• Dr. Runge, Just a minor point, but I believe the reference listed on the second image in Romans 1:1-7 should be Rom. 1:3-4 instead of Rom. 1:2-3. The clues describing Jesus begin with v. 3 and continue through v. 4. If this is correct, perhaps you can see about getting this corrected in an update to this resource. God bless!
    1. Many thanks for pointing this out, I have submitted a typo report.
  • Hi Steve I'm so blessed to have your resource's aviable. My question is "are the High Definition Commentary's and the LDGNT database the same thing or to different things. Looking forward to finding out. Sincerely Jeff
    1. Hi Jeff, The easiest way to answer your question is to have you look at the samples. The LDGNT is a database that you interact with, the other is a prose commentary for you to read. There are samples and a description of them at http://www.hdcommentary.com/. As far as the LDGNT, here is an introductory video: https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/d12bs4khb5?videoFoam=true Hope that helps
  •  — Edited

    Hello Steve, I have a question regarding the repeated phrase in Genesis 1 "There was evening, there was morning, the 'insert number' day." There are various ways to View interpretation of the word Day in Genesis as listed in the FSB: Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. my Question: Would the Ancient Hebrews read the Words of Genesis chapter 1 and think in terms of a 24 hour day for each of the creation sequences? I am positive that Almighty YHWH indeed could create the universe in any number of hours, days, years, nanoseconds, etc. which He would choose. I always think of YHWH as being outside of time [therefore time means little to Him - I'm thinking He created time for the benefit of Humankind] The sun & moon, made to be for signs, seasons, days & years and to rule over the day & night, weren't created until Day 4. This makes me wonder if YHWH didn't use the "numbered Day" phrase for each creation sequence to provide ordering of creation information for the sake of humankind's understanding. Am I off the beam, thinking that we shouldn't try to put YHWH in any particular "time" box of one kind or another in Genesis 1? I am very willing to let YHWH do as He will [and not know His exact answer to my feeble questions] even in the face of feeling pressured in my Bible study group to believe a certain way about the "day" language in Gen 1. Again, how would the ancient Hebrews read Genesis "day" language? Thanks, Edie
    1. Hi Edie, I’d recommend reading something like John Walton’s Lost World of Genesis 1 (https://www.logos.com/product/52907/the-lost-world-of-genesis-one-ancient-cosmology-and-the-origins-debate) You may not agree with his conclusions, but it is a great place to better understand the ancient Near East and how things like days were conceptualized. A helpful analogy I heard once was the idea of Stephen Hawking explaining photon energy to you or me. Most likely he would have to simplify it so much for us to understand that it almost becomes wrong, but telling us something we don’t understand won’t give us any understanding YHWH’s purpose in Genesis is to communicate His character and will to us, something we (or more specifically the ANE reader) could wrap their head around based on what they knew of the world. This is where I stand personally, but my brain is too small to reconcile this with all of the scientific and apologetic implications. That’s why I’d suggest Walton.
