My thoughts on Hebrew vs Greek thinking, what are yours?

[JGIG]

Is there anyone on CC who has done a study of the effect Alexander the Great had on the growth of the knowledge of God in the world? I hope these people who are so against learning anything about this don't frighten you off, they really are bullies and we are accountable to God, not them.

Another study that I would like to understand better is the effect of Hellenization (Greek thought) on Christianity. Colossians chapter two gives an overview of this.

Actually, yes, RedTent. I did an in-depth study that resulted in the article from which I posted excerpts early on in this thread (the one that you wouldn't read).

Here's the link in case you change your mind:

Hebrew Roots Movement – The Issue of “Hellenization”

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

You rang? What evidence do you have the NT was written in Hebrew besides human logic and a wish-so?
All the archaeological digs through the past two hundred years produce Greek and only Greek manuscripts...no Hebrew.

Right. And some of the greatest evidence for Greek primacy of the NT Scriptures come from the Scriptures themselves when they make reference to Aramaic or Hebrew idioms, explaining them to the Greek reader.

The Language of the New Testament
Most biblical scholars adhere to the view that the Greek text of the New Testament is the original version. The opposite view, that it is a translation from an Aramaic original (see Aramaic primacy), has not gained popularity. At any rate, since most of the texts are written by the two diaspora Jews and companions Luke and Paul and to a large extent addressed directly to Christian communities in Greek-speaking cities, and since the style of their Greek is impeccable, a Greek original is more probable than a translation.


Even Mark, whose Greek is heavily influenced by his Semitic substratum, seems to presuppose a non-Hebrew audience.Thus, he explains Jewish customs (e.g. Mark 7:3-4), and he translates Aramaic phrases into the Greek (Mark 7:34: ephphatha). In the Aramaic Syriac version of the Bible, these translations are preserved, resulting in odd texts like Mark 15:34 :​

• Greek text
  καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με; ​
• Syriac text (with rough transliteration)
  ܘܒ݂ܰܬ݂ܫܰܥ ܫܳܥܺܝܢ ܩܥܳܐ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܒ݁ܩܳܠܳܐ ܪܳܡܳܐ ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܐܺܝܠ ܐܺܝܠ ܠܡܳܢܳܐ ܫܒ݂ܰܩܬ݁ܳܢܝ ܕ݁ܺܐܝܬ݂ܶܝܗ ܐܰܠܳܗܝ ܐܰܠܳܗܝ ܠܡܳܢܳܐ ܫܒ݂ܰܩܬ݁ܳܢܝ܂
  wbatša‘ šā‘yin: q‘ā’ yešua‘ bqālā’ rāmā’ we’mar, ’ēl ’ēl lmānā’ šbaqtāni di’aiteyh ’elāhi ’elāhi lmānā’ šbaqtāni ​
• King James
  “And at the ninthhour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” ​

(source)



-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Oh I forgot to mention - good for you for posting Scripture! It appears that you give it the same treatment as you give everything else you read, but it's a start!

-JGIG

Are you saying that distortion of scripture is a better position? Do you actually like believing God changed his mind about everything He said to Moses, that God is not trustworthy and in Hebrews it tells you this? That it is a lie of Christ when Christ said he fulfilled, didn't change what the Father said and fulfilled truly means that Christ got rid of all the Father said? That Paul was not a man who loved the Lord and Christ but a man who reported that they changed everything? I have heard that the only reason God gave the law to Moses was as a curse for everyone for those thousands of years until Christ came and then Christ miraculously raised the curse so we could live any way we pleased for we are under the grace that forgives everything, regardless. So all the prophets were only cursed because they were born at the wrong time.

I must admit, I'm confused why you're asking me "Are you saying . . . " when you've told me that you don't read what I write in the first place. I haven't said anything you're asserted, and what's really bizarre is that you type things you say I've written, but then you say that you don't read my posts!

Very curious indeed.

-JGIG

 

[crossnote]

I must admit, I'm confused why you're asking me "Are you saying . . . " when you've told me that you don't read what I write in the first place. I haven't said anything you're asserted, and what's really bizarre is that you type things you say I've written, but then you say that you don't read my posts!

