You might contact the English Department of a college of university near you. Remember the King James is roughly a contemporary of Shakespeare and some of the archaic language used in one is found also in the other. ("Anon" comes to mind).
You might possibly be able to find a dictionary with archaic usages and words somewhere. I saw one of those once, which is where I discovered that "throughly" is just another form of "thoroughly." But I think I must have been in a library as I never owned one that throughly explained the meaning.
I'm looking for a good source to help me understand the ins and outs of Jacobean English, as used in the King James Bible. The source could be a book, web site, a previous thread in GSC, whatever. Just a reliable source or two to explain the usage of 'thee' and 'ye' and 'thou' etc. More importantly, to explain to me the manner in which actions by God were described in the Old Testament books. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it because I'm just not clear on it, but it's something to the effect that verbs were used in the passive voice to describe actions. Or maybe it was that verbs were used in the active voice to describe passive actions. Something like that.
Anyway, thank ye for whatever help thou canst provide me.
Hello buff. If general use of thou/ye is what you mean, then thou is singular and ye is plural in the nominative case (subject) and they change to thee and you in the accusative (object). Just googling "thou ye" I found this:
I read somewhere else that the usage had passed out of regular use at the time the KJV was put together:
As far as I was taught and can remember, the active for passive usage you were talking about is a figure of speech, so I suppose it has nothing to do with English.
"Thou" (or "thee") is second person singular. Its possessive is "thine" or "thy", approximately equivalent to French "tu" or German "du"
"You" = "ye" is second person plural. Possessives: "your" "yours" French: vous
If you work through some of the passages in the OT you will get quite a different perspective of some passages when you realize that they are in 2nd person singular. It can mean (a) that the Israelites as a group were being addressed as if they were one; or (b) makes it very personal to the individual and therefore very much more intimate and there is a greater sense of personal responsibility.
The standard English dictionary is the Oxford. It comes in several versions from the Pocket version through Concise version which is the most common words up to the Shorter (which is actually two large volumes) - so what the non-Shorter version is...is probably a library.
I found this website which might help: My link can't speak for how reliable it is. I notice one of its footnotes refers to the Oxford Dictionary. (None of this author's notes refer to "silly women" though this is specifically referred to in the Shorter Oxford!)
I note also that "prosper" isn't in the link above, either. "Prosper" doesn't particularly have to do with financial gain. It means to "thrive" or do well. Plants in a garden archaically could "prosper" if they grew well. An idea, course of action, etc, might or might not "prosper" someone, not in the sense of bringing in lots of dosh but more that it was good overall for their wellbeing.
Although the "thou" form is archaic in much spoken English, it survives as a dialect form particularly in the north of England though is more or less extinct further south (I was brought up with "thou").
I believe the "thou" form may also be widely spoken still in some Caribbean islands from when the slave trade exported people and the language just didn't quite keep up with modern developments.
I have several old dictionaries in my book collection, including a Shorter Oxford, looks like I need to dust it off, thanks Twinky. You were brought up learning "thou"? I had no idea it was still in use any where in the world.
Cara thanks for the memory jog; I think you're right, the usage of active voice for passive is a figure of speech and not a Jacobean English device. I've been looking in the wrong places for that answer. Right church, wrong pew!
WG, I have an IT professor friend, think I'll ask him to check with his English department colleagues for reference advice. You might be interested in this, I recall reading several years ago that some high school and college administrators decided to remove Shakespeare from their library shelves. There are too many "dead white guys" swaying the minds of the youngsters, they explained.
In twi and ex-twi circles, the idea you mentioned is called "the idiom of permission", and is where the active voice is switched for the passive voice.
In doing a search for that, all I found were ex-twi posts or ex-twi sites. (The use of twi-specific terms like "the adversary", insistence on the KJV, and so on, are obvious flags, especially when they're all grouped together.) Since it ONLY comes up on ex-twi sites, all by itself that raises a few "red flags" for me. Anything that nobody's ever heard of EXCEPT ex-twi'ers? Can it possibly be accurate?
Anyroad, so I looked around, and found what I think were the most intelligent pages on the subject. I found 2 of them. A quick skim will show that they are the same page (the contents are more than 95A% the same, down to the same words on the same spots) and are probably cut-and-pastes. I do not know if one is a cut-and-paste of the other. I do not know if both are cut-and-pastes of yet a third page. However, what I DO know is that they are the same article, and both pages clearly give credit to someone-and those are 2 different people in both cases. So, ex-twi and plagiarism seem to be co-inciding again. Unlike in vpw's day, it can be caught a LOT more easily now- a few clicks of a mouse versus research in a library.
So, having said all that, and having given what I consider are prudent caveats,
"In the Old Testament, God uses an idiom in which a verb is used in a permissive sense. What is written as the Lord 'smote Uzzah' was actually the Lord 'allowed Uzzah to be smitten.' God set up His laws and man can break himself on them if he so desires. God also set up the law of gravity, but only a fool would think that God killed a man who jumped off a ten-story building. The man killed himself by violating God's law of gravity. So the true picture in the Scripture is that the adversary kills, hurts, and harms. Man allows this to happen as he attempts to break God's laws.