    2. Thank you Steve, I have done Professor Walton's MobEd OT302 on Genesis and appreciated and gained much from his teaching. I am glad to have another resource by him to study regarding the specific debates on Genesis. I have been in the same camp as you regarding YHWH giving the ancients what they needed to understand him as best humans could, plus I think that we today are not actually that much ahead of the ancients in understanding YHWH, except that today we have much scientific knowledge that tends to make humans feel all "high & mighty" with scientific "facts" & knowledge [which by the way, change as time progresses and human's understanding of scientific study results change]. I, like you, recognize that my brain is small & can not reconcile all apologetic/ scientific points of view. Actually, any god that I can understand totally is not a god worthy of worship and certainly is not YHWH Almighty. I take joy in knowing that YHWH will either explain these knotty questions I have when He takes me home or He will make the questions depart from me never to be a bother forevermore. Either way is fine with me. Thank you Steve for what you do for YHWH's kingdom and your responsiveness to my questions. YHWH's blessing on you, Edie
  •  — Edited

    Hi Dr. Runge, For you a word of encouragement: First, let me say I very much enjoy watching your Faithlife videos; your enthusiasm for God's truth is free & wild and I am inspired by it. Second, AMEN!!!! The video today about God re-wiring our brains is great. Yahweh has a mess to rewire in my brain, but I know without fail that He is up to the task and has been faithful all my life to fixing the mess. I totally look forward to the day He completes His work in me. He has been faithfully teaching me how to not stand in His way during the re-wiring. I may be a slow learner but Yahweh is faithful and patient always! Praise Yahweh always and forever!!! Edie
    1. I have a question regarding the use of the words "of" & "by" and “a” & “the” in the scripture Rev 1:1 Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, -The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Re 1:1). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.  My question arises from finding a translation that translates Rev 1:1 “A revelation by Jesus Christ” instead of “The revelation of Jesus Christ” ·         Is there a significant and distinct difference in the meaning between these 2 ways to translate the phrase? [i.e. was the revelation about “of” Jesus Christ or was it that the revelation was only brought to John “by” Jesus Christ]·         Does Greek use prepositions?·         Is there significance difference in meaning of translating “A revelation” vs. “The revelation”   [Use of Greek articles is not clear to me, because I have little to no Greek knowledge.]        What assumptions are made by translators in the translations of this passage?         What does the Greek “ask” for in translating this passage ?  Seems to me the translation “A revelation by Jesus Christ” diminishes Jesus Christ in the big scheme of scripture. Am I off base?
      1. Hi Edith, I'm going to paste your questions down here and deal with each in turn. I am afraid it may not offer as much detail as you'd want, but hope it helps. 'My question arises from finding a translation that translates Rev 1:1 “A revelation by Jesus Christ” instead of “The revelation of Jesus Christ” ' In Greek there is no indefinite article, only the presence or absence of an article. The absence can be brought about either because it is not something the speaker expects the hearer to be able to pick out, like the English distinction between "a revelation" (potentially one of many) or "the revelation" (and not any other one. The another factor that can lead to the absence of an article is attributing emphasis to the word, normally by moving it to the beginning of the sentence. Since this phrase is the first one in the book, and what follows are two relative clauses (which and who), there's no real way to tell if it has been fronted for emphasis or not. It is an editorial judgement call, with arguments for both cases. I don't think there is much of a deal to be made one way or the other. "Is there a significant and distinct difference in the meaning between these 2 ways to translate the phrase? [i.e. was the revelation about “of” Jesus Christ or was it that the revelation was only brought to John “by” Jesus Christ]" Greek does use prepositions, a good many of them sharing semantic overlap with English counterparts. However, "of Jesus Christ" is in the genitive case, which can be used either for possession (Jesus's revelation) or source (the revelation that came from him). If you think about it, we have the same kind of ambiguity with the English possessive as the Greek genitive; either is grammatically possible. In cases like this, translators look to other factors from the context to try and resolve the ambiguity. I think that the possessive reading is the most natural, meaning that if the writer had wanted to signal Jesus was the means there are more specific ways of doing it, as the translators do with supplying "by" or "through."I think the fact that an angel is the one revealing things to John tilts the scale in favor of the possessive since an agent has already been specified the context. I wish it was as straightforward as the Greek asking for something that the translator simply needs to respond to. Generally speaking, I opt for the plain sense of the text rather than some lesser-used option that might have more clearly been communicated another way. Questions like diminishing Jesus's role can be asked, but they may well lead us away from the right answer. The bottom line is that language is messy, messier that commentators and pastors are often willing to permit. Linguistically trained bible translators are much more aware of the issues in play, buy most English translations have been done by teams of bible scholars, not linguists. English is the primary framework within which issues are considered rather than how languages of the world typically operate or convey such things. Hope that helps!
