Louisiana Baptist University

===

You may be right. But the PhD page distinguishes between Biblical and pastoral studies and the MA in Biblical Studies has not one course in ministry. Further, LBU also offers a DMin. Even if you are right the LBU nomenclature is not.

 

- snipped strange form of ad hominem -

Here is where I found the definition of "only begotten." Link: http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3439

I hope you realize what you are saying. You are saying that you had to consult a variety of resources and do thorough study to find virtually how the Merriam Webster's dictionary defines the word "begotten."

I've been wondering something. Did the unaccredited degrees you earned through Linda Vista become accredited after they received their TRACS accreditation (even though they moved, changed their name, and took many years to get the accreditation)?

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Thanks for the private emails I have received regarding this discussion and Bill. God bless you all.

 

===

I sent you no PMs or emails. God bless you too.

 

BILL:

===

Don't you get it Jason, how do you know Strong is correct? What evidence do you have that he is? Why should you trust Strong instead of Dahms or Buchsel on the Septuagint and Clement? In other words, what is your proof that Strong is right?

===

JASON:

In my opinion, these are moot questions. The question we should be asking is this: "Is the English version incorrect?" You haven't illustrated how "only begotten" is wrong and how it gives us a false statement about Christ. Until you do this or find a glaring error in the KJV, then you haven't argued a very good case for spending years mastering the Greek language.

The issue isn't what this scholar said or what that scholar said. You could get a variety of opinions about a particular, Greek word. The question is whether or not a large investment in time and resources in order to master the ancient Greek is necessary for a pastor, layperson, or minister. So far, the answer is clearly no.

Perhaps in the days before we had English Bibles this would be more of an issue. Nonetheless, don't forget you are trying to show that the English KJV is corrupt and how a typical pastor, layperson, or minister must have a mastery of Greek to do his job correctly.

ED:

So, if you are teaching and a student asks Dr, Dr G. what does monogenes mean , why you can say, "one of a kind cause Strong told me so." But if they ask, well how come Dahm's says it means a birthing, you can say, "umm, well Strong is right, just trust me on that."

JASON:

First, this has not happened to me. Next, I will not teach a Greek course. However, if someone comes to me with this bit of trivia, then I'll do some research and answer them as best as I can.

At this point, you haven't given me a good reason to discard the Strong's. So, why should I?

ED:

I really hate to break it to this way, but Strong is for the weak!

JASON:

Well, I hate to break it to you, but only an oddball elitist would steer people away from using a fantastic tool like the Strong's by saying it's not good enough for them. Furthermore, all you have given us is an argument by assertion. "Take my word for it, Strong's is for the weak." If you want millions of people to reject the Strong's, then please present a sound case. Otherwise, be a proponent of an exegetical tool that is available to people.

You are beginning to sound like the Catholic Church. Are you Catholic? The University of San Diego is a Catholic school.

The Catholic Church discourages people from even reading the Bible by saying that only the priests can teach the Bible. They think that the knowledge is so great and lofty that average people cannot interpret the scriptures. They must have help from the Pope and the priests.

What you are saying is a very small step away from this dogma. You are essentially saying that people are lost and unable to understand the scriptures unless they either: a) take years of Greek or b) sit at the feet of someone who has. I reject these assertions and they will remain unfounded until errors in the KJV have been revealed. I've studied the KJV extensively and found it to be without error. I'm open to your assertions, though.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Dr. Jason Gastrich, B.A., M.A., Th.D received his "basically an honorary" doctorate from this school:

http://www.sbcollege.net/About%20Us.htm

Which is operated by people who received their doctorates from this school:

http://fgcfi.tripod.com/honorary.htm

I'm not so sure the Th.D enhances his credibility.

Also, as Dr. Levicoff is fond of telling us, it should be either - "Jason Gastrich, B.A., M.A., Th.D" or just "Dr. Jason Gastrich".

 

Afterthoughts on this discussion

I would never presume to possess the depth of Bill Grover's exegetical knowledge, since he was translating Hebrew and Greek when I was learning my ABCs. And I would never presume to possess the breadth of Janko's linguistic savvy, since he knows more dialects than I have fingers. But I did major in Koine Greek while earning a four-year graduate degree at an accredited institution, studying under men who wrote the textbooks, so I don't feel completely remiss in offering my opinion.