"God uses the idiom of permission for several reasons. The idiom of permission does not glorify the adversary. Imagine how the Old Testament would read if everything the adversary did to man was attributed to him. We would read about the adversary on every page! This would be clearly out of harmony with God's commandment in Exodus 23:13, and would not be a blessing to God's people to read."
Exodus 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Too bad for the apparent plagiarism in the two links you gave. So painfully obvious. Unless Evangelion (cited in the first link) and David Burke (cited in the second link) are the same person, someone would appear to be a thief.
EW Bullinger describes the Idiom of Permission in his book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible." In my book on p.823 subheading 4: "Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do."
This link may help: FoS. Be aware it is a very big document. If you do a Find on permission, the fourth item is p.808 which I think will be the same as my book's page 823.
It is not a TWI-thing, but TWI undoubtedly picked up on this Idiom and gave it their own idiosyncratic interpretation.
You might find this link entertaining - do get down to the end: Dialectical use
Thee/thou/tha etc are pretty much out of use now except in rural Yorkshire and Lancashire, where they're still commonly to be found. These forms used to be much more common in Derbyshire (near where I was brought up) - tha'd be 'ard put to it, lad, to find 'm now. (= you'd find it difficult, young man, to find them now)
In passing, I'd remark (and this is totally off topic) that under the heading no.4 above, it mentions Mt 6:13 from "the Lord's prayer" - "lead us not (ie, suffer us not to be led) into temptation." I have been pondering this phrase for a little while now but not actually got round to researching anythng about it. All I know is that God himself - does not lead us into temptation - not to test us nor to trick us out. Not no ways. So the traditional meaning (?) according to the usual words can't possibly be right. I'd wondered if that must be the Idiom of Permission but hadn't looked it up. Sur-pri-ise!!!
Oh you've posted something else while I was putting this together.
Am I now surprised to discover that Wierwille coincidentally taught a relatively obscure figure of speech that seems to have been "researched" long ago by E.W. Bullinger?
"Thou" (or "thee") is second person singular. Its possessive is "thine" or "thy", approximately equivalent to French "tu" or German "du"
"You" = "ye" is second person plural. Possessives: "your" "yours" French: vous
I wish we still used "ye". We seem to have no second person plural word now. You can't say "ye" now because it is outdated and sounds old fashioned. You can't say, "you people" because that's offensive. That leaves us with "you all", y'all if you're from the South, "you guys" if you're from my part of the country (which is kind of dumb if much of the audience is women. We say it anyway.), and "y'uns" if you're from certain parts of Pennsylvania.
Then again, if this is the biggest deal in life for me to lament, I need to get out more. Y'all have a good one. Take care "you guys".
Yes, BA, and using the "you" form for 2nd person sing (probably started long ago as a sort of politeness or formality, to add distance, as some languages like Spanish still do) - using "you" also loses the comfortable intimacy of the real 2nd person sing (thee/thou) which was more laterly used for family, friends, people you know well or at least are familiar with. Helps you know status and standing, if you like, to use a TWI-type expression.
Not sure that thee/thou was always reserved for closeness, but for a KJV equivalent it would be worth a look at Shakespeare to see when he used thee/thou and its other forms. Certainly he used it between intimates (eg Hamlet and his buddies) - and between people of roughly similar rank or from a higher person to a lower person; not sure that the lower person (the peasant, rascal, whatever) would commonly use it to address the duke, king, lord, etc. But then again - it's a literary device so may not strictly adhere to "normal" usage of the time, though it should not be egregiously different.
I wish we still used "ye". We seem to have no second person plural word now. You can't say "ye" now because it is outdated and sounds old fashioned. You can't say, "you people" because that's offensive. That leaves us with "you all", y'all if you're from the South, "you guys" if you're from my part of the country (which is kind of dumb if much of the audience is women. We say it anyway.), and "y'uns" if you're from certain parts of Pennsylvania.
Then again, if this is the biggest deal in life for me to lament, I need to get out more. Y'all have a good one. Take care "you guys".
Broken Arrow, did yinz ever live arahnd Pittsburgh? That's where I'm from. We usually spell it yinz, which is closer to its pronunciation.
Yes, BA, and using the "you" form for 2nd person sing (probably started long ago as a sort of politeness or formality, to add distance, as some languages like Spanish still do) - using "you" also loses the comfortable intimacy of the real 2nd person sing (thee/thou) which was more laterly used for family, friends, people you know well or at least are familiar with. Helps you know status and standing, if you like, to use a TWI-type expression.
Not sure that thee/thou was always reserved for closeness, but for a KJV equivalent it would be worth a look at Shakespeare to see when he used thee/thou and its other forms. Certainly he used it between intimates (eg Hamlet and his buddies) - and between people of roughly similar rank or from a higher person to a lower person; not sure that the lower person (the peasant, rascal, whatever) would commonly use it to address the duke, king, lord, etc. But then again - it's a literary device so may not strictly adhere to "normal" usage of the time, though it should not be egregiously different.
