I'll soon be teaching a Greek class online for free, if anyone would be interested. You can contact me by PM.
We will be covering the first level of Greek to GCSE, which is for Attic Greek. However, if you learn Attic, then you will know Koine (the Greek of the New Testament) already.
I don't have a formal education in "the Greek" or "the Hebrew," so I'm not really certain if the root of the following comes from the training itself; perhaps you might shed some light on it.
I've noticed that, regardless of whether many have "a Masters" in such things or not, they will often end up at a sense of a passage contrary said passage.
Recently, for example, I was revisiting Romans 11's olive tree illustration and so forth, in response to something I had read about 11:25 that arrived at a conclusion drastically different from my own.
Now, that passage is not the issue I am seeking to address.
Rather, what I noted in my own, self-taught approach, in contrast to that individual's obvious approach when worked backwards to its source, as I point out below my signature.
Revisiting Paul's various analogies there, I noticed that what I did was not simply to look up the word "lump" in Vine's dictionary, but to do so for what other Scriptural references it might cite that I might study those out as well.
In other words, whatever "the Greek" might or might not "mean," I choose instead to focus more, on what other passages bring out as to the intended sense of a word. One of which, I ended up at, for example, was Numbers 15:21.
It dawned on me that, and perhaps this is my ignorance here as to what goes on when the study of these things is taught formally, it dawned on me that my never having learned "the Greek" nor how to get at this and that sense from formal training in the language, has kind of resulted in a plus for me - I am forced to rely more on other passages where the same word is used.
That - in contrast to what I have noticed many with or without the formal background do - they just go by "the Greek."
Problem is that words really do not have any meaning other than that which context - those words surrounding it, and their structure - give said word its meaning - even more so, any passage's actual, greater, overall scope.
I've basically figured all that out on my own, just through time in the Word in search of such principles in the Word together with what "books about" as to study principles I have at times looked into...
My point is; is it that the above manner of getting at the intended sense of a passage is not taught, or is it that it is, but is greatly ignored?
I mean, even when I read a "book about" [a book supposedly about, or supposedly based on the "Biblical"] where principles of study are what the book is "about," so often, when I turn their principles on whatever doctrine they might endorse in such books, I often end up finding said doctrine is in violation of the study principles the book is supposedly "about," lol
I mean some of the best known minds that one can read in most any book - "about" - out there, often consistently appear to have left this approach out of their supposedly having soundly studied out intended sense...
All one gets is "well, ahem, here is ,um, my school's system of interpretation, thus, why it is right..."
Its what I refer to as scholastic mysticism - those two as one - rather than a reasoning through a thing that is based on how the Word reasons through Its Own Things Through Its Own Words..., 1 Cor. 2.
mys·ti·cism /ˈmistəˌsizəm/ noun - mysticism:
1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained
through contemplation and self-surrender.
2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies ["the Spirit still leads outside His Word, and led me to this..."]
scho·las·ti·cism /skəˈlastiˌsizəm/ noun - scholasticism:
the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities,
based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma.
• narrow-minded insistence on traditional doctrine.
1 Cor. 1:
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
2 Corinthians 2:
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Thanks for your feedback, in advance...
