ECT MADists don't follow Paul

[Cross Reference]

Reasonable question. Although I do study the languages, I do not place myself as authority. My heart is to place that authority in the text, which is simple to understand with lexical aids and an interlinear dictionary.

So I take it, purely from an academic perspective you would stand with #1 trans?

My heart is that others would discover just how accessible it is, and find the truth by accessing the depths of language. And when it comes to translation, it's not about which scholar is better. Most translations try to make English copy the original language, and in doing so are losing the potential of English. So it's not about the scholar, it's about the missed opportunity in English expressive capability.

So then it it must be a matter of which scholar is better?

As you said above, both translations are functional and get the basic meaning across.

Unto what end are they both functional seeing that one is a gift??

But it is not the translated word that is responsible for giving faith/confidence, but the very Spirit and Word of God that persuades. If someone has ears to hear, they will hear and believe regardless of translation.

How is the very Spirit and the Word of God arrived at?

Technically, according to my previous analysis, the first translation should inspire more confidence according to the second verse given.

But only if both are possessed by the so-called 'learned practioner', don't you think?

However, it does not matter if the individual does not have ears to hear. If the reader is going to splice the text to put doctrine together, then they are already self-determining the meaning of the text, rather than submitting to the text.

Which, I believe when extended out, only leaves the 'practioner' remaining in darkness.

Splicing together texts in a midrashic manner does not necessarily imply spiritual knowledge or discernment, merely that one knows how to find key words and phrases to express their own ideas.

But, and I am not trying to put you on the spot by asking this however, is that not what you are doing insofar as you have not mentioned this from Jesus: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 14:26 (KJV)

Where does He come into play when attempting to ferret out the academics of it all? Does this not speak of the need for an intimate relationship with God as put forth by Jesus?

I know many people IRL who eat up the scriptures, but then run off chasing encounter and experience and declare God to be some abstract mystical love-force who doesn't care for purity of doctrine or truth, only "love."

Doesn't not care for purity? Christians?

The problem with English is its misuse. The KJV was translated very exactly 400 years ago, but the sense of that translation has been mostly lost. Key words have been redefined. As stated: Love.

Who have been more quilty of this than Greek scholars steeped in Coptic manuscripts now presented as "The way to more accurate understanding".

Love (Agap)is the benevolent directive of the will (with delight) to do what is best for someone, what they need, not necessarily what they want.

I can't agree. Agape is love from God expressed from the soul of a redeemed man.

The modern concept of love is a subjective, ego-centric pathos, relating to people based on a subjective need/desire for them, not for the other person. It's pseudo-tolerance and nominal niceity for an appearance of function, that is only dysfunction because it does not give anyone what they need: the death and resurrection of Christ.

I well understand all of that and would only add the question, "how it can be otherwise if academia is the only way. What do I say to my Yak sheperd friend in lower Siberia who reveres God while not ever owning a Bible? What did Jesus tell us to do about such folk?

So could the first translation potentially be more functional in expressing the confidence of Paul exuded in Philippians? Yeah, quite possibly. But if people don't know what love means, don't know what it means to die, what life is, or what faith is, then it doesn't matter. Most people with leave with their own presuppositions in tact.

Explaining the different types of love can be taught quite easily which then leaves them with some decisions to make.

Yes, it would seem so. I agree with most everything I've seen him write

If I understand him correctly, he is of the "Jesus Only" doctrine. Is that you as well?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If I understand him correctly, he is of the "Jesus Only" doctrine. Is that you as well?

Though I can understand your misunderstanding, I am not a Modalist in ANY form (Sabellian, Patripassian, Monarchian).

I am a Trinitarian who challenges the minutiae of the historical formulaic in a few aspects; and I do so from within the Reformed Tradition (in my sig below).

I'm a Uni-/Dyo-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinitarian rather than a Multi-Hypostatic Uni-/Dyo-Phenomenal Trinitarian.

The Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit). They are all eternal uncreated divinity and are consubstantial conessential concurrent ontological divinity.

My challenges are regarding Opera Ad Intra and Opera Ad Extra, the Filioque, and a few other internal issues. In the past I've unfortunately positioned myself as too much of an antagonist because many modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists and don't comprehend the authentic historical and orthodox doctrine they presume to affirm but don't and can't.

 

[Cross Reference]

Though I can understand your misunderstanding, I am not a Modalist in ANY form (Sabellian, Patripassian, Monarchian).

