http://ichthys.com/ 
Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations XIV
Question #1:   
Hi Dr. Luginbill,

Hope you and yours are well and happy!

I came across the Apocrypha, Sea Scrolls and some others…. It’s a wonder a believer can stay strong when men tamper, change and pollute it!! 

When saw this : In the Son, God made heaven and earth…. It brought it home for me… don’t know if it SHOULD be written that way, but to me it certainly makes much more sense…

Early Christians had talked about The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus. It had strange interpretations of the Old Testament books, which it said were “allegorical.” Verses were quoted—but they were different.

At Genesis 1:1, we’d expect “In the beginning, God made heaven and earth,” but Jason and Papiscus had this instead:

“In the son, God made heaven and earth.”

Just needed somebody to share that thought with…

In the name Yeshua
Response #1:
Good to hear from you! How are you getting on?

As to your question, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you read enough apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material, you might just bump into something that makes sense (or is at least not totally wrong). Jerome said that reading the apocrypha was like "looking for gold nuggets in the mud". There are better places to look – like the actual Bible.
(1) God, from antiquity communicated to our fathers in the prophets at many times and in many ways, (2) [but now] in these last days He has communicated to us in a Son, [the One] whom He has appointed heir of all things, [the One] through whom He created the universe (i.e., time-space). 
Hebrews 1:1-2
Yes, Jesus Christ created the world – but that is clearly stated in the New Testament (e.g., Jn.1:3; 1Cor.8:6; Col.1:16-17; Heb.1:2). So this quote is just an interpretation based upon what the Bible clearly states elsewhere.

However, as to "what it SHOULD say", that is where the bigger problem with this quote and the mindset it betrays lies. The Bible says what it says wherever it says it for a reason. Reason enough right there to give all apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, theosophy and anything new age a very wide berth.

To respond to the statement itself, in Old Testament times, people were not yet ready for a full-throated explanation of the Trinity – even though it is clearly there, even in Genesis (i.e., "Let US make man in our image"). But after the gift of the Spirit following our Lord's victory on the cross, it was possible to explain many things which had been only adumbrated in the past. That is all part of God's perfect plan of revelation.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
1st Peter 1:10-12 NIV
Here are some links:
Is there any value to the Apocrypha?
The Bible and the Canon: The Inspired Word of God II
The Bible and the Canon: The Inspired Word of God IV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
On Sunday at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, our priest held a meeting after the service for those who are planning on continuing Bible study. She wants us to read the Gospel of St. Thomas. She had 4 versions of this gospel for us to take a look at. I was going to order The Gospel of St. Thomas: Wisdom of the Twin by Lynn Bauman. I found it on Amazon, but it was $499. That is not a typo. There were a fair number of texts of the Gospel of St. Thomas to choose from. But I am mystified as to what to pick.
Response #2:
On the so-called "Gospel of Thomas", I couldn't recommend spending any time on it. This is part of a genre of literature known as "pseudipigrapha"; this particular work was found at Nag Hammadi and is Gnostic in its approach. About the only thing we can say for certain about it is that it has nothing to do with Thomas – or the actual gospel (as it true of all such fictional creations). So I wouldn't spend 49 cents on it – let alone $499!

Here's something I wrote about this in the past:
There is a "gospel of Thomas", but it is not a canonical work (i.e., it is fiction, and most definitely not an inspired part of the Word of God). The only reference to an English translation I can give you is A. Guillaumont et al., "The Gospel according to Thomas" (1959), which is probably out of print, but there are no doubt more popular versions floating around. I would check a good reference library (you should do so "on-line" before running over somewhere out of the way only to find they don't have it or it's checked out). 

It was very common in the ancient world to "make up" works by famous people who were otherwise without "corpus" (i.e., a "body" of material written by them). As one of the disciples, Thomas was a perfect candidate for a late work of fiction such as this "gospel" is. Good articles with bibliography can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (both sub voce "Thomas"). Again, as interesting as this sort of material is (it's generally called "Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha", consisting mainly of apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical material), it is very important to remember that this sort of thing has nothing to do with Jesus or His Word.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

The Orthodox Study Bible: Is the above Bible a good Bible to study with or?

Thanks for your comments and observations of this study Bible, whether Excellent, good, not good, or bad?

Thanks for your opinion and remarks.

Blessings to you always,

Your friend, 
Response #3:
I've not used it but from what I can see of the preview I couldn't recommend it. The "Orthodox" here is referring to the Greek Orthodox church. This particular Bible you ask about has liturgy from that church and quotations from the church fathers which accord with their teachings. I have known individuals from this church who were upstanding individuals (same goes from RCs), but the religion itself, similar to the RC church, is focused on the past and tradition (icons, rituals, and writings other than scripture), so any study Bible they produced would have to suffer from their assumptions. 
Also, the Greek Orthodox church uses the Septuagint as their Old Testament, not the Hebrew Masoretic text, so there would be many places where the translation seems wrong or odd . . . because it is. The LXX has many places where it diverges from the Hebrew text significantly.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Question about the CES version. I have so many books in my library but I noticed this one that I bought some time back, when I forget. But, the reason I am writing is to get your opinion of this Contemporary English Version. I finally opened this morning, why I don't know, but I read the first several verse in The Gospel of John, chapter 1.

1. John 1:1-5 CES version.
1In the beginning was the one
who is called the Word.
The Word was with God
and was truly God.
2From the very beginning
the Word was with God.
3And with this Word,
God created all things.
Nothing was made
without the Word.
Everything that was created
4received its life from him,
and his life gave light
to everyone.
5The light keeps shining
in the dark,
and darkness has never
put it out.+

I sure would like your opinion of this particular translation. It seems to be an easier translation to read, especially for a new believer??