Very curious indeed.

-JGIG

Reminds me of a book I read back in my college days...
Knots: R.D. Laing: 9780394717760: Amazon.com: Books

 

[JGIG]

Acts 26:14King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]14 [/SUP]And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Why do you think that a reference to the 'Hebrew tongue' would need to be mentioned if the text had been written in Hebrew? Wouldn't that have been understood if the writer were writing in Hebrew to a Hebrew audience about Hebrew people?

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

With the "reasoning" of the current ideas, we would have to say that God planned Hitler so He could use him for God's purposes. Following through with this, we need to accept Hitler as only good for us, planned and orchestrated by God with human will and works having nothing at all to do with it.

You all say we are to follow and admire the Greek way of thinking. Any thought of learning the Hebrew way is put down as absolutely wrong, yet most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew to a Hebrew thinking people. Angela, who promotes this idea, even admits that when she studied this language it is a very different language, she is taking time to study it at the same time she says the idea of studying it is ----forgot the word she used to say it should not be done. Why, if we can't touch any Hebrew are we allowed all this Greek? What is the basis of allowing Greek and not allowing Hebrew?

I think it is possible that demons have influenced the organized church so much that talk of God's word is used to fight God. Christ is allowed and grace is allowed by these demons so far. Nothing else. These two ideas are truly the basics of God's plan for us, so demons are allowing God in the world but only these two truths of Him, nothing else. Anytime anyone posts anything else about scripture, posters gather to condemn anything else of God, so it is only used as a platform to put down God. I shudder at the direction the leaders of the church are taking us. Now they are trying to use my post to cancel the language, culture, and thought used in the Old Testament, and even often in the NT. We must watch, those who are Christian, that these posters don't start putting down grace and our salvation through Christ. So far, they are leaving that alone. We must guard it carefully.

SMH.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

One thing that should be acknowledged is that there are truths in Scripture that cut across cultural divides and go deeper and earlier than Alexander or Abraham or even the flood right into the Garden itself (Adam /Eve) whose meanings are revealed to us (as born again Christians) by both the Author of all languages and Scripture itself.

Yes.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to crossnote again."

 

[Angela53510]

Angela: First you speak these words: "Please let go of this Hebrew nonsense that has lead you so far astray! ". There are four people who have read and decided to agree with all you said to make these words the sum of your post. Now you say that it is OK to study, and even accuse me of never studying anything, You seem to think that you are the expert in sources of study and only yours is authentic, all my time looking into this is from the "wrong source"?? You seem to feel that every single thing you say is correct while you question and accuse anything anyone else says. "sweeping generalizations" for instance, never trying to sum up. Your study of language is right on, anyone else's is not. I have tried to get to the essence and summation of these things, I feel at my age trying to learn the language itself is impractical. I can just HEAR your judgments of that!!

You can't even seem to make up your mind on what your judgments of me are, changing your tune from one post to the next, with the only consistent thing you can say is to point out that if I suggest thinking about something, you are here to point out how wrong I am.

Learning and speaking of the Lord and His ways are not reflected in your posts, only making negative judgments. It is only "Hebrew nonsense" and "sweeping generalizations" judgments.

My apologies! I was using shorthand for the Hebrew Roots movement! They are the ones who want us to be like the Pharisees, and try to earn our way to salvation. Learning Hebrew was a wonderful experience for me, including learning about the Hebrew mindset. But I also learned of the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures is Jesus Christ. I also went to a Hebrew Orthodox synagogue as part of the course, where I heard people reading transliterated Hebrew they did not understand, but missing the whole point of being God's chosen people, that the Lion of the tribe of Judah came to save the world from their sins for the Jew first, and also the Greek! (Meaning all of us so-called, "pagans.")

My goal is always to glorify Christ. Sometimes that means taking on heresies like the Hebrew Roots movement!

 

[JGIG]

The OT had been translated into Greek ~300 years before Christ.