I am a Trinitarian who challenges the minutiae of the historical formulaic in a few aspects; and I do so from within the Reformed Tradition (in my sig below).

I'm a Uni-/Dyo-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinitarian rather than a Multi-Hypostatic Uni-/Dyo-Phenomenal Trinitarian.

The Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit). They are all eternal uncreated divinity and are consubstantial conessential concurrent ontological divinity.

My challenges are regarding Opera Ad Intra and Opera Ad Extra, the Filioque, and a few other internal issues. In the past I've unfortunately positioned myself as too much of an antagonist because many modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists and don't comprehend the authentic historical and orthodox doctrine they presume to affirm but don't and can't.

How 'bout writing all that using a more 'sensible' vocab? I don't understand all that "academia-piety speak". Sorry.

 

[Danoh]

How 'bout writing all that using a more 'sensible' vocab? I don't understand all that "academia-piety speak". Sorry.

Then you are not saved like them.

March yourself down to the nearest Christian bookstore and load up on endless books "about" so you can be saved like these two clowns are.

After you get all the right words out - the longer, the better - only then will you be saved.

:chuckle:

 

[Cross Reference]

Then you are not saved like them.

March yourself down to the nearest Christian bookstore and load up on endless books "about" so you can be saved like these two clowns are.

After you get all the right words out - the longer, the better - only then will you be saved.

:chuckle:

Sorry, Dun'no. Irrespective of their speak, especially PP's, they are closer to the truth of it all than you are. At least they have sensed a problem they believe exists and are trying to rectify it. Instead of spitting it out you seem to have swallowed yours.

 

[Danoh]

Sorry, Dun'no. Irrespective of their speak, especially PP's, they are closer to the truth of it all than you are. At least they have sensed a problem they believe exists and are trying to rectify it. Instead of spitting it out you seem to have swallowed yours.

So says the fool often needing that I spoon feed him the intended sense behind my words because he ever remains clueless as to how to look at things from their built in principles.

 

[Right Divider]

Except your reading scripture according to a modern presupposition not found in the historical church. Bible-only reading of scripture is only found in the past 2 centuries. Not even Luther read scripture that way. The constant "Well if the Bible says..." Is a false way of evaluating the legitimacy of a stance.

History is filled with tons of false doctrine in the "traditional church". You probably think that the "church which is His body" started on the Jewish feast day.

Yet, there is something special about the language themselves. Historical, ancient Hebrew was a much more expressive language than any we have today. The very sounds themselves held meaning, not only the compilation of sounds in words. The language was quite possibly tonal, and thus the language melodically expressed meaning. As Tambora has mentioned, it was more concrete, and as a result of being less abstract was more accessible and more intimately experienced.

So like I asked you before: Why didn't God give us the so-called "New Testament" books in Hebrew instead of Greek?

So is it literally impossible to understand the WRITTEN Hebrews since "the very sounds themselves held meaning, not only the compilation of sounds in words"?

The benefit of Greek is that it has a scientific-like precision. If Hebrew paints a beautiful picture, Greek executes perfect surgery and algorithms. Greek can be broken down to a specific expressive meaning with many parts.

You are quite the language snob. The modern technological world runs quite well using English. English is quite precise.

The beauty of English is that it can do both of those things. The problem is when translations attempt to mimic the source language, rather than use the tools of the target translation. And thus meaning is lost from the original, as well as the potential for meaning in the target language. English is not awful. And it is not impossible to render scripture in English. But it must be done according to English, and not basic nominal word for word translations that attempt to be something it is not.

Do you really think that God is incapable of getting us an English translation that accurately portrays the same information as the Hebrew or the Greek?

 

[Cross Reference]

History is filled with tons of false doctrine in the "traditional church". You probably think that the "church which is His body" started on the Jewish feast day.


So like I asked you before: Why didn't God give us the so-called "New Testament" books in Hebrew instead of Greek?

So is it literally impossible to understand the WRITTEN Hebrews since "the very sounds themselves held meaning, not only the compilation of sounds in words"?


You are quite the language snob. The modern technological world runs quite well using English. English is quite precise.


Do you really think that God is incapable of getting us an English translation that accurately portrays the same information as the Hebrew or the Greek?

If you had a relationship with Him you could ask Him?

 

[Right Divider]

If you had a relationship with Him you could ask Him?

Just another "knock" by a supposed "believer".

 

[Cross Reference]

Just another "knock" by a supposed "believer".

