It's all Greek to me - looking for a Greek language expert?

[jshugart]

Hello,

I am having a lively debate with my father about the meaning of a Greek text. Now I am not looking to argue with anyone here. All I'm doing is looking for someone who can take a Greek sentence and explain how the tense and structure is or could possible be.

Don't ask what verse, as that will just start a flame war. I'd prefer the Greek expert be Christian, so my father can not say I found an expert that comes from my own worldview and might be biased in my direction.

I am not looking for anything other than the truth, and as I know I can't read Greek, and my father doesn't know Greek, I would rather not have the blind leading the blind here, if you know what I mean.

Thank you

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First you need to look at the English translations. If you see something which doesn't make sense to you check all of the translations which you can find and see if there is one which matches your ideas. If you want to check the tenses and meanings of Greek words you can go to this site for that:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1679&t=KJV

 

[jshugart]

Hey Dad,

Heb 9:21-22 (NASB)
21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/hebrews-9.html#22

From Meyer's NT Commentary:

a?µate???s?a] a word not elsewhere met with in Greek literature. What is meant is not specially the pouring out of the blood upon the altar (de Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 435, al.), but in general, the blood-shedding by the slaying of sacrificial animals (Bleek, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Hofmann, Comm. p. 363).

That should be enough to support my argument. These are Christian sources, you can't say they have a Jewish BIAS.

Please supply supporting references for your theory. I have searched for anyone that has anything on your theory, but can not find one. Since you say I don't know what I'm doing, please prove yourself correct, give me some scholar or even a fake scholar that has your view.

You wanted me to post, fine. I'll make you provide me with my research sources, if for no other reason, than to see if you can.

 

[Interplanner]

Hello,

I am having a lively debate with my father about the meaning of a Greek text. Now I am not looking to argue with anyone here. All I'm doing is looking for someone who can take a Greek sentence and explain how the tense and structure is or could possible be.

Don't ask what verse, as that will just start a flame war. I'd prefer the Greek expert be Christian, so my father can not say I found an expert that comes from my own worldview and might be biased in my direction.

I am not looking for anything other than the truth, and as I know I can't read Greek, and my father doesn't know Greek, I would rather not have the blind leading the blind here, if you know what I mean.

Thank you

I may be able to help. What is the question now? On cleansing? Sprinkling? shedding?

My background: 2 years TA at Multnomah Bible U, 3 years in its program. 1 year master's level, 1 term translating in Josephus THE JEWISH WAR.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That should be enough to support my argument.

What is your argument?

Let us look at Hebrews 9:22 in its context:

"Whereupon neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb.9:18-22).​

Here the subject is the Mosaic Covenant. That covenant was not even in effect until the blood of that covenant was sprinkled upon both the book and the people. So without the blood none of the atonements under the Mosaic Covenant were possible. And that is exactly what this verse is referring to:

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb.9:18-22).​

Here the words "the law" are referring to the Mosaic Covenant and it is a fact that apart from the blood of that covenant then that covenant would have no force. And if it is not in force there would be no remission of sins under that covenant.

As we see at verse 19 Moses took the "the blood of calves and of goats" and sprinkled it upon the people and that matches the meaning which you gave which is "the blood-shedding by the slaying of sacrificial animals."

Since you think that my idea about this is in error then tell me specifically what that is that I said that is not correct.

Thanks!

 

[jshugart]

I may be able to help. What is the question now? On cleansing? Sprinkling? shedding?

My background: 2 years TA at Multnomah Bible U, 3 years in its program. 1 year master's level, 1 term translating in Josephus THE JEWISH WAR.

Thank you.

I am trying to understand the tenses used in this verse, when I study the English translations (assuming the translators understood Greek rules) I see this verse talking in the present or present\future tense.

The words for sprinkling and "shedding", is the Greek pointing in the past tense, present, or future, or all three or some combination?

Thank you again.



And Dad, you still haven't given me an actual source.

Unless you are claiming to be a Greek expert? Then please give me your creds. I'll check back tomorrow.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And Dad, you still haven't given me an actual source.

Unless you are claiming to be a Greek expert? Then please give me your creds. I'll check back tomorrow.