People have asked for evidence that knowledge of biblical languages leads to a deeper understanding of Scripture. Such examples abound, but I sincerely doubt that those demanding the evidence have the requisite capacity to appreciate it. I say this to neither belittle nor demean. Quite the contrary, I say this with a large degree of empathy. When I first arrived on the campus of my graduate alma mater, I was simply intent on better learning the English Bible. After all, I was on furlough between pastorates, and pastors exposit the English Bible from the pulpit. I knew the school I had chosen required a certain level of competency in the languages, and I appreciated that. But I thought I would merely take the required courses and gain a greater precision in using the various language tools available. Anything else would be excess. How could I possibly improve on the bevy of English translations out there anyway? So long as I could look up a few words to enhance my pulpit communication and writing, that's all I'd need. The advanced stuff was for guys who wanted to one day teach the languages in an academic setting.

But something happened to me along the way. Actually, it happens to a lot of folks who enter seminary with a similar attitude. In the midst of taking required courses in the biblical languages, there comes a point when the reason for all that vocabulary, grammar, and syntax converge and the light bulb goes on. For those of us at Dallas Seminary, that was usually during the fourth semester in a course called Principles of Exegesis. Guys and gals were literally transformed by this course. Something that seemed like drudgery for the previous three semesters was all of a sudden a driving obsession. Why? Because after three semesters of language training we finally possessed the capacity to see just how important the stuff is. We began to wonder how we ever got by without it. And we vowed to never leave it behind. Many of us actually changed our majors. But try as we did to share this revelatory experience with new students, they never quite understood what the fuss was all about. It was so satisfying to hear of their changed attitudes as the semesters passed!

What does all this have to do with theological education in particular and education in general? First, I think it's important for us to recognize that established standards exist for a reason. To declare that biblical languages are unnecessary for graduate and postgraduate work in biblical studies is to swim against a massive tide of evidence and established tradition. Virtually every reputable seminary of every stripe requires training in the biblical languages for those majoring in biblical studies. This standard is so overwhelmingly prevalent that it's considered common knowledge and practice. Second, it's incumbent upon unaccredited schools wanting recognition as legitimate purveyors of knowledge to steer their students in a manner consistent with existing standards. If they do not, they do a great disservice by robbing the student of that "aha!" moment many of us never experienced until we were required to study the languages for several semesters. Let's not forget that the institution and its teachers know more than the neophyte students. I was certainly in no position to decide what I needed educationally when I set foot on the seminary campus. I didn't know what I didn't know. Likewise, the person who has not rigorously studied the biblical languages cannot begin to know what he or she needs in this regard. The upshot is that we must trust the standards in place and encourage their employment across the board. It's the only way to uphold academic integrity. And integrity should be a high priority in the life of any professing Christian.

 

===

***With the biggest of sighs, Bill replies:


Oh, oh, I went to a Catholic school? Well disregard my every word then. My saying a grad student in NT needs Greek = saying people can't be saved unless they know Greek? That's what you get from what I've written? REALLY??? Then,


HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH, AND YOU ARE A DOCTORAL STUDENT? HAH HAHA HAH HAH HAH.....


all the conservative, evangelical seminaries requiring the Biblical languages are just like Catholics in your view? Manomanoman oman, you are one confused dude Dr G!

 

Re: Afterthoughts on this discussion

ED:

First, I think it's important for us to recognize that established standards exist for a reason. To declare that biblical languages are unnecessary for graduate and postgraduate work in biblical studies is to swim against a massive tide of evidence and established tradition. Virtually every reputable seminary of every stripe requires training in the biblical languages for those majoring in biblical studies. This standard is so overwhelmingly prevalent that it's considered common knowledge and practice.

JASON:

Ed is using the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum

ED:

Second, it's incumbent upon unaccredited schools wanting recognition as legitimate purveyors of knowledge to steer their students in a manner consistent with existing standards. If they do not, they do a great disservice by robbing the student of that "aha!" moment many of us never experienced until we were required to study the languages for several semesters. Let's not forget that the institution and its teachers know more than the neophyte students. I was certainly in no position to decide what I needed educationally when I set foot on the seminary campus. I didn't know what I didn't know. Likewise, the person who has not rigorously studied the biblical languages cannot begin to know what he or she needs in this regard. The upshot is that we must trust the standards in place and encourage their employment across the board. It's the only way to uphold academic integrity. And integrity should be a high priority in the life of any professing Christian.

JASON:

In this paragraph, Ed has fallen pray to another logical fallacy. Argument by assertion. You assert without evidence and expect people to believe.

Nonetheless, I know Ed is well-meaning and I wish him well in his studies.

Since Bill has decided to laugh at me, treat me poorly, and act childish, I'm finished posting to him.