Thanks so much for your opinion.

Please let me know if their are any things to look out for.

Blessings be with you on this special remembrance of the One who died for our sins, and gave us eternal life. This is Easter; it should be "Resurrection", not Easter. My opinion.

Your friend,
Response #4:
I've never used this version. From the passage you include here, it seems to be something along the lines of the NLT. That is to say, an interpretive translation. These are indeed easier to read, but instead of "studied ambiguity" for the which the KJV is notable, they "tell you what it means". That is great . . . if they are right. So in verse five, for example, they have "the darkness has never put it out". This could conceivably be what katalambano means here, but there is no "never". More likely, the KJV is correct with it's "the darkness comprehended it not".

I'm all for believers reading multiple versions. If they did, they would have questions about passages such as this they didn't know they had before . . . and perhaps be motivated to expose themselves to some good Bible teaching.

Happy Easter to you and yours too, my friend! I'm not much on holidays (since we've been liberated from all that: Gal.4:9-11; Col.2:16-17). I remember the Lord and the cross every day.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I just wanted to share the happy news of me purchasing the 1984 NIV 

Stewardship study Bible. Through numerous emails I read , you suggest this version and how rare it is. I was talking to the owner of the Lighthouse Book store about them being obsolete, and he was telling me what a mistake they made changing it. Then he said he was cleaning up inventory and ran across one. So I bought it. I can’t wait to gloss over it.

I spend most of my time reading and studying the Revelations series of yours. I love how you tie it all in with the books of the Old Testament. Your commentary of the Bible is so accurate. I thank God for the work and devotion you put into making sure we know the truth. Also for answering questions we have.

Again thank you and may God continue to bless you
Response #5:
Congratulations!

Yes, it's becoming an ever more difficult Bible to find, but there are still some out there. Kudos to you for putting in the effort and finding one. I do enjoy that version. It's not perfect (NKJV is more accurate in many places) but it is very readable.

And thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words!

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Hey Bob, what do you think about the Christian Standard Bible? We moved to Florida and are trying out new churches. The pastor of the most recent church we are looking into uses it for his sermons. The CSB website said it uses "optimal equivalence" which it says produces linguistic and readability. Is it a reliable translation? Have you met any of its translators personally? On a side note, this is our second visit here and he started his verse by verse on James today. I’ll be interested to see how his teaching matches up with your thoughts as well as mine from our last discussion a few weeks ago. 
Response #6:
I have used the CSB from time to time, but I've never read through the whole thing. It would take many hours to do a fair evaluation. I can only say that I didn't find it "noticeably objectionable" when I have used it. All translations are, by their very nature, imperfect. I always tell believers to consult multiple translations whenever they find something "surprising" whether it encourages them or upsets them. Also, since it is very rare for one person to be qualified to translate the whole Bible (and since that would take decades at least), just as with the KJV, the standard practice is to farm out chapters and even parts of chapters to different translators. As a result, a version could be good in Galatians, mediocre in Ephesians, and poor in Philippians. Also, it is not uncommon for one verse/paragraph to be exceptionally well rendered but followed by another which is problematic. I consult directly the Greek and the Hebrew (and the Aramaic) when I do my own translating.

Re: "Have you met any of its translators personally?" As with the KJV, the standard practice is for the producers of the version NOT to let anyone know who has translated what. So unless one knows someone personally and has been told on the Q.T. that said person is part of the team, the team is usually anonymous (one of my seminary professors was involved with NASB but he didn't tell us which part[s]). All of the translations at Ichthys are done by me (see the link), but my objective in providing them is to communicate what they actually say and mean rather than to produce a "readable" Bible translation (as anyone accessing Ichthys finds out pretty quick, my translations do not "sing" – but I do hope they illuminate the truth).

Best wishes finding a church that teaches the truth sufficiently to grow. If you do, that will be an unusual blessing in this day and age.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Thanks Bob. Glad to hear you haven’t seen anything glaringly wrong with it. I did see on the CSB website they named a team of 10 people involved, although it didn’t mention which parts they worked on. That's interesting that different translators work in different chapters. I didn’t realize that. Thanks for the wishes. We’re currently trying out our 4th church now and it’s our favorite so far. Take care. 
Response #7:
That's a very small number of individuals to do the entire Bible. KJV had 47 scholars, I believe, and it still took them some time. Makes me wonder how much of CSB was originally translated from Greek and Hebrew vs. how much was just a "check and modification" on a synopsis of other English versions. Translators don't "start from nothing". That was true of the KJV as well which owes much to Wycliffe's version and of course to the Latin Vulgate, e.g.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Ok. So the CSB is actually an update of the Holman Christian Standard Bible which had 100 translators. This is what it said about what manuscripts it used. 

The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 5th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th edition. Where there are significant differences among Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscripts, the translators follow what they believe is the original reading and indicate the main alternative(s) in footnotes.
Response #8:
Interesting.

Re: "The textual base for the New Testament . . . etc." – they all say this sort of thing, but the proof is in the pudding, i.e., what the translators do with these critical editions we all use (for the most part; see the link).

If I were really bound to look into this question, I would try to find out the organizational affiliation of CSB and then compare the update to the original. Otherwise, the update has probably been done for economic reasons, i.e., having gotten blow-back for something or other and wanting to make their product less offensive. It would be interesting to have list of changes and compare the two – that would be very revealing (but my guess is that such a list is hard to come by).