      2. Thanks Steve. As I look over the interlinears & read what scholars like yourself have to say, it is obvious how messy language is; English by itself is very messy. ;-) Your answer allows me to avoid wasting time & energy jousting at wind mills. I certainly do not want to be lead away from the right answer by asking questions that may lead in a wrong direction or perhaps reveal an agenda of my own & not God's. Onward and upward toward God's truth! One other question: is there an existing Bible translation that is done by linguistically trained Bible translators or have linguists represented on the translation committee? Thanks again, Edie Van Evera
    2. Hi Dr Runge, I am taking your NT346. In the Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle section, I click in each of the links in Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the three-volume High Definition New Testament. These are going to be referred to by their abbreviations throughout this course: LDGNT for the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and HDNT for the High Definition New Testament. Why are the LDGNT and HDNT both three-volume sets? That’s because they also include an introduction and glossary of terms. Throughout the LDGNT and the HDNT there are hyperlinks that constantly refer back to the glossary. I would say that the three remaining resources in Dr. Runge’s Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle are also extremely important for this course, but not as much as the LDGNT and I got the message: Your don't have a license to view this resource Resource Id: Visit Logos.com When I click the Logos.com like, it tells me We’re sorry! We do not sell that product individually. However, it is available as part of the following collections: Please advise if there is way to only buy the necessary resources instead of buying a big bundle? Thanks! Sincerely, Michael
      1. Hi Dr. Runge, Is there documents that maps the simplified terms to the new datasets? Thanks!
      2. That product isn't sold anymore, so no they are not available. The datasets use the same terminology as the older LDGNT.
      3. Hi Dr Runge, I am not looking to buy the old product. If you follow the video, you will see that the information does not match the dataset. For example, Philippians 1:6, your video uses the label Changed Name, but the Bible shows the label Changed Reference. This gets me very confused. Please help. Thanks!
    3. Mr. Runge I have a mild form of Autism. Because your Greek linguistics Course works with Languages I am working quite well with your curriculum instead of being forced to work with forced memorize countless word forms. My Question is are you working on a Hebrew linguistic curriculum like you have done with Greek. How long will it be till it is published? if you Know your Hebrew Linguistics as well as you know Greek I know you can do it. Please do not be embarrassed to tell me. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phil 4:13 Sincerely your friend Jeff
      1. Hi Jeff, A colleague of mine began writing the Hebrew counterpart to my discourse grammar and it is listed on prepub. However circumstances have prevented him from having the time to complete it. Our hope is that the remaining portions can be written layer this year for publication next year, but this is only a tentative plan. I am glad you have found these resources helpful, I too look forward to seeing the Hebrew volume completed and shipped. Warm regards, Steve
    4. Hello Steve I have Logos Platinum with Logos. Currently studying Lexham Discourse Greek N.T. Introduction. When using the ESV High Definition New Testament Specifically under Visual filters icon. My confusion/Dilemma Pertains to James 1:2b when you meet trials of various kinds. Specifically under Visual Filters this Subordinate otan Clause. does not highlight in bold. Check Emphasis(Subordinate Clause) it will show text in bold when check Focus Main Clause and/or Emphasis(Main Clause-other)
      1. Not trying to give you a hard time. just trying to make sense of all this in regards to where I'm at. Sincerely Jeff Keller
      2. No problem, Jeff, sorry for the confusion. The problem I faced was differentiating main and subordinate emphasis when BOTH clauses are on the same line of the propositional display, not when they are on separate lines. In that sense, ‘subordinate’ is more local in meaning here rather than whether it is objectively subordinate as with hOTAN or hOTI. Here’s the key quote from the intro: “This label is primarily used to differentiate the scope of emphasis when a subordinate clause and main clause both occur on the same line of the propositional outline” There may be a better way of doing this, but it was what seemed best in 2007. Hope that helps clarify things.
