• No se han encontrado resultados

ÁLVAREZ, CONXITA; MORER DE LLORENS, JORDI;

In document Vista de Historia de España (página 33-57)

Greek Grammar & Verbs Greek Grammar & Verbs

B

B

ible school students are taught Greek grammar from textbooks which try to squeeze a live octopus into a shoe box. What does not t the living English verbal system gets cut out and the now-snking dead remains are squashed under the cover of Greek grammar textbook.

Scholars recognize the problem, but the lively debate between taxidermists and biologists is never heard by textbook and shoe salesmen. Linguist Trevor Evans warns that false views about Greek verbs are being taught in Bible schools ―

“unl the severely dated descripons contained in so many of our standardseverely dated descripons contained in so many of our standard grammars are replaced

grammars are replaced””(Taylor, p. 206).

“…recent advances will take me to supplant the false comfort of tradionalsupplant the false comfort of tradional interpret

interpretaons to be aons to be found in found in the standard grammarsthe standard grammars””(Taylor, p. 200).

Yet Bible schools are totally out of touch with what S.E. Porter, author of Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament,calls “the ongoing debate over the nature of the Greek verbal system”(Taylor, p.

221). It seems that the “eld of Greek verb theory” is up for grabs with few reaching towards the oen toxic and highly debatable material presented in typical Greek grammars, such as the following sample list:

George Hadjiantoniou, A Basic Grammar of New Testament Greek(Spiros Zodhiates, AMG Internaonal).

Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essenals of New Testament Greek(Revised and Original edion) William H. Davis,The Beginner’s Greek Grammar of the New Testament

J. Gresham Machen , New Testament Greek For Beginners

H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey , A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament

A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Blass, translated by DeBrunner and edited by Funk,Greek Grammer of the New Testament E.C. Colwell and E.W. Tune, A Beginner’s Reader Grammar for New Testament Greek Steven Cox,Essenals of New Testament Greek: A Student’s Guide

Nathan Han , A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament

Daniel Wallace,The Basics of New Testament Syntax ;Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics; A Workbook for New Testament Syntax

Trevor V. Evans presented a paper at the Society of Biblical Literature bemoaning the ―

“long-ignored problems which lie at the heart of the long-ignored problems which lie at the heart of the Greek verbal sysGreek verbal system and thustem and thus at the heart of the

at the heart of the Greek language itself Greek language itself . The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate thatwe have barely begun the process of unraveling these problemswe have barely begun the process of unraveling these problems…”(Taylor, pp.

199, 200).

If professional Greek grammarians recognize problems in Greek grammar textbooks, why are professors presenng such material as if it was woven from the veil of the temple? These men may not know God, but they know Greek. Evans warns of the “dangers” and says discussions about verbs ―

“…raise new quesons and demand reassessment of numerous long-accepted truths…”(Taylor, pp. 202, 203).

A.T. Robertson’s dictates concerning the acve, passive and the middle are now quesoned by scholars; among them is Professor Bernard Taylor, translator for the NETS edion of the Greek Septuagint, published by Oxford University Press (Taylor, pp. xii, 171 et al.). Greek professors who open Robertson’s sordid shoebox before they open the Holy Bible are being out-shouted from every direcon. Evans says,

“The days of explaining present and aorist forms in terms of durave and puncliar aspect-values are numbered (though they will persist unl the severely dated(though they will persist unl the severely dated descripons contained in so many of our standard grammars are replace) descripons contained in so many of our standard grammars are replace) (Taylor, p. 206).

Another ‘Aspect’ To Consider Another ‘Aspect’ To Consider

There also is a “contemporary debate about the nature of aspect in relaon to Greek verbs.”

Aspect is a category separate from tense and concerned with perspecve on the acon, not with

me. Dr. Randall Buth says the current method of teaching Greek verbs is “convoluted and does not necessarily reect basic structures of the language”(Taylor, p. 178).Out the window go terms such as

“present tense [nonindicave]” and “aorist tense [nonindicave]” to be replaced with “imperfecve aspect” and “perfecve aspect.” Linguists Stanley E. Porter and Buist Fanning clash on the details about “the Greek verbal structure,” “perfect,” “present and aorist” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguiscs”” (Taylor, pp. xiii, 177-221).