By way of comparison, the new NIV as opposed to the original 1984 NIV did just that. Here's an example:
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
Matthew 12:31 NIV 1984

"And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"
Matthew 12:31 NIV (new)
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Re:  Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews by Dr. Robert D. Luginbill

In your introduction here you mention "a new translation of the book".

Is this available in book form?
Response #9: 
Good to hear from you, my friend.

The "book" is the "book of Hebrews" which I'm translating as I produce each chapter (here's a link to the list of translations from Hebrews so far at Ichthys).

None of the materials posted to Ichthys are available for purchase, but I have no problem with readers printing these studies off or out for themselves. Pertinent links on that:
FAQ# 1. Books: Are these studies available in printed format?

FAQ# 18. Use Policy: How may I use the materials found at Ichthys?
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi Bob,

[omitted]

I wanted to ask you something, Bob. I have a pretty good NKJV study Bible but how useful would you say Bible handbooks and dictionaries are? Just something I was thinking about the last couple of days.

Thanks Bob and take care.

In Jesus
Response #10:
Happy to hear all this.

Bible dictionaries and Bible handbooks are similar; the former is usually organized alphabetically, the latter often thematically. They are as good as the person(s) who wrote them. 

Generally speaking, if you want to know something like who Nebuchadnezzar was and when he reigned they are pretty good (the good ones, anyway). If you want to know about the doctrine of kenosis or anything doctrinal you won't get much help (and can get many a "bum steer"). Haley's handbook isn't too bad; Smith's Bible Dictionary and also Unger's are OK (but, for example, in the case of the latter, many of the articles are written not by him but by different individuals and some of them know what they are talking about more or less but others do not). Bible encyclopedias are "more of the same" only more extensive (i.e., longer with more entries); the ISBE is the best of the lot there though it suffers from all of the problems above (many authors).

Which NKJV SB do you have? I have a Ryrie's (not very valuable); the Kenneth Barker SB's of whatever version are better.

Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily – thanks for yours too, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
[omitted] 

I really appreciate all the info on Bible handbooks etc. and the links you gave me are very helpful. The NKJV study Bible I have is one I bought when I first came back to the Lord. It's just one from Thomas Nelson - a full colour edition. Then I found Ichthys and I always took note when you mentioned people like Kenneth Barker. I'm sure something of his would be better than what I have.

You hear of so many resources out there but I'm not sure how useful a lot of it would be. As you say, I guess it depends what you're looking for. I wonder whether some Christians buy a lot of books but get bogged down with it all and end up wasting their time and money. I don't mean to sound negative - I just have a feeling that's a possibility. But it's great that there's free stuff online. I have no problems when it comes to things like kenosis. I have all the teaching I need on that at Ichthys! I'm very thankful to the Lord for Ichthys and Bible Academy too.

Thanks again, Bob!

In Jesus
Response #11:
[omitted]

Sorry to hear that you're a bit off, but I'm glad it wasn't enough to ruin things. Make sure you get some rest. Same plan here (food poisoning made for a rough night but I'm better today and looking forward to being done with the week tomorrow). 

I did an exercise for my upper level Latin class (Martial's epigrams this spring). Got on ChatGPT and told it to "Write a poem in Latin elegaic couplets about the death of a charioteer in the style of the Roman poet, Martial." And what do you know? In thirty seconds it produced a five stanza, metrical poem in Latin which is not at all bad! It even has some interesting alliteration in the last two lines. It made a couple of mistakes trying to get too cute with the Latin, but this is pretty scary – all of the lines scanned metrically. The mistakes it made were the sort that an English speaker would make through thinking in English and using a Latin dictionary to come up with the text he/she wanted. 

Re: "I wonder whether some Christians buy a lot of books but get bogged down with it all and end up wasting their time and money." No doubt! It took me a long time to figure out that there is nothing much of at useful in 99% of commentaries, e.g. The only ones that tend to be valuable at all are ones written in the last century when commentators had a workman-like knowledge of the language and before all these (false) pet theories of composition surfaced (link). If I could sell back most of my books at ten cents on the dollar I would jump at the chance! Some things ARE valuable: dictionaries, lexicons, some history books (but where the Bible is concerned even here there is lot of chaff), some Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias along with other reference books, and there are a few commentaries which have a small amount of valued (Keil and Delitzsch for the OT, e.g.). Today, of course, there is so much available online that most of the "good stuff" can be found on the computer without paying a fortune and weighing down the old shelves even more (as in the example given).

Thanks for the good words!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Thank you, Bob! It's good to know you're feeling better now. Food poisoning is very nasty.

The ChatGPT poem sounds very impressive (and scary). I read that ChatGPT has ingested huge troves of written works to give its answers. Makes me think about how rapidly technology is advancing and that it's not always a good thing. I wonder what role it might play in the Tribulation. I'm not sure how I just switched from the Roman poet, Martial to the Tribulation! I guess the future events are always there in my mind. It did get me reading some of Martial's poetry this morning though. You got me researching! I'd never heard of him before.

I don't feel that I can trust most commentaries because I trust what you say about them. You've saved me a lot of time figuring that out first. I don't see the point of reading them if a lot of what they say is off. I do have Unger's OT commentary but that's only because you said it was an OK one. The little I have read from it has been helpful. Wouldn't it be so much easier if they all got it right? But I'm thankful to have you to help me along.

I think we're very privileged to have so many translations of the Bible and tools for Bible study. I do appreciate it but at the same time sometimes I can feel overwhelmed by it. It would be easy to go off on a tangent, so I think it's good to be focused on your own growth/study plan and not get too distracted by everything else that's out there. Am I making any sense there, Bob?