I used the meaning which you provided:

"What is meant is not specially the pouring out of the blood upon the altar (de Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 435, al.), but in general, the blood-shedding by the slaying of sacrificial animals (Bleek, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Hofmann, Comm. p. 363)." ​

Joseph Henry Thayer defined the word haimatekchysia as "shedding of blood" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

You said that you have provided enough to support your argument.

What is your argument?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I am trying to understand the tenses used in this verse, when I study the English translations (assuming the translators understood Greek rules) I see this verse talking in the present or present\future tense.

The words for sprinkling and "shedding", is the Greek pointing in the past tense, present, or future, or all three or some combination?

All of the verbs at Hebrews 9:22 are in the "present tense."

 

[jshugart]

What is your argument?

I don't have an argument yet, I am still waiting to see all the evidence. My initial (uneducated) reading tells me this:

"I am trying to understand the tenses used in this verse, when I study the English translations (assuming the translators understood Greek rules) I see this verse talking in the present or present\future tense."

That is posted in the post before yours. But you would have had to actually read it, to understand what it is I said. Did you read that sentence? Which part of the sentence structure is not clear?

I've told you, you gave me an interpretation I had never heard before, so I went searching again, and I couldn't seem to find anyone that holds that view. Only you. Which is fine, I have no issue if you want to hold beliefs different from mine. I don't care what you believe.

I don't care where the evidence leads. I had my reading of all the English versions, which didn't go counter to what the Christian Greek experts were saying. You provided me with a new interpretation, and I looked into it. You had a fit because I wouldn't take your word for it. Haha. I have asked for a single reference, to a scholar or even a fake scholar that can explain your point of view. Instead of telling me that there isn't one, or you can't find one, or even explaining to me why your translation (not interpretation) should be preferred over the English Bible translators? I have asked so many times, I can't remember how many, so please, either put up or ...

Please provide one source. I don't care what you came up with in your head, unless it is backed by correct Greek language translation rules.

There is a difference between translation and interpretation, which you don't seem to grasp. Translation is a hard science, there are strict rules (with some exceptions) to the language sentence structure. Interpretation, everyone has their own interpretation guidelines, so most people love to play in this space for the greatest flexibility.

Either supply one source that says this verse is only past tense referring to a single past event, or tell me you have none and it all based on your "faith" that your interpretation is correct. Or a third option, as long as it is an honest answer based on why the Greek should be translated your way.

I don't care what the end result is, as I will adjust my beliefs around the evidence. You, however, have already admitted that if your interpretation is wrong, then you have much bigger problems. So which way is your BIAS going to push you in and keep you from honestly evaluating?

I'll check back tomorrow. Love you Dad.

(What I think will happen: to all the regulars that know my Dad. I'm betting he is going to wax long and hard on who knows what. But the what won't be with providing a source, or addressing that issue. He will try and redirect the conversation. And he won't answer any of the questions actually posted to him, those will go ignored, because he can't redirect as well if he is distracted. And does he ever actually answer anyones questions? I'm hoping it isn't just me he does that too.)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't have an argument yet, I am still waiting to see all the evidence. My initial (uneducated) reading tells me this:

"I am trying to understand the tenses used in this verse, when I study the English translations (assuming the translators understood Greek rules) I see this verse talking in the present or present\future tense."

Since you admit that have no argument against what I said earlier I will help you out so you can attempt to actually formulate an argument. The tense of all the verbs at Hebrews 9:22 is the "present" tense.

I've told you, you gave me an interpretation I had never heard before, so I went searching again, and I couldn't seem to find anyone that holds that view. Only you. Which is fine, I have no issue if you want to hold beliefs different from mine. I don't care what you believe.

I gave you my interpretation and my interpretation fits perfectly with the context.

I don't care where the evidence leads. I had my reading of all the English versions, which didn't go counter to what the Christian Greek experts were saying. You provided me with a new interpretation, and I looked into it. You had a fit because I wouldn't take your word for it. Haha. I have asked for a single reference, to a scholar or even a fake scholar that can explain your point of view.

Why don't you actually try understanding the verse by what is actually said in the Bible? Is your faith built upon what some people say about the Scriptures or on what the Scriptures actually say?

