Re: Kerkut

At 02:21 PM 05/02/2004 -0700, gordon brown wrote:
>I have heard that Hugh Ross has studied Hebrew (maybe on his own (?)), but
>as far as I know, he has not had any formal theological training. I don't
>believe that a layman should always defer to a trained clergyman. Some
>have been led astray by doing that. The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were
>commended for checking out Paul's statements. I believe that all believers
>should seek to be educated theologically, but that doesn't necessarily
>mean a formal education with degrees.
>Gordon Brown
>Department of Mathematics
>University of Colorado
>Boulder, CO 80309-0395

My observation:
Knowing some Hebrew and Greek is not enough. It is much more necessary to
realize the social, geographic etc. circumstances of the writers AND the
first hearers. And also the philosophies and circumstances of the
translators. Besides, did the people immediately after the"flood" speak
Hebrew? If I see how much modern languages have changed since the Middle
ages ending only 500 years ago, than I realize as well, that many stories
came down through centuries before written down.
Also, the geographic and philosophical background of bible-translators has
an enormous influence on the way words are translated. Consequently words
may be translated differently in chapters every close together, which could
be (and sometimes are) translated in chapters close together. To think
that just knowing some Hebrew and Greek is enough is fooling yourself. You
need to know secular history, for example Egyptian history from the old
times to understand Moses's story.
Received on Fri Feb 6 15:02:50 2004