JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm not even sure what "more precise" means! Does it mean no ambiguity" ? But surely every language, at least when referring to Scripture, with a little work can be made to communicate the truth of Scripture, and do so faithfully and accurately - "accuracy" is the issue, not some intangible level of "precision".
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is as accurate (precisily the same!!) to God's message to mankind as is "(Acts 16:31 NA28) πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ σωθήσῃ" I don't think there is any added precision in one of the other. You have the imperative, a preposition, the articule, the accusative/object, the conjunction "and" and a passive verb. They are the grammatically identical.
I'm firmly committed to ministers learning, knowing and using the original languages (though I think it hardly essential to being a faithful pastor and preacher). There are times when the original languages are harder (but not impossible) to represent in English; one example that springs to mind is the fact that in Greek you have two negation words used in questions one which indicates the questioner was expecting a "No" for an answer (really or rhetorically - but that's a different discussion) while the other shows an expectaion of a positive answer. Again it can be represented in translation, but it's not so obvious sometimes. Sometimes (actually possibly only thrice) the two negatives appear togther which communicates something that sometimes the translations don't fully represent.
Any way regardless of that - I think the English translations in the main do an excellent job, the languages can sometimes reveal subtle things, but most of the time I'd say it's emphasis, or an interesting use of particular words - i.e not really a matter of precision, whatever that is.
I think if there is any lack of precision it is related to the receptor language translation, and not to the inherent precision of the original.
In relation to the OP I don't believe any minister should be spending 15 minutes explaining any grammatical or linguistic component to the congregation - its unnecessary, not useful or profitable and runs the risk of appearing like arrogance and superiority. In my opinion where the Greek has significance in the main mention it very briefly if you want, and then just preach the text on the basis of what the Greek says - when we go to a car showroom the salesman doesn't spend 20 minutes telling you how they designed and made the car in the factory, he just points out the sleek lines, and tells you how it performs.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is as accurate (precisily the same!!) to God's message to mankind as is "(Acts 16:31 NA28) πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ σωθήσῃ" I don't think there is any added precision in one of the other. You have the imperative, a preposition, the articule, the accusative/object, the conjunction "and" and a passive verb. They are the grammatically identical.
I'm firmly committed to ministers learning, knowing and using the original languages (though I think it hardly essential to being a faithful pastor and preacher). There are times when the original languages are harder (but not impossible) to represent in English; one example that springs to mind is the fact that in Greek you have two negation words used in questions one which indicates the questioner was expecting a "No" for an answer (really or rhetorically - but that's a different discussion) while the other shows an expectaion of a positive answer. Again it can be represented in translation, but it's not so obvious sometimes. Sometimes (actually possibly only thrice) the two negatives appear togther which communicates something that sometimes the translations don't fully represent.
Any way regardless of that - I think the English translations in the main do an excellent job, the languages can sometimes reveal subtle things, but most of the time I'd say it's emphasis, or an interesting use of particular words - i.e not really a matter of precision, whatever that is.
I think if there is any lack of precision it is related to the receptor language translation, and not to the inherent precision of the original.
In relation to the OP I don't believe any minister should be spending 15 minutes explaining any grammatical or linguistic component to the congregation - its unnecessary, not useful or profitable and runs the risk of appearing like arrogance and superiority. In my opinion where the Greek has significance in the main mention it very briefly if you want, and then just preach the text on the basis of what the Greek says - when we go to a car showroom the salesman doesn't spend 20 minutes telling you how they designed and made the car in the factory, he just points out the sleek lines, and tells you how it performs.