Anyway, I'm feeling better than I was yesterday too. And today has been a beautiful sunny day. And it's the weekend! Hope you have a great one!

In Jesus
Response #12:
When I showed this to my class, we saw that one of the mistakes was particularly interesting. It confused "blow" as noun (i.e., the "blows of whips") with the verb "blow" (which in Latin looks nothing like the noun; different roots). I.e., this is a mistake an English speaker would make. When I plugged this line into Google translate, it "understood it" just in the way ChatGPT did. That means that this AI, anyway, is really functioning in English. But, very scarily, . . . is also apparently "talking" to other AIs. And they are confirming each others mistakes. That sounds like end-times stuff to me too.

Unger is much better than most. I rarely find him completely wrong; although there are plenty of times he doesn't tell me what I'd like to know (understandable in a commentary trying to cover the entire OT).

I'm glad you're feeling better! So am I . . . especially now that it's Friday evening.

Have a great weekend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Hi Bob,

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate you and how much your ministry has helped, nourished and blessed me! I couldn't imagine going through all these steep learning curve years on the edge of Tribulation in the wilderness without it! I have also been very blessed all these years through your tireless support, friendship and fellowship!

I don't tell you as often as I should but I really do appreciate your fight for the truth and unwillingness to compromise in these late innings. I know this couldn't have been easy for you in these Laodicean times but we all have benefitted enormously from your dedication to serving us and the Lord in truth.

Look forward to cheering you on when you are given a great reward from the Lord Himself!

Marana-tha!
p.s., Just thought you would want to know: I know on your site you have a link to Scourby.com (audio files of Alexander Scourby reading the KJV version) which then links to the Scourby YouTube channel...the problem is that this channel promotes the Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch as well. I noticed before they also promoted in their videos iconography of Mary as the "Queen of heaven" and Eastern Orthodox iconography of Jesus too. It is becoming a bit of a mess that channel now. Don't know how you still feel about it? Don't know if you would still recommend it or with a disclaimer/warning? There is another website that has all the Scourby recordings from the Bible though not sure if they have the permission to host the recordings and it is a Baptist site so it will obviously have its own problems too (also linking to another ministry who I have not vetted).
https://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/ListenToTheKingJamesBible.html
I know now which books to listen to and what to avoid though I realise that other believers may be confused which texts are part of the canon. Thought you would appreciate the heads up!
Response #13:
Thanks awfully for the encouraging words, my friend! I'm gratified . . . but even more happy to see you recovering in all ways and being joyous yourself. Keeping up the prayer!

Thanks for the heads-up on Scourby. I did a universal replace of the .com link with the one you suggested. Much appreciated. We don't want to be a part of anyone being led astray in any way.

Got through the week! Thanks for the prayers.

Wishing you a wonderful weekend, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Thanks Bob,

I got my joy back and my first love which is very important! There's a lot of juggling to do as a believer as we need to be moving forward and doing well on multiple fronts at the same time in this battle. I regrouped and now am moving forward again.

I needed to add that the link I sent you, although it isn't pushing the same huge errors as the Scourby one, it still has problems of its own. I guess this will be an increasing problem with linking to external material, there always seems to be compromises on the truth one way or another. There is no wild teachings on there (like promoting non-canonical/Gnostic texts) but it has all the usual errors that comes from the Laodicean church visible that are typical from a Baptist denomination.

Managed to have a more detailed read over the 'contending the faith' site I sent you and can summarise their declaration of faith and list where they clash with your own ministry...
• Believes in continuation of five fold ministry 
• OSAS
• That our Lord shed His blood
• Hold to water baptism
• Hold to pre-trib rapture
• Reject the gap theory 
• Believe life begins at conception
• Encourages tithing 
• Emphasis on 'soul winning' to the exclusion of everything else
• Over emphasis on social debates such as abortion and LGBTQ
• King James only-ist
I will leave it to you to decide whether this is a good substitute for the Scourby.com link or not. It's hard to gauge which false teaching is worse. You might prefer to actually use this link now though instead. It is to the Internet Archive and has the Scourby files how they used to be without weird iconography or links to non-canonical books.
https://archive.org/details/19-psalms-in-audio-with-chapters-from-the-kjv-of-the-bible._202212/36+Zephaniah+in+audio+with+chapters+from+the+KJV+of+the+bible..mp4
Sorry to not research the other one fully first before recommending it. I only listened to the audio on there myself but realise how things have to be thoroughly vetted before passing them on in case they have snares or stumbling blocks which may trip up those young to faith. Sometimes vetting things can take considerable time and reading before they get the seal of approval! Such is these perilous Laodicean times!

In Jesus,
Response #14:
I'm very happy to hear that you are doing well spiritually again, my friend! That is a real answer to prayer. Praying also for your physical healing in all things.

On the new link, I looked at this newest one and it's pretty problematic as to actually finding and then using something (also a long load time). 

It pretty much goes without saying that websites other than the one I'm in control of will have things we disagree with. The first link was over the top and I also didn't notice the problems with #2. But on the grounds that Ichthys users will tend to have some spiritual common sense on the one hand, and that the objective here is to be able to listen to S's recordings on the other, I'll keep the new link #2 as is – but thanks for all the digging! Anyone wondering about some ministry or site or book could do a lot worse than running it by you first! That definitely bodes very well for your own soon-to-be revealed ministry, my friend.

Keeping you and yours in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

[omitted]

Glad to hear about the new semester! I don't know why I never asked this before but the Greek you teach; it is basically the same as biblical Greek correct (the type in which Scripture was written)? I understand there is koine and then another type(?) but never took the time to investigate as to the differences between those types (You'll have to enlighten me). My father knows about your career (I've told him a little about you over the years) and was interested to know what type you teach. 