I pray that God blesses all of you richly.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Re: Re: Afterthoughts on this discussion

 

===
Assuming you are right,

Imagine that ; the shepherd school "declined" regional accreditation. Yessiree one can imagine the RA accreditors begging and begging being overwhelmed you know by the quality $200 (?) docs of the school's leadership. But the shepherd school firmly said,"no." What firm resolve choosing instead the impeccable WWAC!

 

This thread is suffering from gastrich reflux disease.

Dr Gastrich's bigoted and factually wrong statements about the Roman Catholic church and its educational institutions are contemptible. One can take (as my denomination and I do) the most extremely dim view possible of the papal claims, without resorting to blatant distortions of fact and using the word "catholic" as a flung turd.

Dr Gastrich contuinued to try to make criticism of his silly views on Greek study into criticism of LBU. This too is contemptible. He stated earlier that he didn't care about LBU's position on Greek study. Vladica Russell demonstrated that LBU's position and Dr Gastrich's position on Greek study are not the same, regardless of what may be nomenclature faults at LBU.

It ill behooves Dr Gastrich to hide behind the skirts of LBU while saying he doesn't care about the place. Furthermore, in his attempt to tar Bill Grover with the brush of popery, he neglects the fact that Dr Wojtyla actually cared enough about the Bible to study it in the original--and that in accord with the 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu". I had far rather quarrel with the pope over justification and antichrist than climb in bed with an ostensible protestant who discourages the study of Scripture in the original!

 

Dr. Jason Gastrich, B.A., M.A., Th.D, visited a Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.jcsm.org/misc/CatholicChurch.htm

This bit is from when Dr. Jason Gastrich, B.A., M.A., Th.D, visited a LDS Temple:

http://www.jcsm.org/misc/MormonChurch.htm

I was kinda digging his website until I came across "World Religions, Cults, Sects, and Movements Explored.

 

I think some may already realize what to me is important in this thread. But let me say it again. I've said it over and over: one studying the New Testament at the graduate level needs to exegete the more difficult passages in the Greek and evaluate translations and theologizing by those exegeses.

Jason asked a fair question: "Why isn't the KJV or the English sufficient?"

As one test case to indicate the importance of the original languages , I responded that the KJV renders the Greek adjective 'monogenes' in John 3:16 incorrectly.

In an attempt to show the importance of Greek I asked Jason what only begotten means.


This is is not an aside from what grad Biblical studies done in LBU or elsewhere should include. It is germane to the issue. It is one test case of the reliability of doing a doc program without recourse to the Biblical languages.

The issue of the meaning of monogenes is significant for determining the relationship of the Son to the Father in the evangelical view of God.

For example, Williams, Theology prof at Regent U. whose text I used while in ACCS states, that unless the Father provides the Son with personal subsistence through an eternal process of generation, "God would not be God." (p93, Renewal Theology). While this doctrine of eternal generation may be news to some, that view is represented in about 90% of Christendom.

Williams bases his view entirely on the word monogenes as translated by the KJV as "only begotten" with the additional support of the TDNT article on same by Buchsel. I disagree with eternal generation and with the KJV rendering of monogenes.

Jason, when asked, states that monogenes means "only one of a kind." Then he cites as authority Strong . Jason seems not to realize, a remarkable condition for one in a doc program, that "only one of a kind" does not mean begetting. That is, Strong disagrees with the KJV here, the very translation Jason espouses.

This would be clear to Jason if he knew that the KJV bases its translation on the supposed etymology of monogenes being the verb gennao ["I birth", monos= only, so the KJV translators, true to Nicaea a creed inherited by the the Church of England from Roman catholicism, render it "only one born"] . Of course John never applies huios (son) to Christians , only tekna! In contrast, Strong bases that rendering on the assumption that monogenes comes instead from the noun genos [a kind, monos means "only"] , so monogenes to Strong means "only one of its kind. " This translation, as said, clashes with the KJV.

Then I was asked for my personal evidence to indicate why the KJV "only begotten" was incorrect. Why should monogenes rather be translated "unique"? So, I provided the results of my personal research. I contend that NT grad education by LBU or anywhere should require such work:

Monogenes cannot be proven to mean "only begotten" because:

1) Likely the adjective derives not from the verb gennao but from the noun genos.

2) It is certain that John used the Septuagint which is evidenced by just such verbal similarities as 8:58 and it is certain that his readers did as well.

But the adjective monogenes only translates in the Hebrew Bible 'yahid' and 'yahid' does not mean only begotten.

Neither do the contexts of the four occurences in the GreeK translation of the Hebrew Bible (in Judges/Psalms) show monogenes to mean only begotten.

Neither do the three occurences of monogenes in the Apocrypha mean only begotten but are in fact in two places apposite to adjectives meaning "one" [mia/monos] without an implication of derivation.