Instead of telling me that there isn't one, or you can't find one, or even explaining to me why your translation (not interpretation) should be preferred over the English Bible translators? I have asked so many times, I can't remember how many, so please, either put up or ...

I quoted an English Bible translation as well as the context from that translation. I never said that it was an incorrect translation. You are the only one in this discussion having a difficult time understanding the English translation.

Please provide one source. I don't care what you came up with in your head, unless it is backed by correct Greek language translation rules.

Is the Bible itself not a sufficient source for you?

There is a difference between translation and interpretation, which you don't seem to grasp.

What have I said that even hints that I do not know the difference between translation and interpretation? You even admit that at this time you do not have an argument against what I said.

I made it very clear what Hebrews 9:22 is saying and I used the context to support my idea. You have seen what I said and so far you have not even attempted to prove anything which I said is in error.

And then you say that I do not know the difference between translation and interpretation. From what I see from you I think that you do not know the difference between what the Scriptures themselves say and people's interpreation of what they say.

Either supply one source that says this verse is only past tense referring to a single past event, or tell me you have none and it all based on your "faith" that your interpretation is correct. Or a third option, as long as it is an honest answer based on why the Greek should be translated your way.

My interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 is not based on the verse being past tense. Where did you ever get such an idea? My interpretation is based on what the author of Hebrews said and I considered what he said based on the context where it is found. As I said, if I am in error then tell me exactly what I said that is in error.

I don't care what the end result is, as I will adjust my beliefs around the evidence. You, however, have already admitted that if your interpretation is wrong, then you have much bigger problems. So which way is your BIAS going to push you in and keep you from honestly evaluating?

It seems to me that it is you who is biased because even though by your own admission you have no argument against what I said you still refuse to believe what I said. All I can see from you is a bias against believing what is so plainly revealed at Hebrews 9:18-22.

(What I think will happen: to all the regulars that know my Dad. I'm betting he is going to wax long and hard on who knows what. But the what won't be with providing a source, or addressing that issue. He will try and redirect the conversation. And he won't answer any of the questions actually posted to him, those will go ignored, because he can't redirect as well if he is distracted. And does he ever actually answer anyones questions? I'm hoping it isn't just me he does that too.)

You claim that you are so knowledgeable about what the Scriptures teach so it is time for you to actually address my interpretation of Hebrews 9:22. Trying to undermine me personally will help you no way in this discussion. Either you have evidence from the Scriptures that I am in error or you don't. And so far by your own admission you have nothing.

In His love,
Dad

 

[daqq]

Hello,

I am having a lively debate with my father about the meaning of a Greek text. Now I am not looking to argue with anyone here. All I'm doing is looking for someone who can take a Greek sentence and explain how the tense and structure is or could possible be.

Don't ask what verse, as that will just start a flame war. I'd prefer the Greek expert be Christian, so my father can not say I found an expert that comes from my own worldview and might be biased in my direction.

I am not looking for anything other than the truth, and as I know I can't read Greek, and my father doesn't know Greek, I would rather not have the blind leading the blind here, if you know what I mean.

Thank you

First of all take look here:
Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews (5.1.2)

That link should hopefully take you right to the page I am attempting to reference, (which I simply found in a search, knowing what to look for). And the only reason I point you there is simply for the fact that αἱματεκχυσία can also mean "blood application", as stated therein, and should not be understood as pertaining to the shedding of blood, (slaughter), in the context of the Hebrews passage where it is found. The Hebrews passage clearly concerns the application of blood, and in this case the Testimony of Messiah represents his blood, (Testimony is Spirit, John 6:63, and his blood is the Spirit of Grace, Heb 10:29), and thus, the Testimony of Messiah must be applied to the disciple; both inside, (drinking of that Spirit, 1Cor 12:13), and outside, (hands-deeds-actions). The reason this is highly critical is because we ourselves are called to be living sacrifices, (in supernal Torah your heart is an "altar of adamah", (Exodus 20:24 and its companion passage Deut 5:29 reveal this supernal truth by way of the Parable of the Sower where the heart is the adamah-soil which must be tilled and purged of stones, weeds, and so on)).