Chadwick admits that the understanding of ancient or Koine Greek verbs is evolving, “A fault of LSJ [Liddell-Sco-JonesGreek-English Lexicon] is failure to allow for the semanc value of the present-tense system, which was perhaps less well understood in the nineteenth century.” “Some of the problems raised by LSJ’s treatment” of verbs are “due to this failure to observe the component of meaning conveyed by the aspect of the verb…”(Chadwick, p. 21).

Trevor V. Evans wrote the textbookVerbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch for Oxford University Press.

Press. He admits the “ideas” and “contemporary theorists are sll in the process of impacng biblical Greek circles.” He says “shisshis” have occurred and yet “verbal aspect posessome of the most dicultsome of the most dicult puzzles

puzzles in Greek linguiscs…The history of aspectology is one ofchangingchangingconcepts.” Evans says “There isdisagreementdisagreementamong theorists on the number of abstract classes to be established…Fanning is an extremist, oering six subcategories of aconal types.” Even Fanning admits verbs “may have aconal force according to theircontextualcontextualmeaning”(Taylor, pp. 199, 204, 205 et al.). Evans says,

“Where the perfect tense ts into the picture of Greek aspect is becoming an increasingly sharpquesonqueson.. Tradional responses are under challengeTradional responses are under challenge. Does the perfect really manifest a third fundamental aspect? How accurate is the noon

that it essenally expresses a connuing state resulng from prior occurrence?

Comparison of Porter’s and Fanning’s approaches, which both mix conservasm and innovaon, will indicate the volality of current research into these maers.”(Taylor, p. 205).

Errors & Heresies in Greek Grammar Books &

Errors & Heresies in Greek Grammar Books & SowareSoware

To academics the Bible is a history book, not the living breath of God. New versions, such as the NKJV, copy their dead verb choices such as, “For by grace youhave beenhave been saved” instead of the KJB’s

“For by graceareare ye saved” (Eph. 2:8). The life of the Bible is shown in its verbs and Satan’s scribes have pointed their “hurul sword” at the Bible’s very heart. The errors, heresies, and faulty translaons in Greek grammars will be examined throughout this book. A few brief glances show:

 Students no longer need to be perplexed by the variaon in the principal parts of Greek verbs.Books lisng the principal parts of verbs do not even agree. Laurence Vance, author ofGreek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principle Parts observes that, “many of these lists containgrossgross errors

errors””(Pensacola, FL: Vance Publicaons, 2006, p. ix).

 An herecal form of progressive works salvaon is taught in all Greek grammars. Their incorrectly translated marching orders, “youare beingare being saved,” instead of “youare saved,” have mustered a works salvaon army, enlisng religionists of every creed.

 Students are also not taught that all Greek grammar books are based on the corrupt Nestle-Aland or the UBS Greek texts, with verb frequency counts and other parculars varying from theTextus Receptusand its historic translaon. For example, J. Gresham Machen’s New Testament Greek For Beginners followed “Moulton and Geden’s Concordance to the Greek Testament” which followed “Westco and HortWestco and Hort, Tischendorf andthe English Revisers [Revised Version]the English Revisers [Revised Version]””(Taylor, pp.

93, 91). Machen admits his English translaons come from “theGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament of Grimm-ThayerThayer.” Machen also followed “MoultonMoulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek .” See the individual chapters in this book on the heresies of Moulton and J.H. Thayer.

Machen also used theGermanGerman “Blass-Debrunner,Grammak des neutestamentlichen Griechisch””

(New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1923, p. x).

 In their English translaon all Greek grammars ignore the inected endings on Greek verbs.