Sorry if it sounds like a silly question. I just never thought about it before. 

In Christ, 
Response #15:
Thanks for the info. Sounds like if you shadowed someone doing the job a few times you'd be good to go pretty quick.

As to Greek, no need to apologize as this is a very common misconception, deliberately perpetuated by seminaries et al. because of selfish reasons (if you ask me). 

Greek is Greek, from 800 B.C. to 500 or so A.D., and even after that the language is essentially the same . . . Byzantine Greek . . . until the Turkish conquest. Academic Greek then had to go underground and so the "demotic" or people's language became divorced from reading and writing and so skidded into what today is "Modern Greek". However, even so, Modern Greek is much closer to ancient Greek than modern day English is to Old English – and it's a difference of 28 centuries or so instead of seven or eight. This remarkable staying power and consistency of the language has to do with the root-based nature of Greek which makes it much less susceptible to change in terms of individual words, but even so, losing reading and writing messed with the cases and verb system quite a bit.

Long story short, if you can read Plato, you can read the New Testament without any trouble. The reverse is not necessarily the case because the NT is much easier to read than the classics of the 4/5 cent. B.C. Loose analogy: reading the newspaper vs. reading Shakespeare. If you can read the latter, you can read the former, but if your English is minimal and you've never had a formal education, or if English is your second language, then reading Shakespeare can be a bit of a challenge – but it is the same language. "Koine" means "common" and this is a distinction biblical scholars fostered after WWII in order to give credence to false theories of NT interpretation (see the link); if it's a different language than classical Greek, then we can look at the NT in a whole new way (wrong). 

Conservative seminaries picked up on this because it absolved them and their students from actually learning real Greek. This has contributed to the very sloppy scholarship that characterizes things today and also to the myopic and subjective treatment of the NT we find in evangelical circles – as if the Bible were created in a cultural vacuum. Sort of like being interested in Dickens as a non-English speaker and only ever reading Dickens – as if considering any other works in English were somehow unnecessary to understanding Dickens. But to say that Dickens is so special that all other English is essentially a different language and that those who learn English outside of Dickens can't really understand Dickens would be monumentally nuts. But that is what a lot of people say about Koine (by which really they mean the NT since that is the only thing they ever deal with – I would say "read" but most of these people can't really "read it" like we would read a work in English).

Anyway, I'd be happy to answer any specific questions about this that you and your dad may have. Here's one link which may prove helpful: Koine vs. Classical Greek

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Sorry to get back to you so late. I've just been really busy and occupied with other things (family, the holidays, etc.). Life is busy and distracting in general but I can't wait to get back to writing again (although I"m currently doing some editing on the site). It isn't always easy trying to balance work, family, ministry, and everything else in life and I continually go through periods where other things have to be addressed and prioritized more than normal so that I'm not always able to do as much of the "usual" that I typically do. 

Regarding the Greek, I did visit the link and read through some of it but may go back at some point and read/reread more of it (I'll take a look at the other link as well in Bibliology). However, it might just be easier for me to ask you a few things directly (I'm getting confused over words here). Do you teach modern Greek or ancient (the word classical throws me off a bit)? Does koine refer to ancient Greek or modern? That said, the New Testament was written in ancient Greek? 

"Conservative seminaries picked up on this because it absolved them and their students from actually learning real Greek. "

Just trying to understand, but what do you mean they aren't actually learning real Greek? 

I'm only asking for myself here and probably won't relay this to my father because he will most likely disagree with a good bit of your answer.

In Christ, 
Response #16:
Re: "It isn't always easy trying to balance work, family, ministry, and everything else in life" – Amen to that! But the Lord does help us (we have the Spirit), and it's those who persevere through this sort of opposition who are up for top rewards in the end.

On the questions, it's a little bit of a "blind men and the elephant" situation. If you spent a month or so studying Greek, this would all be crystal clear. But here goes:

1. "Do you teach modern Greek or ancient (the word classical throws me off a bit)?" I teach ancient Greek, AKA Classical Greek. 

2. "Does koine refer to ancient Greek or modern?" Koine is a made up subcategory of ancient/Classical Greek. The Greek of the Bible is only marginally different from the Greek of Herodotus, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle (etc., etc.).

3. "That said, the New Testament was written in ancient Greek?" Yes indeed.

4. "What do you mean they aren't actually learning real Greek?" That's not exactly the way I put it, but in effect it's true. It's not that at seminary they aren't learning Greek – they just aren't learning it well or the right way. They are focusing in on a minuscule piece of a very large corpus and calling it by a new name ("koine") to justify not learning how to read Greek generally. As a result, they really don't teach enough Greek in seminary for the average person to ever be able to read it fluently or to understand it in a broader context, only to be familiar enough with it to talk about words, as in "This word means X in Greek" etc. 

5. "He will most likely disagree with a good bit of your answer." Your dad knows Greek?

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Got much needed sleep last night (I was off work)! Yesterday was productive and the day I'm sending you this email has been thus far (I'm gonna be busy the rest of the day). Once I start training at work next month (6 months day shift and it's basically like trade school except you're getting paid well to do it) I will be having Saturdays and Sundays off for that time period which will be nice for the time it lasts. But my days off will still be the only days I will be able to do anything writing/ministry wise. 

I wanted to ask you out of curiosity what your thoughts would be (even if I think I already know it) if you heard someone say (regarding careers and secular matters) "You have to have vision/or a vision in life of where you are going and what you'll be doing." I googled the word "vision" in our English language and the definition was "the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom." Some people think that unless you do, you don't know where you are going and that you're lost (Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big promoter of this). This may be a simple issue to address, but this statement isn't entirely true or false (there is some truth and error in it). Like, yes, it is good to plan things out ahead of time and give them thought. 