You should know better but you choose to be ignorant which only makes you someone apart from God.

 

[Right Divider]

You should know better but you choose to be ignorant which only makes you someone apart from God.

Continued insults from an unbeliever do not affect my relationship with the LORD, but thanks anyway.:salute:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

How 'bout writing all that using a more 'sensible' vocab? I don't understand all that "academia-piety speak". Sorry.

For the sake of others who are nasty and condescending rather your authentic question...

Shouldn't we all realize that the terms I'm using are used throughout the history of the Christian faith by Theologians, Linguists, Philologists, and Chartographers?

These are only "big" words because modern culture has been dumbed-down in the midst of the specialized knowledge and technology explosion.

One would expect technical terms from anyone specializing in any field; but theologians are expected to converse in two syllable words for the sake of those who haven't bothered to know the historicity and technicality of Theological terms for the Christian faith.


In summary... I'm a Trinitarian who takes issue with some of the terminology used in the fourth century and beyond. It's actually the rise of the English language that allows low-content concision to further clarify the precision of the Greek NT text.

I generally converse with Theologians, so these terms are not only necessary but standard terminology in those settings.

 

[Cross Reference]

For the sake of others who are nasty and condescending rather your authentic question...

Shouldn't we all realize that the terms I'm using are used throughout the history of the Christian faith by Theologians, Linguists, Philologists, and Chartographers?

These are only "big" words because modern culture has been dumbed-down in the midst of the specialized knowledge and technology explosion.

One would expect technical terms from anyone specializing in any field; but theologians are expected to converse in two syllable words for the sake of those who haven't bothered to know the historicity and technicality of Theological terms for the Christian faith.


In summary... I'm a Trinitarian who takes issue with some of the terminology used in the fourth century and beyond. It's actually the rise of the English language that allows low-content concision to further clarify the precision of the Greek NT text.

I generally converse with Theologians, so these terms are not only necessary but standard terminology in those settings.

#1 I am no theologian. However, I am able, by other means, to bring correction to anyone's thinking. #2 Paul said this that might be helpful:

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 (KJV)

 

[Interplanner]

Weak = those who stop for any and every doubt about any and every food or circumstance that might be evil. Are you sure that is what you meant to quote?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

#1 I am no theologian. However, I am able, by other means, to bring correction to anyone's thinking. #2 Paul said this that might be helpful:

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 (KJV)

In the end, I always do that. Others "come up hither" after a time.

 

[Cross Reference]

In the end, I always do that. Others "come up hither" after a time.

I like that, however, it must amount to coming up higher in Him. . Oswald Chambers constantly reminds me of that challenge.

 

[Cross Reference]

Weak = those who stop for any and every doubt about any and every food or circumstance that might be evil. Are you sure that is what you meant to quote?

It is about one's faith Paul is referring to.

 

[Cross Reference]

So says the fool often needing that I spoon feed him the intended sense behind my words because he ever remains clueless as to how to look at things from their built in principles.

You have no food . . not even for thought.

 

[Aletheiophile]

So I take it, purely from an academic perspective you would stand with #1 trans?

Yes.

So then it it must be a matter of which scholar is better?

No, because no scholar does this in any translation. The anyone to come close would be Erasmus' Paraphrases, but the original translation is into Latin and I'm not sure the entirety has been translated. Even if it were, 99% of people do not know who he is or even that such a translation exists.

Unto what end are they both functional seeing that one is a gift??

As already stated, because the Spirit of God can work through any translation.

How is the very Spirit and the Word of God arrived at?

One does not arrive at the Spirit of God. It is given. What you are not understanding is that the responsibility is not on the hearer, but on the one speaking, that is, God Himself.

But only if both are possessed by the so-called 'learned practioner', don't you think?
Which, I believe when extended out, only leaves the 'practioner' remaining in darkness.

No, you're not getting it. My ultimate point is in the source of the text - God Himself. It is not the responsibility of the reader/hearer. It is the responsibility of God, which He has administered through the Spirit and through His body, the Church. Yet leaders have failed to adhere to what God has administered, leading millions astray.

But, and I am not trying to put you on the spot by asking this however, is that not what you are doing insofar as you have not mentioned this from Jesus: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 14:26 (KJV)

Where does He come into play when attempting to ferret out the academics of it all? Does this not speak of the need for an intimate relationship with God as put forth by Jesus?