Why memorize these endings, if they are to be ignored. In Essenals of New Testament Greek Summers’ translaon ignores the inected endings on both the Greek second person singular and the Greek second person plural. He translates them both as “you,” instead of dierenang them as the Greeks and the KJB do by the singular “thou” and the plural “ye”(Summers, p. 36 et al.). In the KJB “you” is correctly used to express only the pluralobjecve case. Greek grammars ignore the various inected Greek endings and use the word “you” for plural nominave, plural objecve, singular objecve, and singular nominave. God has provided equivalent English words which are as specic as the Greek Bible, which these textbooks refuse to translate into English. The Bible is a legal document; the words in the KJB are not archaic words, they are Bible words (SeeIn Awe of Thy Word , pp. 446-452). If it is important to see that these Greek verbs are dierent in their endings for each person (I, thou, he, we, ye, they et al.), why do they not translate the endings.

They are so apt to say, “The Greek really says…” in other cases, why not with verbs?

 The translaons in Greek grammars also do not express other aspects of the inected endings seen in Greek. For example, the KJB accurately translates the rst person, “I write” and second person,

“thou writest,” but the translaon of rst and second person in all Greek grammars is “write” for both rst and second person; this is not a reecon of the inected Greek verb endings.

Charges of ‘archaic’ language in the KJB (‘Ye,’ ‘thee’ et al.) can hardly be made by those who memorize monstrously archaic 2,000 years old Greek inected endings? The fruit of the Spirit will not be produced by pruning the KJB’s verbs.

Preposion Preview Preposion Preview

Errors in Greek grammars are not limited to verbs. Preposions provide another pathway away from the straight and narrow path. The English translaon of preposions can open the door to every heresy imaginable. For example, inEssenals of New Testament Greekby Ray Summersdia(by, through et al.) is incorrectly translated as “through” in John 1. ‘Through’ can mean ‘by means of’ and is best expressed succinctly in this context as ‘by.’ But Summers blasphemously translates it as “through”

and that denies Christ is God saying,

““The world was madethroughthrough him.” Here Christ is looked upon as the intermediate agent of creaon; God is the srcinal agent” (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1950, p. 36).

The verse clearly states that “the Word was God.” That is, Jesus is God. Summers is separang God and Jesus in a verse whose clear purpose is to teach that Jesus Christis God and he made the world.

Summers’ comment shows the herecal results of not translang contextually. This context demands the word ‘by.’

“In the beginning God createdGod created…” (Genesis 1:1)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasthe Word was God

God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things weremademade byby himhim;” (John 1:1-3)

(Elohim and “us” are plural (Gen. 1:1, 26), but Summers is wrong to separate Jesus from God.) Preposions will be covered fully in the chapter on Vine.

No One Agrees on

No One Agrees on Greek GrammarGreek Grammar

Should we wait for the latest A+ Greek grammar to spring up, like Aphrodite or Apollo from Hades, and solve the confusion? Hardly, since as long as there are dierent minds seeking to be “as gods,”

there will be dierent opinions. Man’s conicng ideas about tense, aspect, voice, mood, person, number, augment, themac vowels, reduplicaon, principle parts, tense formaves, reduplicaon, personal endings, and deponency are as endless as new versions which put them in print. Newer grammars hold no hope as Generaon X grammarians slide further and further from the ABC’s of the KJB (ABC =AAlwaysBBased onCContext). Evans closes showing the widely divergent disagreement among linguists. He says,

“By way of further contrast,my own views are somewhat dierent againmy own views are somewhat dierent again. I accept with Porter that the perfect essenally expresses stavity, but agree with Fanning that this is to be understood as an Akonsart value, not an independent aspect…

Suchcontradictorycontradictory responses clearly show the need for further study of the Greek perfect. It remains one of the verbal system’s most dicultproblemsproblems, and the new approaches just sketched raised their own share ofquesonsquesons””(Taylor, 206).

“The result is that contemporary theorecal models rest in places on a shakyshaky framework ofassumponassumpon”” (Taylor, pp. 202, 203).