On the other hand, we have verses like James 4:13 and Proverbs 19:21 that warn about getting too proud and confident about this. Regarding spiritual matters, I know that our "vision" should be to grow, progress, and produce for the Lord as much as we can (whatever all the details (invisible to us for certain periods) look like along the way). There is going to be much we cannot see (we walk by faith and not by sight 2 Corinthians 5:7) just as Abraham didn't know where He was going when God called Him to travel to a distant land (Hebrews 11:8). Plus, following the Lord where He wants us to go may entail (in some cases) foregoing some (if not many) of our prior plans, goals, dreams, and aspirations (depending). 

Here's what I'm getting at. Regarding secular matters (one example is what job to take, etc.)- I don't like when people say that if you don't have vision or a vision in life (generally speaking I suppose), you are lost and that is always a bad thing. That just seems to be worldly thinking to some extent. I didn't know what I wanted to do for years and couldn't thoroughly plan ahead because I ended up changing my mind many times about what I wanted to do in life later on (using myself as only one example here). [omitted] and so that is what I am pursuing for now whether it ends up working out in the end or not. I can't help but think of Jeremiah 29:11 and applying that in general.

Speaking generally here, what if the Lord is testing said person by helping them to walk by faith and not sight? Plus, plans can change (as they did in my case and this happens all the time)! What if what you wanted to do originally (what you formally "envisioned") doesn't work out? What if what you end up doing is something that God brings into your life suddenly and you begin only shortly after? I think there are times when we can't always have vision in life regarding these matters and that, sometimes, the Lord does that to test and grow our faith to place us where He wants us instead of where we wanted to go originally (something that wasn't in God's plan for us). In other words, God may want it to be that way for a purpose! Sure, some people have dreams as children of what they want to do (Billy wants to be a firefighter or a police officer, while Sally wants to be a nurse when she grows up). Good for all these people who ended up doing what they dreamed of when they were children; I was and am not one of those people. We all have different stories to tell. 

With that said, do you think we should ever tell people (speaking of general life matters) "you have to have vision or a vision in life?" As in, "You've got to have a purpose" (true but also false and potentially misleading in some ways)? Plan ahead to some extent for certain things, sure. But I see a bit of harm wording things that way because of the damage it can cause. I'm not saying its bad to have vision but some people (especially regarding careers and what have you) don't have them (even if they previously envisioned some things that didn't end up working out). Sure, I guess once believers know what they want to do (assuming the Lord wants them doing it), that becomes their vision and they pursue it. So I guess we always end up having "vision" in the end. But in light of everything I've said above (perhaps I've already explained everything here to myself, so sorry about that), don't you think we should be careful wording things this way? 

"and it's those who persevere through this sort of opposition who are up for top rewards in the end"

Although I already knew this, I thank you for reminding me (I needed the encouragement). I was encouraged to hear you say that you believe the Lord has a special purpose for me and the other young pastor teachers and that the Lord may very well have a special role for us to play during the Tribulation. I don't want to be proud or self-righteous, but it would be nice if more people were interested in what we had to say. It would be nice to see others growing in the truth and to be able to get to meet new people and make some new friends. 

[omitted]

On the Greek... 

"Koine is a made up subcategory of ancient/Classical Greek. The Greek of the Bible is only marginally different from the Greek of Herodotus, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle (etc., etc.)."

I'm still unraveling some of this in my mind (I've really had to think this through!). So despite biblical (or more modern) Greek being only marginally different from that of Plato and Herodotus, we would still categorize both as "ancient Greek" since they are virtually still the same language (just like old and new English- the examples you gave), correct? 

And if koine Greek is a made up subcategory of Ancient and Classical, in what exact ways is it different and where did it come from? The word means "common" but what is that supposed to mean specifically? I really don't get how or why people can make up a subcategory like that. This is really arousing my interest and I'm gonna take a good look at those links you provided. I know these questions are simple for you but as someone who doesn't know Greek, well, obviously not so much for me just now looking into this. 

"Your dad knows Greek?"

Thinking about it now, I was only speculating as to whether he would agree or not. I actually don't know (now that you've explained things more in detail), so you can disregard that. It was probably just because of some misunderstandings I had at first toward the beginning of our discussion. I mean, its possible he may not see the problems with the ways seminaries teach Greek as a big deal, unlike you and me, but I don't know that. The issues you addressed with the way seminaries teach Greek would not necessarily be issues to him, per se (but again, I don't know). 

[omitted]

Its crazy to think Moses and Elijah will be here next year. Wow, assuming 2026 is the date, this will be the last full year we will experience before the Tribulation begins. I really want to make the most out of it! 

In His grace and power, 
Response #17:
Glad to hear that you are feeling better and also that you are going to be getting a bit of respite, even if it's only temporary.

As to "the vision thing", this was a big deal back about forty years ago or so, putatively having a biblical foundation based on the following verse:
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Proverbs 29:18 KJV
It was an issue in presidential campaigns ("What's your 'vision'?") and now my university, our college, and even our department have to have "vision statements". Of course the verse above actually means the following:
When there is no [respect for] divine communication (lit., "vision" [from God]), the people are unrestrained, but he who obeys the Law will be blessed.
Proverbs 29:18
The Law and the "vision" from God are referring to the same thing (as is typical in Hebrew poetry where the two halves of a verse balance and or contrast to each other). This is an easy one to figure out, but alas very few are really interested in figuring out what the Bible really means.