Many were reading the OT in Greek at the time of Christ


For the same reason the OT was translated into pagan Greek ~300 years before the birth of Christ.

The NT was written over 400 years after the OT.

So you are left with denying historical facts and creating senseless consequences to support
your false human rationale?

This is absurd.

Yes. I'll add this from an article I wrote at JGIG (it has to do with the teachings of Jim Staley, a Hebrew Roots teacher, and this topic comes up in his teaching paradigm, as well):

Is the Gospel just for one ethnic group of people or for all mankind?

Another issue which Staley seems to ignore is that the Old Testament widely in use in the first century was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Hellenization of the known world had resulted in Koine (common, not classical) Greek being very widely used, even into the Roman Empire era, as it was the primary language of trade, politics, and culture. Aramaic was likely the conversational language of the day among Jews, but Greek was widely known and used out of necessity. Paul, educated by Gamaliel, quoted from the Septuagint in his writings, indicating that it was in use at the time and considered to be a valid translation of the Scriptures. Israel, in that day, was Greek-speaking (indeed for several hundred years), hence the need for the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which was started around 300 BCE and was well in use by the first century.

So Jim Staley is trying force the point about going back to the Hebrew language when we can see that Israel at the time was widely using a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The point I’m trying to make is that the Word of God is the Word of God whether it be in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi, or any other language. The concepts, lessons, and truths that God wishes to communicate to us can be made in any language and He was doing so in Greek for a few hundred years by the time the first century rolled around.

A commenter on Facebook makes this astute observation:


​

“Also, what was the first act in the life of the Church, at Pentecost?

“Translation.

“The Holy Spirit miraculously translated the Gospel message into the common languages of the various Jews that were there in Jerusalem. God didn’t try to make them learn Hebrew to hear the Gospel, He translated the Gospel into something they could understand.”
​

When in doubt about what a passage means, one can go back to the original language which the writer used and look up the definition of a word or phrase to gain better understanding, taking great care to keep context in clear view, as context often determines the meaning of a word where more than one meaning exists for that word. But ‘getting rid of the New Testament’ is not required – in fact, God may (I think I can confidently say He does) have a very big problem with that idea. (A good outline for further study: Evidence For Early Existence Of The New Testament)

So this idea of having to go back to Hebrew definitions of Hebrew Scriptures regarding the Greek New Testament texts is a bunch of hooey. The Hebrews of the time were already well versed in the Greek translation of the Tanakh because they were speaking Greek and had been for at least a couple hundred years!

So for the New Testament to be written in Greek and for the Hebrews of the time to understand the Greek definitions of the Greek words used in the Greek text only makes sense.​

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Angela points out she is an intelligent woman who is so superior with actually going to bible college that nothing I say can compare with her superiority and any study I do is wrong because she is so right. You say that you know everything about what the bible says and have no need for further study, like the languages people used or the culture of the people a book was originally written about. I don't think you are trying to understand at all, just as Angela is not trying to understand. You are both only trying to get across that you are superior people who knows it all.

Um, RedTent, don't look now, but that kind of makes Angela a scholar, yes?

Aren't you looking to scholars of your choosing who have led you into and support your belief system?

The mindset that tells us that we need to look at the Scriptures from an Hebraic mindset comes with a Law-keeping agenda. We see this, are aware of this, and are not shy about speaking up against it, because it goes against the Gospel and the Work of Christ, the culmination of the Scriptures.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

What is absurd, is that Christians can't have a discussion without including derogatory statements designed to belittle and tear down. Also it is noted you have no evidence for your claims, assertion without demonstration is, if I recall, how you frequently put it.

The Septuagint /ˈsɛptjuːəˌdʒɪnt/, /ˈsɛptuːəˌdʒɪnt/, /ˌsɛpˈtuːədʒɪnt/, /ˈsɛptʃuːəˌdʒɪnt/, from the Latin word septuaginta (meaning seventy), is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek.

The title and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE.