He concludes,

“However, numerous keyquesonsquesons remain open”(Taylor, p. 206).

“Our aim must be…to aain the strongest grasp possible (at our remove of sopossible (at our remove of so many centuries)

many centuries) on the way in which aspect and the Ancient Greek verbal system funcon”(Taylor, p. 206).

What!...the “strongest grasp possiblepossible”! He is saying that Greek linguists and grammarians cannot really know how ancient or ‘Koine’ Greek verbs were used “at our remove of so many centuries” or how they might correspond to our present and very dierent system of English verbs. The babes with Holy Bibles can know, however.

“With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Ma. 19:26).

Scholars change their minds about Greek grammar as oen as verb tense stems change. Why waste God’s me memorizing variaons in the principal parts of Greek verbs? Today’s Greek grammarians put the standard Greek grammar through a paper shredder, add some linguisc confe and turn the fan on, blowing away much of what the standard Greek grammar states. The standard Bible school’s paint-by-numbers approach gives a jagged connect-the-dots picture of the New Testament. Greek grammars are like mummies when compared to the living, breathing photographic realism portrayed in the King James Bible.

Memorizing the misdirected English translaons of verbs in any current Greek grammar will be as fruiul as memorizing a medical textbook from the 1700s that calls for the bleeding of living paents.

George Washington died from such a doctor’s ‘cure’ and so will the Bible expire, by lancing the living oracles of God of their inected endings and correct contextual translaon. While medical textbooks wrien by fallible men of the 1700s were instrucng doctors to ‘bleed’ their paents, the Bible sat ignored as it said, “for the life of all esh is the blood” (Lev. 17:14).

Greek grammar makes dead believers, as well as dead Bibles. Buth’s denions of bapdzō as

“wash” and “dip” will have the same deadly results(Taylor, p. 195).

 If you are ‘dipped,’ you drown because you are not brought up to “walk in newness of life…in the likeness of his resurrecon” (Rom. 6:4, 5).

 If you are ‘washed’ only, youdo not go under to be (“buried with him by bapsm…planted together in the likeness of his death”).

 Only the word ‘bapze’ means to put underand to bring back up.

The Conclusion The Conclusion

The harsh allegaons about the dated character of both lexicons and grammars proves only that there is no agreement among the last four centuries’ nest minds ― I said ‘minds’ not hearts. There are no authories, outside of God’s word, merelyopinions, like Adam’s, Eve’s, and Satan’s. The purpose of this rst secon of the book hasnot been to show that recent grammarians and lexicographers have discovered something valuable and new; the purpose is to show that the old ‘scholars’ do not agree with the new ‘scholars’ and the new ‘scholars’ do not agree with each other. This has been amply demonstrated. The conclusion is simple: toss your Bible remodeling tools. Do not replace them with the new chainsaw views of Generaon X, since their Nintendo-warped grandchildren will change them again and the cycle will connue.

ProveProve all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thes. 5:21

The remainder of this book will prove faulty the most used Bible Study tools and nd the reader

holding fast to the King James Bible. (Greek grammar and verbs will be discussed in detail in the chapters on Vine and Trench. See alsoThe Language of the King James Bible, pp. 108-109.)

Summary: Bruce Metzger Summary: Bruce Metzger

Lexical Aids For Students of the New Testament

According to Princeton’s Bruce Metzger 45% of the most oen used New Testament Greek words have English derivaves that will ‘ring a bell’ when heard.

These English words look and sound just like their Greek counterpart. When an English speaker hears these Greek words, his mind immediately recognizes them and their general meanings in English.

It is this recognion that tricks students of New Testament Greek into falsely believing that they have found a ‘nugget’ in their Greek studies.

The ‘nugget’ is simply a Greek word that isalready recognized, because italready exists in the English vocabulary. Nothing new has been learned!

Documentaon to follow.

Chapter

Chapter 6 6 Metzger Metzger’’s s Lexical Aids Lexical Aids are are Deadly: Deadly:

In document Vista de Historia de España (página 33-57)

Documento similar