearing your thoughts on my thoughts! (Above)
For what it's worth, when answering JWs and others who deny that Jesus is GOD, I have found the 1-2 combo of Matt & Mark to be more effective than anything else in the New Testament, including John.
There are reasons for this which I'd love to share if you're interested. Let me know.
And he began to send them forth by two and two.
Mrk6:7 <
For in the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Mat18 >
Anyway, it's a subject I'm passionate about as I see an assault on Jesus and a questioning of his ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY both outside the church and (more subtly and nefariously) inside the churches.
@@AnHebrewChild Your reply further demonstrates what I am pointing out, the fallacy of reading Greek with an English language mindset. This is further complicated by how complicated the English language is. Yet Koine Greek is so simple and mechanical. Do you assume that it isn't, perhaps because English isn't? What I am saying, for example here concerning ην = "has been being," works throughout the LXX and NT without exception. It has never failed me, and in some situations such as the one I pointed out here, it solves grammatical dilemmas and semantic problems.
Let me repeat: There is no "past tense" in Greek. That is an English thing. We should not be translating aorist and imperfect habitually into the English past tense. When the ancient Greek guy wanted to tell a story, he told it from the frame of reference of being there observing the events as they happened. Just like the first sentence of your reply to me. Consider the following two narratives:
1. "So, I get a reply to my comment, and it's from this "db" (a.k.a. @AnHebrewChild), offering some explanations about this thing and that, and I think, "Hmm. I definitely ought to reply to him, explaining how narratives are told differently in Koine Greek than in English." So, I do just that and compose a reply to him.
2. "So, I got a reply to my comment, and it was from "db" (a.k.a. @AnHebrewChild), who offered some explanations about this thing and that, and I decided to reply to him. So, I did just that and composed a reply to him."
In English we do #1 informally and colloquially, usually orally, but not in formal writing. In formal writing we Englishmen narrate in the present frame of reference recalling the past, as in #2. What I am saying is that they only ever did #1. There is no Greek past tense, remember? If you consistently map the aorist tense to English simple present, the Greek present tense to English present progressive/continuous, and the imperfect tense to present perfect continuous/progressive, (and future to future, and perfect to present perfect, and pluperfect to past perfect), it just works. Try it for a while and you will see. Yes, you end up with bad English writing style, but that's where the English language mindset says it's bad and can't be right, as if English was the master language by which all other languages, even ancient ones, are to be evaluated.
Here's a test for you, my favorite one: Translate Col 1:23. For example, in the KJV, "...the gospel, which ye have heard, which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."
Is that so? Was the gospel preached everywhere, at the time of Paul's writing the letter to the Colossians? Preached even in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, South America, and Australia? Is Paul ignorant of world geography? Is the Bible wrong here? But if you know your grammar, you will see that it is a participial phrase, and the participle is in the aorist tense. It is talking about the "of the herald in all creation under heaven" gospel. "Herald" is an aorist participle, genitive case, and the actual verb is "hear," as in "you(plural) hear [aorist]." You "hear" what? You "hear" the "gospel." What kind of gospel? The "herald in all creation under heaven" gospel. The participial phrase serves as an adjective, and "herald" is in the aorist tense, stating it as a fact, rather than an action on a timeline or something that has completed. That's Greek α-οριστος, "without-definition," the Greek tense that is inherently time-less, aspect-less, so doesn't intrinsically specify anything regarding time or completion, contrary to all the "this kind of aorist" and "that kind of aorist" categorizations and complications by biblical academia, which make one's head spin, as they force English paradigms into the Greek.
So, problem solved. Col 1:23 doesn't specify "when." Col 1:23 simply mentions the fact of the proclaimed gospel that is to be proclaimed everywhere.
@@GarthDWiebe hi. Yeah, I've never liked our English translations of Col1:23. The Reina Valera renders it much better, imo.
But let's stay on the voiceless, timeless to-be case...
I'm not arguing for a one size fits all English equivalent everywhere ην appears.
The two faux Greek scholars in this video seem to think "was" works everywhere. I disagree. You seem to think "has been being" works everywhere. I'm not sure yet if I disagree... you gave me a lot t think about. I'll need to think more on what you wrote. But maybe you can help me out a bit more.
Could you translate Matthew 12:3-4 the way you think it would best be in English?
Thank you good sir.
@@AnHebrewChild "Yet the says to same, 'Do you not know anew what David does when he hungers, and the amid of same, in what way he goes into, into the house of the God, and they eat the consecrated, the bread, the not lawful has been being to same to eat, nor to the amid of same, except to the priests alone?'"
Not sure why you asked me to translate this, whether because of the verb grammar or whether to illustrate a particular example of how straightforward Greek can make for terrible English writing style.
If we are still on the topic of ην = "has been being," this does work here. From the perspective of the narrator, the storyteller, putting himself in the frame of reference of being there and describing the events as they happen, it "has been being" not lawful. I know you could less awkwardly take a step toward English "past tense" and translate the imperfect "it was being unlawful to eat," but "has been being" works, conveying the sense of the imperfect in the storyteller's frame of reference.
I really, really, don't care how awkward it sounds in English. I want to know what the writers said, as close to what they said as I can manage, and then just get used to the way they talked and wrote. (I do agree with what Dr. Mounce often points out, that there is no such thing as a "literal translation.")