This week was supposed to be the launch of the first post on the ‘Nature of God.’ However, I did not anticipate my move and settling into Portland to be a big adjustment for me.

So, in conjunction with the merge of this blog with NECT, I will be beginning my authorship there with this series. Look forward to a discussion of Arian theology next week!

• Types of Seminaries
• Size and Emphasis
• Programs of Study
• Accreditation
• Practical Considerations
• Value Versus Cost
• God’s Call

Read it here.

HT: Fuller Theological Seminary Facebook Fan Page

The course I will be taking is Introduction to New Testament Greek. Looking at last year’s syllabus, it appears we have a few required textbooks, one being William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. The one that is listed is the first edition; I suspect we will be using the second edition.¹ I am familiar with this book because I used it as a supplement to my grammar in my bachelor program. Now that it is required, I am looking forward to making it a well-used resource in my library.

One advantage I have found with Mounce’s book over the one I used in my initial studies² is the correlation between the English grammar and the Greek grammar. Mounce introduces a particular grammatical concept in English first (for instance, the idea of the imperfect tense—continual action in the past), how it is expressed (e.g., he was saying) in English, and then connects it to the Greek (elegen). When I taught the advanced Greek class, I did the same thing, and the students instantly got it. Also his memorization system is top notch.

On the other hand, I feel Summers and Sawyer’s work has an advantage over that of Mounce’s in that it introduces the student to syntax much earlier. For example, their chapter³ on the imperfect active indicative is a condensed version of what one would find on the imperfect in Daniel Wallace’s Greek syntax.

I am truly looking forward to relearning and honing my Greek translating ability up to a competent level.

______

¹ William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003).[Back]

² Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, rev. Thomas Sawyer, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995).[Back]

³ Summers, 55-58.[Back]

It worries me when someone who has a screen name that apparently describes him/her as knowledgeable in logic misdoes logic. In the video title, LogicFilter claims to “dismantle” Ravi Zacharias’s argument. But listen and watch carefully. You will note that LogicFilter never once deals with Ravi’s argument. Filter instead creates his own representation of the argument—which is completely unlike Zacharias’s—and then proceeds to dismantle the misrepresentation.

The question regarded the grammar of the two major Tagalog translations—Ang Biblia (The Bible) and Ang Magandang Balita (The Good News)—and their method of translation. Although they are translated by some sort of Bible society, both translations seemed to follow the English word order. The inquirer makes the following observation:

As I try to further learn the Greek language, it inspired me to probe on the Tagalog (my countries native tongue) translation of the Bible. I discovered that we had two versions: Ang Biblia (1905) brought by the Evangelical Union Missionaries and the newer ones , Ang Magandang Balita (1970) translated by our very own Philippine Bible Society.  Now both translations, as stated in their prefaces, claimed to have based their translation work from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts but as I work my way through the translation, I began to notice that our Tagalog translation of the Bible may have based it’s work not on the Hebrew and Greek themselves but actually on the English Bibles (KJV and NIV). . . . It seems to follow the same rules of the English grammar while it should have been following the Greek or Hebrew.

Mounce makes a few points in response. Perhaps the most helpful point is that translators consult other translations. The point is that there is value in finding agreement with other translations. He notes that

. . . translators are always looking at other translations, and it may be that the Tagalog translators relied somewhat on English to help them understand the Greek. If you are making a new translation, and if you have two or three English translations that all agree on a specific translation, that consistency can have a strong influence on how you translate. It isn’t that you are copying; you are wanting to be careful and right, and there is a perceived safety in numbers.

This is good news for aspiring Greek (and Hebrew) scholars and translators, who often consult with a translation in their native language as they learn the language. As far as I can recall, virtually every English translation has relied upon other translations. It is uplifting to know that for any translation from a reputable group of translators, the translators have done their best to make sure what is in one’s Bible is accurate. Part of this is accomplished by the translators’ comparing theirs with others who have come before them.

Read Mounce’s response in its entirety in his post Are translations really based on the Greek and Hebrew?.

Check it out at GoingToSeminary.com.

Expect to see the first post the week of September 13-17 on Unitarian (Arian) theology. In the meantime, keep checking back for some bibliotheoblog action!

. . . the proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.

There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with; . . . But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumbline cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt; and with solemn exclamation, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” No subject of contemplation will tend to humble the man, than thoughts of God. . . .

But while the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe. . . . Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity.¹

The purpose of this series is to enter into the study of those brave enough to enter into the study of the Godhead. Having studied with knowledgeable members of the groups to be examined; having discussed, conversed, and debated on the topic of the Godhead over the course of many years; and having studied the subject of the Godhead at the baccalaureate and beyond, I feel I have, know, and understand enough that would qualify me to do this series.

The audience I write toward is not the scholastic community but those who are not so theologically inclined. I seek to avoid deep philosophy as much as possible. The nature of such a topic as this, however, requires that philosophy be done to a certain extent. If there is a time that requires the study to engage the matter with deeper philosophy, only that which is needed to understand sufficiently the concept(s) will be relayed.

I also aim to contribute to the discussion that takes place between the members of each of these groups. To do this I will 1) retrace some historical aspects of the positions, 2) note the strengths that each position has, and 3) note where there are perceived deficiencies. To allow for fair evaluation of each position, I will attempt to remove as much of my own theology as can be removed. Where a particular group has felt its belief adheres to Scripture, I will seek to be as faithful as I am able in exegeting the Scripture and in representing the position so that both can accurately be compared.

I hope this series will educate and bless its readers. I welcome any questions, comments, clarifications, and corrections to this work.

______

¹ Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Immutability of God,” (sermon, New Park Street Chapel, Southwark, UK, January 7, 1855), quoted in J. I. Packer, Knowing God: 20th Anniversary Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973, 1993), 17-18.[Back]