It's not a binary - philology or inspiration. As Erasmus says, philology is the handmaiden of theology. The academics only make sense by the Spirit of God. I have godless professors that have excellent knowledge of the biblical languages and the text, yet they are utterly apostate and without Christ or knowledge of the Spirit. It is only by knowledge of the Spirit, by an intimate relationship with God, that the academic details even make sense.

Doesn't not care for purity? Christians?

Yes, it's the Charismatic/Pentecostal/Apostolic Reformation movement that is sweeping the world, persuading hundreds of millions. It is the fastest growing sect of "Christianity." They use Christian labels, but the practice and doctrine is essentially Hindu Brahmanism and Kabbalah. Very disturbing. They despise the Word of God. And this mindset is growing.

Who have been more quilty of this than Greek scholars steeped in Coptic manuscripts now presented as "The way to more accurate understanding".

It's been a long process of culture sculpting, especially with the advent of scientific, philosphical, and social revolutions that have changed the mind of western man. Most people are unaware. Think Matrix. 1984. Brave New World. They are not directly at fault, only indirectly for their ignorace.

I can't agree. Agape is love from God expressed from the soul of a redeemed man.

Of course it is. I did not say it wasn't. But God is still the source, and that is the lexical definition of Agape from Spiros Zodhiates.

I well understand all of that and would only add the question, "how it can be otherwise if academia is the only way. What do I say to my Yak sheperd friend in lower Siberia who reveres God while not ever owning a Bible? What did Jesus tell us to do about such folk?

That is a discussion for another thread, but essentially, as I said, God is not limited. I am never arguing that God is ever limited by English, especially when it comes to salvation. But there is a difference between the threshold of salvation and the depths of maturity. Many/most of my friends, family, and acquiantances have been Christian for much if not most of their lives. Yet only in the English, there is no spiritual growth in them after decades of being in Church. The Church is stuck in the same patterns with the same sermons and the same methodologies, never getting beyond the surface level of the text. My primary concern is with evangelizing to Christians, that we might be better equipped.

Explaining the different types of love can be taught quite easily which then leaves them with some decisions to make.

Who is the them of which you speak? Are you speaking of the peoples that missionaries go to? Most languages already have different words for love that correlate well enough to the Greek. If you're referring to the Siberian yak farmer, Russian already has a greater differentiation of love types than English, and the Russian "Lyubof" is much closer to agape. Yet, English influence is changing that to resemble what I've described. There are even more words for love in Japanese, but in Japan too English is having the same effect on how love is defined.

If I understand him correctly, he is of the "Jesus Only" doctrine. Is that you as well?

Referring to how he replied, I would agree that he does not seem to be a Modalist. I like the way he describes the trinity, and would have to say that I agree with him.

 

[Aletheiophile]

History is filled with tons of false doctrine in the "traditional church". You probably think that the "church which is His body" started on the Jewish feast day.


So like I asked you before: Why didn't God give us the so-called "New Testament" books in Hebrew instead of Greek?

So is it literally impossible to understand the WRITTEN Hebrews since "the very sounds themselves held meaning, not only the compilation of sounds in words"?


You are quite the language snob. The modern technological world runs quite well using English. English is quite precise.


Do you really think that God is incapable of getting us an English translation that accurately portrays the same information as the Hebrew or the Greek?

You deliberately misunderstand me. This discussion is pointless. You have no desire to discuss or engage, only ridicule because you do not want your English-only presupposition to crumble.

The NT was not in Hebrew because it was not in popular use. Quite simple. And no, it is not impossible. I'd rather have what I can access then claim that it's impossible and give up.

And my analysis of Greek is not a derogatory statement of English. I said that English is quite a powerful language for expression, but it has not yet been used for it in Biblical translation.

You clearly have no idea how the KJV and other English Bibles were produced.

If you did, you would know that the KJV would not have happened without Erasmus' New Testament. Erasmus is history's premier Greek scholar, and he (and other contemporaries) said that knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin was required for the exegete. (Not the layman, but scholars and priests.) We would not have the KJV or any other English translation without him scrupulously examining the NT Greek text and the Vulgate, to bring forth a clean codex.

Saying you only need the English is like saying that you like steak, but have no need for cows or butchers.

Could you ever consider that "snobs" and "academics" are not references education and learning as a demonstration of arrogance, but rather as an appeal to the authority of those that have come before them? Theologians, linguists, and the like? Maybe we're not all arrogant jerks, maybe we just want to feed the body.

I am not discussing this further with you. My response is for the benefit of others, not for further conversation.