I want to critique an article posted in a group where
the author, with many degrees claims that Christians influenced by Greek thought and Western thinking cannot understand
God as he is revealed in scriptures.
The author of this article,
"has an M.A. degree from Eastern New Mexico University in Portales,
New Mexico, an M.A. degree from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Ph.D. in Hebrew Studies from the University of Texas
at Austin. From 1968 to June 1974, he was an instructor in Hebrew, Biblical History, and Biblical Archaeology a the University
of Texas at Austin.
Dr. Blizzard has hosted over 500 television programs about Israel
and Judaism for various televisions networks, and is a frequent television and radio guest. He is the author of Let Judah Go Up First, co-author of Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus,
and has additionally authored over twenty-five lecture series on subjects as diverse as "Science and the Bible" and "Marriage,
the Family, and Human Sexuality."
It is his assumption that only when we go back to the Hebrew
of both the OT and the NT?, can we understand what is really being said.
My former pastor made some of the same kind of assumptions.
I will provide the link down below, so you can read the lengthy
article for yourselves.
I would like to hear from others if I am missing something in my
evaluation because I am not a Hebrew or Greek Scholar.
What I wanted to deal with is his first assumption of
He says, 'One must keep in mind that the term is a result of the
English translation from the Greek. Although much of the New Testament was Hebrew, we have no original Hebrew text of a New
He is referring to the term Son of God, which he says is not in
the Hebrew of the NT.
I dunno that the NT was originally in Hebrew and certainly not
Matthew may have been in Hebrew and that is understandable because
such chapters as chapter twenty four have a special application to the messianics.
I can provide evidence that Jesus spoke Greek and if so why put
the NT in Hebrew and why translate it backwards?
Here is the proof:
"Of course, the fact that God preserved the entirely of the New
Testament in the Greek language seems to give these people "fits." They claim Greek is another pagan language, and that such
terms as Iesous translated "Jesus," and Theos translated "God" are also pagan names and must not be used. They claim that
a vast, overriding "conspiracy" in the first century destroyed all the "missing" Hebrew original documents, and that the New
Testament we have today is essentially a forgery -- at least where the names of God are involved!
Proof or evidence of this conspiracy? There is none. Does God Almighty
have the power to preserve His name in whatever language He chooses? Of course He does! And it is patently obvious that He
choose to preserve the New Testament Scriptures in Greek -- not Hebrew! The fact that Jesus and the apostles all spoke Greek
is another nail in the coffin of these "language-worshippers" and conspiracy addicts."
In Dr. Blizzard's article He says, "There is only
one God. The devil is not a god. As a matter of fact, he is not even the god of this world. That may be surprising to those
who have taken as literal II Corinthians 4:4, which says in our translations that 'the god of this world has blinded the unbelievers'
minds, preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the glory of the gospel...,' assuming that this can only mean
the devil. Except that, in the Greek, it is ho theos ton kosmon, WHICH, IN HEBREW, is el elohay ha-olam, which
means "the God of this universe." The only God that there is has blinded unbelievers. Why would the devil have to blind unbelievers
when he already has them? The devil is not the god of anything. He is subject to God, subject to do His bidding. Not only
that, but he is also subject to the man and woman of God. You remember that Jesus said, "I give you power and authority over
all the power and authority that the enemy possesses and nothing shall in any way harm you."
If the translators into english didn't translate the text as 'god
of the universe' then why would they do it by going to the Hebrew.
This so called expert says that 'god of this world' in the book
of Corinthians is 'ho theos ton kosmon,' in the Greek.
It is not.
In the Greek Interlinear and in the Strongs Concordance it
is, 'ho theos tou AINON'
Probably better translated as 'Age'
So he assumes that the NT was originally in Hebrew
Takes a translation from the Greek and finds the Hebrew for it.
My Pastor did this.
Then this author gets the Greek of the NT wrong.
Isn't this whole approach similar to saying, The bible
uses the word psuche/soul in the NT and so the Hebrew of this is nephesh.
This dismisses the fact that soul in the NT has a different and
more specific meaning than Soul in the NT.
I dunno whether the Hebrew of the OT even had a term for the part
of man that is called the soul in the NT.
One is part of a man, the other the whole of man.
The Jewish Wannabes, soul sleepers, Seventh Day Adventists have
refused to graduate from the OT to the NT in their understanding of the word soul and many other teachings and terms.
The OT conceals the NT reveals and so this means that the NT introduces
some concepts that we cannot find an adequate descriptor for in the OT.
So if this author's prior assumptions are wrong then
what are we to think of the rest of his article.