    5. While you define the default or unmarked as "the most basic," I'm not sure how to determine which among the various possible Greek constructions for a particular function is "most basic." I suppose that we have some intuitive sense for what is default and what is marked in our own native or fluent language(s), but do you have a methodology for determining markedness or unmarkedness in Greek? If statistics/frequencies are not a reliable indicator of markedness (which I agree that they would not be), how do we know what the original audience--let alone the author--would have considered default or marked? Is it simply intuitive?
      1. Hi Daniel, It would take more reading in the area of linguistic typology (how languages tend to operate based on shared traits) and linguistic description for you to reach the level of competency it sounds like you desire. Reading primary linguistic texts (instead of interdisciplinary ones like mine) would give you a better sense of descriptive methodology. Something like Levinsohn's Narrative Workshop materials would be a good place to start, following up by reading the sources he cites in footnotes. http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/narr.pdf My analysis of Koine Greek began with essentially an MA reading list in linguistic typology and pragmatics, followed by cataloguing data and looking for patterns in different genres. These findings were then compared to what one finds in other verb-prominent/verb-initial Indo-European languages (i.e. similar to Greek). Where the typological and Greek data matched up, I knew my claims were on fairly solid ground. Where they were in conflict, I'd go back and recheck or expand the data to see what I had overlooked. I also consulted with linguists and classicists, and most importantly with the traditional grammarians Robertson, Blass, Thackeray). I may not prefer all of their categories, but they are much nearer to a native fluency than I am. Then I drew my conclusions from the sum of what I learned from these sources. What you find in the discourse grammar is insufficient to train you to go and do likewise. I'd strongly recommend reading linguist books from OUTSIDE biblical studies, as many insider works go far enough into the primary discipline of linguistics to develop a complete framework. Hope that helps, Steve
      2. Thanks!
    6. Frustrated as I intend to use the High Definition Commentary: Romans Keynote slides. Since I couldn't find them listed, I called Customer Support. They did their best to help, but found out that the graphics can only be exported as jpegs. They are not editable in any way. No animation can be applied to individual items or colors changed for impact. Furthermore, When a slide has a list of items, there's no way to display the graphic item by item as one explains the lesson. It's all or nothing. I noticed a complaint about this in a "slides" package that sells for people that bought the physical book, but they have the same problem. Unsure of why this would be called PowerPoint and Keynote ready when they are not. Any help will be appreciated.
      1. As I was still trying to salvage some images for use in Keynote/PowerPoint I realized they end up being low resolution when exported. Since the book is text-based in Logos and is for reading/research, the graphics included are not good enough to broadcast to the church from my computer through AppleTV at 1080p or even 720p. (Maybe Proclaim is a low res presentation software?) Frustrated to no end!!!!
      2. Hi Jorge, I am very sorry for the frustration by the graphics. For copyright reasons, the decision was made by the publisher to ship static rather than editable graphics. As you stated, the graphics in the text itself are low-res, but the ones available through the right-click menu for export are hi-res, formatted in either 4:3 or 16:9. I believe the expectation with the hi-res graphics is that they would be exported into a weekly presentation of 3-8 graphics rather than as the entire book. Also, on p. 4 of the commentary there is a description of the components used for you to create additional graphics, or boxes that could cover bullet points to allow animation if you wanted. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience you have experienced using the slides. The High Def Commentary project was an experiment to try and blur the line between exegesis and presentation. Your idea of having the graphics be fully functioning slides is a good one. Unfortunately, the production costs of the current version were high enough that there are no future volumes planned. Hope this background provides more perspective on the publishing decisions, and that you are able to make use of the commentary despite the limitations you have identified. Warm regards, Steve
      3. Thank you very much for your reply. I did try the right-click and save, but the quality is still less than desirable. I do understand the limitations sometimes imposed on authors. I think that Logos needs to do a better job at marketing these specific materials in a more transparent and honest way. As they stand right now, they are over-promising and under-delivering. The advertising, especially of the slides package, makes it sound like they are editable and specifically adapter for PowerPoint, Keynote and Proclaim, which they are not. Again, thank you very much for responding.