As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament (Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα). This translation is quoted in the New Testament,[SUP][1][/SUP] particularly in the Pauline epistles,[SUP][2][/SUP] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
​

(source)

-JGIG

 

[Karraster]

"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Eloah of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets"(Acts 24:14).

"Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today?

 

[psychomom]

"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Eloah of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets"(Acts 24:14).

not only does this post have nothing to do with which worldview, culture and mentality Christians should have,
it's one of the worst translated verses and one of the most egregiously taken out of context I've seen.

try beginning in Acts 23 and reading all the way through.
Paul says he's on trial for believing in the resurrection of the dead (which the Saducees did not believe).
24 v. 5 tells us he's in trouble for being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". (believers in Jesus as Christ!)
that's what your verse refers to as heresy.

Paul believed all that had been written in the Prophets about Jesus, in accordance with the Law.
He's being accused by Jews!
He lets us know that this "Way" (salvation through faith in Jesus as the Christ) is what the Jews call a sect, or what your translation calls heresy.

Culture is insignificant, as God has called people from every tribe, tongue and nation to Himself.
The worldview and mentality which should prevail among Christians is that of Christianity.

 

[Karraster]

not only does this post have nothing to do with which worldview, culture and mentality Christians should have,
it's one of the worst translated verses and one of the most egregiously taken out of context I've seen.

try beginning in Acts 23 and reading all the way through.
Paul says he's on trial for believing in the resurrection of the dead (which the Saducees did not believe).
24 v. 5 tells us he's in trouble for being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". (believers in Jesus as Christ!)
that's what your verse refers to as heresy.

Paul believed all that had been written in the Prophets about Jesus, in accordance with the Law.
He's being accused by Jews!
He lets us know that this "Way" (salvation through faith in Jesus as the Christ) is what the Jews call a sect, or what your translation calls heresy.

Culture is insignificant, as God has called people from every tribe, tongue and nation to Himself.
The worldview and mentality which should prevail among Christians is that of Christianity.

Thank you for your critique.

Not too sure about your last sentence though. Could you clarify that for me? Which "sect" of Christianity? Aren't there about a bajillion?

 

[RedTent]

I must admit, I'm confused why you're asking me "Are you saying . . . " when you've told me that you don't read what I write in the first place. I haven't said anything you're asserted, and what's really bizarre is that you type things you say I've written, but then you say that you don't read my posts!

Very curious indeed. -JGIG

I didn't read what you wrote and told you the reason. In your usual way you are trying to be my enemy and the enemy of any Christian Search, only "AIN'T IT JUST TEEERRRBLE", it is the gist of all you say. Any think people say that look into what the old testament say and you can assign to the word "roots". When the world forgot the Hebrew language and started using Greek, you are using that to say God was all wrong to ever use Hebrew and Hebrew culture, so we should use that as a reason to back your anti learning words. You, my dear, are thinking in a non Christian way, I don't see anything in your words or mind that isn't destructive, and I just do not want to be part of it. I would bet even your favorite websites are one of the ones that think and speak as you do.

 

[9ministries]

I am pretty sure it is imperative that a person must learn or have some basic understanding of all languages to get the most accurate meaning of a word. If not it's like one being in a country and claiming to be an expert on that country without knowing that country's history. Of course what do I know, they hate and banned me for my beliefs.

 

[Atwood]

This translation is quoted in the New Testament,[SUP][1][/SUP] particularly in the Pauline epistles,[SUP][2][/SUP] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
​

-JGIG

I have a different take on this JGig.

First of all, a translation is not a quote. A quote must be exact to be a quote. If you take a Hebrew sentence and translate it, the translation is not a quote. Now it is possible for a Greek document (like the NT) to quote another Greek document. But I don't think there is any way to establish that the NT quotes the LXX. The reason is that we don't have any LXX manuscript that predates the NT, except for fragments, so far as I know. What we have and what is called the LXX is really not the LXX, but the Greek OT, as attached to great codexes of the NT, no earlier than 4th century AD.