In any case, as you rightly discern, coming up with your OWN "vision" is self-centered instead of God-centered. Such a "vision" means "what do I want to do?" and not "what does God want me to do?" At best it's pure secularism and unbelief. At worst it's downright satanic.

What you are doing is exactly right. "I know what God wants me to do – so what is the best way to go about it?" That is fundamentally different from the attitudes you report. You are right. They are wrong – obviously, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Once more on the Greek. Old English is not understandable by us at all today absent special training. But Paul could easily read Homer and Plato – and he alludes to and even quotes classical authors all the time in the same way people today quote Shakespeare. 

Attic, ancient, Classical, Koine – it's all the same Greek. Modern Greek, however, is much different for reasons explained before. Modern Greeks today get Classical Greek in school but they have to learn it as a separate language the way we today learn Latin (at least everyone SHOULD take Latin).

Homer is different because it's poetry – just like Byron and Longfellow and whomever else you prefer are different from English prose. 

Let me put it this way, the difference between, e.g., Demosthenes (4th cent. B.C.) and Luke (1st cent. A.D.) is about the same as the difference between the language of the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist papers and today's newspaper – and actually the latter is probably more of a difference than the former. It's the same language in either case; it's just that ancient/classical is harder to read because it's complicated prose in the same way that the Federalist papers are, using slightly more elevated vocabulary. But it's NOT a difference in language.

Happy to have another go at this. Also, it's a long email and I may have missed addressing some of your concerns. Do feel free to write me back as always.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Did you get any snow out your way? We got about 7 inches (1 inch or so expected tonight)? I can't wait till Spring so I can go out and do some hiking at ___ (my personal "playground" because I love that place so much). 

On the Greek... 

Thanks for your patience. Ok, I get and follow what you're saying in general. Just a couple details to clear up. What do you mean when you say koine is a "made up" subcategory? I've heard of Attic Greek before and you mentioned it's the same language as the others just like koine but what is it specifically and where does it get its name (or what does that word mean) and why? That should be all I got for that. 

[omitted]

Your brother in Christ, 
Response #18:
We got about 15 inches of snow and ice last weekend, and it's still coming down now! I got Wednesday off . . . well, actually it was more work than going in and teaching because I had to prepare videos and assignments for my classes to make up for it. Today, since the storm was picking up, they cancelled at 1PM which meant I didn't meet my first year Latin class (probably the one which will suffer least from a missed session in the long run, so no worries there).

On Greek, when Alexander conquered Persia, he did so with a polyglot army that was composed of Greeks from all over, not just Macedonians. So there was a need to communicate in a standardized way. That was even more so the case when the Diadochi, his successors, were receiving more Greeks immigrating from the west and also establishing the Greek language and Greek customs as the "glue" for their empires. Just as Xenophon and the 10,000 had done a generation before, that just meant using Attic Greek as a base and simplifying it somewhat (i.e., using simple as opposed to complex grammar and basic rather than elevated vocabulary) so that everyone could "get the gist". 

Someone at some later time called this "Koine" which means "common" (i.e., basic Greek we all pretty much share in common whether we are Dorians, Ionians or Aeolians, educated or not, and so we can all understand each other 100%). As Greek became the lingua franca of the whole eastern Mediterranean world and the cultural language of the entire classical civilization, those who communicated in it did so not in their native dialects but in this common part of the language understandable to all. 

So "koine" is essentially Attic Greek, the Greek of Sophocles, Aristophanes and Aristotle, just "dumbed down" so that anyone could understand it (any Greek speaker, that is). The Attic dialect is the base, because the majority of the great and popular literature most everyone was familiar with was written in that dialect. So, in essence, the only thing different between the Greek of Luke and the Greek of Plato is that Luke is easier to understand because he uses simpler grammar and vocabulary (in the same way that it's easier to read the newspaper than Emerson).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,

I haven't been nearly as good keeping up in the original languages as I suppose I had initially envisioned I would be. It is what it is, I suppose.

Over the last few days, I've spent some time puttering around making a Hebrew keyboard layout to see if I can maybe get myself to do more by leaning more into the MH side of things. When I had my two semesters of Hebrew in college, everything was pointed (full niqqudot), and I never bothered much with caring about matres lectionis except as gee-whiz grammatical info.

So I guess my questions are sort of twofold: [omitted: technical questions about MH keyboard and transliteration]

2) Before I sink too much time into any MH endeavors, I want to make sure it really is close enough to be more or less transferable. I know the syntax is a bit different sometimes (SVO vs. VSO), and apparently MH uses the masculine for both genders in more cases (one thing I read says no feminine plural imperfect verb forms in MH). Of course, the vocab is different too (and I know the OT has proportionally a lot more hapax legomena or just very uncommon words, meaning that same language or no, vocab will always be a bit of a challenge when reading BH), but I'm more interested from a grammatical perspective. Are any tenses/binyanim used differently? This source seems to suggest it's mostly a matter of BH having a narrative style/tense usage centered around Vav forms, even though it still sounds quite similar to MH in actual quoted/recorded speech (i.e., someone from the narrative is talking). Does that sound accurate?

If you are wondering what brought all this on, I was somewhat inspired by the lengths ___ has been going to to preserve her Russian fluency since she graduated college. I always wanted that kind of fluency in a language, but since I only ever learned Latin, Greek, and BH (dead languages all), I never really experienced the same. I always meant to be better about always reading everything out loud and trying to "think in the language" more, but I'm afraid I never did it terribly well.