3) John never applies the verb gennao to Christ in his Gospel except in ch 18 referencing Jesus' physical birth.

4) while 1 Jo 5:18 likely applies ho gennetheis to Christ, that verb there is aorist and unlikely a gnomic aorist given the temporality of the context. So, probably it too references Jesus' physical birth.

5) were monogenes to be the basis of eternal generation dogma, as Williams claims, then why would no other NT writer apply that term to the Son except John?

6) Rather the Synoptics and Peter use agapetos for Christ not monogenes.

7) In the three Lukan usages monogenes seems to indicate uniqueness not begetting.

8) the writer of Hebrews applies monogenes to Isaac. Here he cites Genesis. But Genesis uses yahid of Isaac. But Yahid means not begotten. Then the Septuagint translation of Genesis uses agapetos. Therefore, semantically yahid and agapetos equal monogenes. But neither of the former mean only begotten.

9) Clement of Rome applies monogenes to the phoenix to indicate the uniqueness ["only one of its kind} not to indicate a birthing.

10) At times in the patristics monogenes takes the meaning of unique as the Old Latin which renders the adjective unicum not unigentus as Jerome's Vulgate which followed the requisite of Nicene dogma of the eternal begetting of the Son.

This is my evidence that the KJV is wrong in rendering monogenes 'only BEGOTTEN' and I'd be happy to see anyone refute it.

I'll let the reader decide if a suitable argument can be based on the inerrancy of the KJV or by citing Strong, who btw disagrees with the KJV, or by throwing up strawmen claiming I am doing the supposed work of Roman Catholics and forbidding the reading of English translations and keeping folks from salvation .

This is the stuff rather which grad students in the New Testament should be doing. If they are not, then, IMO, the program lacks rigor.

 

===

Very revealing. Being directly taught by God, spirits speaking, hearing angels at the door. Even the Pope lacks such divine encounters. Thankyou Charles for this expose. Now I tremble for touching God's annointed

 

Now, see, ya learn sumpin ever day.

I had no idea that + upset people.

Q. Why do we make the sign of the cross in our liturgy and devotions?
A. So we don't hide our heads in the sand like a gastrich.

 

Gentlemen, gentlemen! While all should feel free to express themselves, need we disintergrate into ridiculing others? The views expressed here are well able to speak for themselves. This was a thread reqarding LBU but it has become an outlet for sophmoric banter. I am not an administrator but we should be courteous one to another.

 

===

NOW you speak for courtesy?

But will you explain why at this point you encourage courtesy? Why not at the point when my statement that SOME go to unaccredited schools because they cannot get into accredited was misrepresented by both you and Jason as ALL? Nor was that error ever acknowledged!

Where was your imploring for courtesy when Jason intimated that I was too earthly minded in my dissertation to be of any heavenly good?

Where was it when Jason presumed to prescribe God's will for me?

Where were you when Jason said that he sensed pride in me?

Why did you not speak up about courtesy when Jason suggested that as I had attended a Catholic school and said grad NT studies should include Greek exegesis that I was keeping people from salvation and banning English translations? Where were you then? If you were gone, howabout addressing those issues now?

You are a little tardy IMO with your peace making.

Besides, this board is about distance learning, so when someone gets a ThD from a school whose profs, according to Charles, buys docs for $200 that is fair game , Way.

And this thread is about grad Biblical studies. So when one who opposes the notion that a doctoral program in Bible should include exegetics in the in Biblical languages uses as his hermeneutic instead of such exegesis spirit voices, feigned discernment, and angel noises, then, WAY, that also is very fair game. It smacks of popery.

No wonder the pope can only be inerrant when speaking ex cathedra because someone else here is infallible all the rest of the time!



Now, having said these things, I will now shut up in this thread unless again someone starts up with me , my convictions, or my posts .

My entire point here was that grad studies should include exegesis in the Biblical languages. All I met from your fellow LBU ThD program peer was resistence. The quality or rather lack of quality of that resistance makes me very curious as to the entrance requirements of the LBU doctoral programs.

The practice of all accredited evangelical seminaries, the norms of recognized accreditors, the examples of the Reformers, and all my evidence listed in an above post was treated with cavalier dismissal while at the same time we all are ,on the other hand, urged to respect with courtesy him who blatently misrepresents Catholicism, misrepresents me, and claims to know God's will by angel noises and who pretends to discern the spiritual character of others with a divinely constituted gift.

Fine I'll shut up and shake the dust off my feet unless someone starts up again with me. Bill signing out while making the sign of the cross.

 

I really don't like the way you................................

Oh no, was I about to start up again?