So what would you have done had you been a Christian living in AD 300 and wanted an accurate Old Testament in Greek? If it had been me, I would have preferred the NT's presentation of the Old Testament and incorporated NT readings as better than the uninspired LXX. Thus, I think that our so-called LXX manuscripts have been altered to agree with the NT at times; so you can't know that the NT is copying the LXX at any point.

What we have in the NT is the Holy Spirit giving us the gist of OT passages in Greek, not quotations. Also, we probably do not have verbatim sayings of the Lord Jesus (probably uttered in Aramaic), but the gist of what He said in Greek as accurately expressed by the Holy Spirit. So if the Lord Jesus refers to the OT (It is written), we don't have exactly what He said -- He may well have quoted it in Hebrew instead of Aramaic. I suppose He could have given the gist of the OT in Aramaic, a cognate language. I highly doubt that the Lord Jesus quoted from the LXX in Greek.

Thus, I don't accept the theory that the NT quotes the LXX.

 

[Atwood]

Angela points out she is an intelligent woman who is so superior with actually going to bible college that nothing I say can compare with her superiority and any study I do is wrong because she is so right. You say that you know everything about what the bible says and have no need for further study, like the languages people used or the culture of the people a book was originally written about. I don't think you are trying to understand at all, just as Angela is not trying to understand. You are both only trying to get across that you are superior people who knows it all.

So Red, you would quote Job where it says like:

"Surely ye are the people, & wisdom will die with you!"
The argument got kind of bitter in Job.

What seems to me to be the nonsense cycle is often that

1) Some scholar who went to Bible College, Seminary, or studied at University for a graduate degree,
posts on a forum without making any claim of education.
2) Some disagreer person comes along and accuses the scholar above of being an ignoramus; like if you would go & study or "if you would read your Bible" etc. putting down the scholar for alleged ignorance.
3) the Scholar then replies with his education.
4) the disagreer accuser then accuses the scholar of bragging on his education or acting superior when the disagreer asked for it.

IMHO, if everyone would just confine themselves to presenting proof from the Bible and refraining from the ad hominem route, the disgustion would be less disgusting -- LOL.

 

[SolidGround]

Ad hominem is the basis of our need for salvation.
If nothing was held "against the man" in the Garden, we would never have need of the Cross.

I jest. Forgive me.

 

[JGIG]

I must admit, I'm confused why you're asking me "Are you saying . . . " when you've told me that you don't read what I write in the first place. I haven't said anything you're asserted, and what's really bizarre is that you type things you say I've written, but then you say that you don't read my posts!

Very curious indeed.

-JGIG

I didn't read what you wrote and told you the reason.

Yet you will continue on in this very post to tell the world what you say I write - after telling us all that you don't read what I write.

Do you detect any doublemindedness there, RedTent?

In your usual way you are trying to be my enemy and the enemy of any Christian Search, only "AIN'T IT JUST TEEERRRBLE", it is the gist of all you say.

How would you know what I say? You say you don't read my posts.

Again, RedTent, if you're going to make an accusation, back it up with actual quotes.

We'll wait.

Any think people say that look into what the old testament say and you can assign to the word "roots".

Not sure what that sentence is actually saying, but there is a movement out there that self-labels as the Hebrew Roots Movement which teaches the same stuff you're attempting to teach here: Hebraic superiority and Torah observance for those in Christ. If it quacks like a duck . . .

When the world forgot the Hebrew language and started using Greek,

The world never knew Hebrew; it was an ethno-centric language that Hebrews spoke/wrote.

Hebrew never was a 'global' language.

Koine Greek was, however, and that's why God chose Koine Greek as the language through which to spread the Gospel.

you are using that to say God was all wrong to ever use Hebrew and Hebrew culture, so we should use that as a reason to back your anti learning words.

Again, RedTent, you're making another accusation for which you've provided no proof. I've never said any such thing. You are bearing false witness against me.

You, my dear, are thinking in a non Christian way,

I'm content for God and the reader to judge between us.

I don't see anything in your words or mind that isn't destructive, and I just do not want to be part of it.

I can live with that.

I would bet even your favorite websites are one of the ones that think and speak as you do.

How would you know? You don't read what I post . . .

-JGIG