A Question On Lds Scholarship And Original Nt Languages

[boblloyd91]

Okay, this may be kind of a silly question but I recently read DCP's awesome article on reading scriptures in their original languages, and three posters (Sharrona, Michigander, and Scientist if anyone knows them) claim that if one were to read the NT in the original language of Greek, it would prove that the Church is false because it describes the Trinity and denies Deification. I was curious if there were LDS scholars who have read the NT in Greek, and how they would respond to these accusations. I know that this is a pretty big open question!

[Daniel Peterson]

I've read the New Testament in Greek. I have a bachelor's degree in Greek.

They're blowing smoke.

[maklelan]

Okay, this may be kind of a silly question but I recently read DCP's awesome article on reading scriptures in their original languages, and three posters (Sharrona, Michigander, and Scientist if anyone knows them) claim that if one were to read the NT in the original language of Greek, it would prove that the Church is false because it describes the Trinity and denies Deification. I was curious if there were LDS scholars who have read the NT in Greek, and how they would respond to these accusations. I know that this is a pretty big open question!

The notion that the original Greek supports the Trinity and denies deification is utter and complete nonsense. It does absolutely no such thing. I will have to take a look at those comments, but I don't really have the time to provide a full response.

[Vance]

Well, with names like "Sharrona", "Michigander", and "Scientist", how could they be wrong?

[Daniel Peterson]

Sharrona baffles me. I seldom read through his/her posts any more, because they seldom seem even remotely relevant to the topic at hand. S/he simply quotes irrelevantly from a Bible dictionary of some sort.

[Darren10]

Okay, this may be kind of a silly question but I recently read DCP's awesome article on reading scriptures in their original languages, and three posters (Sharrona, Michigander, and Scientist if anyone knows them) claim that if one were to read the NT in the original language of Greek, it would prove that the Church is false because it describes the Trinity and denies Deification. I was curious if there were LDS scholars who have read the NT in Greek, and how they would respond to these accusations. I know that this is a pretty big open question!

I'm not nearly proficient enough to read texts in Greek (in fact, not porficient whatsoever) but I have searched from interlinear sources regardning the Father and the Son being one and the Greek texts, so far to my knowledge fail to declare them "mono" which is the only Greek word, again, from my understanding, which explicitly means numerically one. So the idea that the original Greek texts testify of the Trinity is complete nonesense.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

They're blowing smoke.

But the real question is what smoke are they inhaling?

[CASteinman]

Okay, this may be kind of a silly question but I recently read DCP's awesome article on reading scriptures in their original languages, and three posters (Sharrona, Michigander, and Scientist if anyone knows them) claim that if one were to read the NT in the original language of Greek, it would prove that the Church is false because it describes the Trinity and denies Deification. I was curious if there were LDS scholars who have read the NT in Greek, and how they would respond to these accusations. I know that this is a pretty big open question!

I do not conversationally read greek, but I can pick through a bit. So I'm not an expert by any means but this sounds simply ridiculous. Not a teeny bit off.. but outlandishly silly.

[boblloyd91]

I almost felt kind of embarrassed asking this, just wanted to get some feedback on some of the things that I read sometimes

[Calm]

I almost felt kind of embarrassed asking this, just wanted to get some feedback on some of the things that I read sometimes

There is no such thing as a stupid question....as long as it is sincere, imo.

There are plenty of insincere stupid questions out there.

Edited March 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

I've read the New Testament in Greek. I have a bachelor's degree in Greek.

They're blowing smoke.

What do the Greek texts actually say in John 3, where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of man which is in heaven" (KJV)?

It would be cool if other texts had this as well, but as far as I can tell, only the KJV has this. If it's a reading unique to the KJV, where did the translators get this from? Why did they include this phrase )"which is in heaven")?

[CASteinman]

What do the Greek texts actually say in John 3, where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of man which is in heaven" (KJV)?

It would be cool if other texts had this as well, but as far as I can tell, only the KJV has this. If it's a reading unique to the KJV, where did the translators get this from? Why did they include this phrase )"which is in heaven")?

As I recall, the issue here is that most manuscripts read "Who is in heaven" or words to that effect but that two of the oldest do not have that phrase.

This was not quite as clear cut as it seems -- that the oldest two are right.

If my memory serves correctly the matter was debated this way: "Short phrases are more likely to be the original wording -- unless the longer phrase is somehow 'difficult'. In this case, the shorter reading makes sense as the original wording as does the longer more difficult phrase."

And with that logic, some authorities go with removing it while others go with keeping it in.

That's as I recall. Someone here will surely have a better insight.

I accept that Joseph Smith understood the intent of the passage correctly, regardless of what the Greek says now or said originally.

[rameumptom]

The claims they made are like saying the Trinity is proven in the KJV, because it has the Comma Johanneum.....

[MormonMason]

What do the Greek texts actually say in John 3, where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of man which is in heaven" (KJV)?

It would be cool if other texts had this as well, but as far as I can tell, only the KJV has this. If it's a reading unique to the KJV, where did the translators get this from? Why did they include this phrase )"which is in heaven")?

None of the oldest texts of the Gospel of John contain the words "which is in heaven." All that do contain the phrase are very late. In addition, it is very difficult to tell in a few places where Jesus ends and John begins/interjects. The styles of narrative writing and speech in John are very similar. Even if this phrase were authentic, it may well be John interjecting the current location of Jesus at the time of his writing and not that Jesus bi-located both heaven and earth at the same time. Besides that, one cannot both bi-locate and also have to descend and ascend (see Ephesians 4:9-10). Ascension and descension are irrelevant when one can bi-locate.

The claim that the Greek proves the trinity and denies deification is utter nonsense. The doctrine of deification underlies many passages in the Greek NT. I seem to recall a presentation at a FAIR Conference from 1999 about this subject of deification. Anyone else recall something like that?

And, the Greek text certainly does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the contrary is the case. I've been reading the Greek New testament for decades and would know if such were the case.

[williamsmith]

As someone who spent years in other "christian" religions, read the Bible for myself, having no firm personal judgment one way or another, seeing all the differences in interpretation, seeing what I read and saw for myself, reading the Greek and Hebrew commentary's, etc., and then coming upon Mormonism and seeing how it was the only religion that actually fit what I read and understood from the Bible contrary to the various views of the various religions, I personally find the statement that the Bible supports all the various "traditional" christian theology's a completely false one.

I became a Mormon initially because it was the only religion that actually fully fit the Bible. I'm not the first.