 

[jshugart]

First of all take look here:
Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews (5.1.2)

Thank you very much for the link and info. I will study this in detail.

Thank you again.

 

[jshugart]

You claim that you are so knowledgeable about what the Scriptures teach so it is time for you to actually address my interpretation

More of your psychological manipulation, really. Do you ever stop? Or do you always do this when you don't get your way? Should I ask around here, I'm sure there would be many that could tell me if I'm way off base.


I'm sorry Dad, that must have been more of my emails you didn't actually read. Let me restate here for you:

Knowing I have been wrong so often, if I convinced someone to change their views back when I thought I was right and I wasn’t, then I will have helped lead them away from God and the truth.I know I’m not 100% right, and I’m betting it is not even close to that number. So, knowing I could be wrong, why would I want to try and convince others when I’m not sure I’m 100% right?

I think I should concentrate on my walk instead of leading others to their doom. When someone searches for Yahweh with all their heart and soul (Duet 4:29-30, Jer 29:11-14), He will lead them to Him. Nothing I do or say is going to help them come to that point. If they are really searching and He leads them to me, I will share with them anything they ask.

The man that attempts to teach a horse to sing, annoys the horse and makes the teacher look like a fool.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

More of your psychological manipulation, really. Do you ever stop? Or do you always do this when you don't get your way? Should I ask around here, I'm sure there would be many that could tell me if I'm way off base.

What do you mean when you say I am not getting my way?

In case you didn't notice I am the one who gave my interpretation of the meaning of Hebrews 9:22 and it is you who has admitted that you have no argument at all against what I said.

And to make it worse you accuse me of using psychological manipulation!

 

[jshugart]

What do you mean when you say I am not getting my way?

In case you didn't notice I am the one who gave my interpretation of the meaning of Hebrews 9:22 and it is you who has admitted that you have no argument at all against what I said.

And to make it worse you accuse me of using psychological manipulation!

I'm sorry my being blunt with you is getting you upset.

I don't want to argue with you. I don't want to convince you of anything. I came on here because I am still studying this fork in my studies, but I won't be doing it with you. I am looking for data, facts, and evidence.

The entire reason I started this thread was because you insisted your theory of it being past tense pointing to a specific point in the past. I didn't see it then, and now you say you don't also. Now you have abandoned that theory for something new.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. But I will continue to do my studies without your help.

Love you,
- Son

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm sorry my being blunt with you is getting you upset.

I am not upset. Where did you ever get that idea?

In His love,
Dad

 

[Interplanner]

How about you two PM or email or just get on the phone?

 

[Nihilo]

First you need to look at the English translations.

Your dad's right. Unless your native in another language than English, that is all you need, even only the King James Bible (KJV) is all you need.

Whether or not you find the Greek expert or reference that you're looking for, the thing is the resurrection, that's what this whole faith's about.

Your dad believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, on the third day. It is nonfictional. At least five people were killed, given the death penalty deserved only by capital criminals like cold-blooded murderers, all because they wouldn't recant their testimony that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. So they all clearly believed it happened. And your dad is of their and that same faith.

If you see something which doesn't make sense to you check all of the translations which you can find and see if there is one which matches your ideas. If you want to check the tenses and meanings of Greek words you can go to this site for that:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1679&t=KJV

The KJV is a more word-for-word version, while modern versions are more typically frequently abstracted thought-for-thought translations from pretty much the same exact Greek version of the New Testament, so everybody is basically working on translating the same volume. Word-for-word versions like the KJV help me understand exactly what I'm reading in the abstracted idea-for-idea modern versions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The entire reason I started this thread was because you insisted your theory of it being past tense pointing to a specific point in the past. I didn't see it then, and now you say you don't also. Now you have abandoned that theory for something new.

Let us look at this verse again:

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb.9:22).​

Here the author of Hebrews uses the present tense when referring to the law, the Mosaic Covenant. The reason he did that was because at that time that covenant had not yet vanished away:

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb.8:13).​

By 70 AD it had passed away with the destruction of the Temple. And that is why I spoke of the Mosaic Covenant and the sacrifices which accompanied it in the past tense.

In His love,
Dad

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How about you two PM or email or just get on the phone?

How about you let them handle it however they feel like handling it.