Your friend in Christ,
Response #19: 
I had a quarter of Modern Hebrew at Illinois Chicago (we used the Ulpan text; I started about a week and a half late since I'd just gotten back from Okinawa); then a follow-on semester at Illinois in Champaign (proprietary text; missed about two weeks effectively on the front end because of quarter to semester change over). 

It was all Biblical Hebrew from there on in (two years at Champaign and another two at Talbot). Since I stopped taking classes, I concentrated on reading, not writing. I tried to keep up skills for a while on the MH side of things but that's several decades in the rear view mirror now. In terms of the transcription issues you ask about, this was never something on my radar in any case, and especially not after switching entirely over to BH. Studying the modern version was helpful for pronunciation and general facility with the language, but not necessarily for studying the Bible. MH and BH are, roughly, just as dissimilar as Modern and Ancient Greek – with the major difference being that the last pair are pronounced so much differently that this is an additional barrier. But just like modern Athenians can't make much sense of ancient Greek, even though they had it in school, although MH and BH are closer than ancient and modern Greek, analogously most Israelis are confused by the some of the unique features of BH: 1) vocabulary (since even though many MH words come from the Bible they've specialized the meanings often in MH); 2) suffixes on verbs and substantives which don't exist in MH; 3) the syntax is completely different. In MH, the imperfect is the future/subjunctive; the perfect is the past; and clauses work just like in English (or Spanish, French, German). 

I guess the above is a long way of apologizing for not being much help on this issue. Learning MH would be helpful (it was for me), but it is no substitute for immersion into all the technical aspects of the Hebrew of the Bible.  
I will say that the Ulpan system is a very efficient and enjoyable way to get into learning MH (it's what Israel used for many years as the main way of teaching immigrant Jews Hebrew); I have the books around here somewhere and used to have the audio tapes too. They're probably available online somewhere now (here's the Amazon link for the first volume I used).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
[omitted]

Also real quick, so on the opisthograph....I think you said that the rougher side was harder to write on so they were rare. 1) Is the rougher side the hair side? 2) Did both sides have hair? 3) And why does Metzger say that it was easier to write on both sides in the codex form (I mean why would that make it easier, it is the same material just cut smaller, right?)? Not saying either of you are wrong of course.
Response #20:
No worries at all!

"'this doesn't even make sense in the English'" – that's Greek for you!

On the opisthograph, a scroll written on both the front and the back, that comment you read had to do with papyrus generally not being written on on the back because on the good/front side the grains of the plant, the line of the stalk, are going left and right; the back side fibers are pressed into it on a perpendicular, so that writing on the back you bump into a new stalk ever other letter or so and it's hard to keep a straight line; so they only reused old papyri writing on the back for notes and letters and tax documents, etc., not for important things.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #21:
Yeah but Metzger also says that having it in the codex form was easier to write on both sides? Maybe it is just that it is more unwieldy in the scroll form or larger form (assuming it is larger).

[omitted]
Response #21:
When it comes to relationships, I may have mentioned before that generalizing has limited value. We can only marry one person. If that one person is the one meant for us in the plan of God, then all will be well . . . if we and he/she work very hard at it all the way to the end.

Yes, codices are more manageable because of the format. Codices were also written on parchment, not papyrus, a smooth surface equally serviceable on the back as well as on the front.  
Scrolling through the entire Bible on one piece of parchment would be impossible (which why Torah scrolls in synagogues are multiple). But as mentioned, unlike papyrus, parchment or vellum is writable on both sides, like a piece of leather in a leather vest which has been cured on both sides. To be usable, however, the vellum has to be very thin (or you couldn't get very many leaves in a single codex), and that means that there can be bleed through (and show through) from the other side (that happens a lot in, e.g., Sinaiticus).

Keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #22:
Hello, long time no write! 

I have a question about a bible verse. It is about Matthew 5:22. The KJV inserts "without a cause" but he NASB and other more modern translations leave that out, or footnote it. Can you explain it? I suppose it is the difference in the manuscript copy of the Greek NT. If I remember correctly, the KJV translators only had a few late Greek copies of the NT to work with. Whereas, the more modern translations like the NASB and ESV are based upon much older copies found centuries later, like in Alexandria Egypt. Usually the closer to the originals a writing is, the more accurate it should be. 

A Mormon is using this verse as an excuse for Joseph Smith, Jr's execrable "translation" of the KJV--called the Joseph Smith "Inspired" version of John 1:1--"In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Word Son was of God.”

Here is a link that shows some of his "revisions." 

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible | Institute for Religious Research (irr.org)

Smith didn't know Biblical Greek and only a smattering of Hebrew. 

Anyway what about the differences in Matt. 5:22? Was the "without a cause" a much later edition in the later copies, that isn't found in the much older Greek NT manuscript copies? 

Thanks for your help. Have a great Labor Day! No hurry on this. 
Response #22:
Re: "Was the "without a cause" a much later edition in the later copies, that isn't found in the much older Greek NT manuscript copies?" That's it exactly. 

The adverb ekei translated by KJV "without cause" occurs in the TR (textus receptus), the manuscript tradition (essentially identical to Erasmus edition of the NT) and a few later mss., but it is not present in any of the best witnesses. 

So, based on the evidence, the "without a cause" seems to be an obvious gloss meant to explain one of the "hard sayings" of our Lord. If placed in the margin as an explanation, one can see how a later copiest might have thought it was put there as an accidental omission and then reinserted it back into the text (this happens often in ancient copying).

On the other hand, it would be VERY difficult to explain how this adverb might have dropped out of the text accidentally if it were originally there.

Color me confused on how either way this would be support for J.S.'s transmogrification.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/