This is a very interesting thread - thanks all, for the reminders and links. I'll have to go back and study. Twinky and Broken Arrow, I grew up using "ye" for plural "you" informally - it's fairly common in Hiberno-English. In some parts they say "yous" but I think ye is nicer, though I wouldn't use it with someone from another country. I like the Northern English thees and thas.
To my mind, this idiom of permission is tremendously important. I'm thinking of many examples of Old Testament scripture that always seemed perfectly clear to me, but when this idiom is applied the meaning of the scripture changes entirely.
The exodus from Egypt and the passover, for example. I always thought God decided to kick some Egyptian butt to get His people out of bondage to Pharaoh. Maybe it's not that cut and dry. God didn't kill all those firstborns? I always thought He did. God didn't harden the heart of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh who hardened his own heart by ignoring God's commandment? God didn't send the hail and fire upon the land of Egypt, He permitted the adversary to do it? That can't be right, can it? Guess I need to figure out when and where the idiom of permission applies and when it does not.
Looks like I have a busy summer of studying ahead of me!
See - - if you grew up speaking Brooklyneze, as I did, one determines the difference between singular and plural you this way: it's singular if you're only talking to one other person; it's plural if you're pointing at them while carving an arc - - and usually in a louder voice too. ;D
Oh, I see. No, never lived around Pittsburgh but I worked with and went to school with people from there. That's how I learned about "yinz". I was never taught the correct spelling.
I grew up using "ye" for plural "you" informally - it's fairly common in Hiberno-English.
Thank you. If I may ask, just what is "Hiberno-English?"
To my mind, this idiom of permission is tremendously important. I'm thinking of many examples of Old Testament scripture that always seemed perfectly clear to me, but when this idiom is applied the meaning of the scripture changes entirely.
The exodus from Egypt and the passover, for example. I always thought God decided to kick some Egyptian butt to get His people out of bondage to Pharaoh. Maybe it's not that cut and dry. God didn't kill all those firstborns? I always thought He did. God didn't harden the heart of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh who hardened his own heart by ignoring God's commandment? God didn't send the hail and fire upon the land of Egypt, He permitted the adversary to do it? That can't be right, can it? Guess I need to figure out when and where the idiom of permission applies and when it does not.
Looks like I have a busy summer of studying ahead of me!
I must admit, I sort of threw this "idiom of permission" thing on the trash heap along with the other teaching errors of TWI. You're helping me to see that maybe there was something to this. I have problems with two key aspects of this argument. Certain acts in the Old Testament do not line up with the loving and merciful God of the New Testament; killing of the first born being a prime example. The idiom of permission that says God allowed the Devil to do it helps reconcile the two contradictory ideas. However, saying that God allows evil to be unleashed connotes that God can stop it if He wishes. If God allows evil to occur when He has the power to stop it, isn't that the same as committing the act itself?
Also, if God is merely allowing the adversary to commit an evil act, can't the adversary just say, "No! that would make God look good in the long run, and I'm therefore not cooperating.
Finally if God allows the Devil to commit evil, the implication is that God needs the Devil in order to show his goodness. In other words, good needs evil in order to exist. Not exactly an almighty God.
Now, I have nothing to offer in terms of another explanation, but this one leaves me with a lot of questions.
I must admit, I sort of threw this "idiom of permission" thing on the trash heap along with the other teaching errors of TWI. You're helping me to see that maybe there was something to this. I have problems with two key aspects of this argument. Certain acts in the Old Testament do not line up with the loving and merciful God of the New Testament; killing of the first born being a prime example. The idiom of permission that says God allowed the Devil to do it helps reconcile the two contradictory ideas. However, saying that God allows evil to be unleashed connotes that God can stop it if He wishes. If God allows evil to occur when He has the power to stop it, isn't that the same as committing the act itself?
Also, if God is merely allowing the adverssary to commit an evil act, can't the adverssary just say, "No! that would make God look good in the long run, and I'm therefore not cooperating.
Finally if God allows the Devil to commit evil, the implication is that God needs the Devil in order to show his goodness. In other words, good needs eveil in order to exist. Not exactly an almighty God.
Now, I have nothing to offer in terms of another explanation, but this one leaves me with a lot of questions.
Me too. One of the web links above described the idiom of permission as a Hebrew idiom. I'm going to search in the direction of Judaism for more info.
Did someone mention the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary. It's available electronically. I got mine through the Christian Book Distributors. David Anderson has a hard copy and told me about it. It's a treasure. (I read dictionaries for pleasure). It's got some nice stuff in there.Helps you bend your mind into the frame of thinking of earlier times.
Thank you. If I may ask, just what is "Hiberno-English?"
Sorry, BA, I did it again - Hibernia is what the Romans called Ireland, though they never went there, not as an army anyway, and when I was googling "irish english" one time, looking for a dictionary to check something, a link to a Wikipedia page about the English spoken in Ireland came up and they called it Hiberno-English, so I thought that was a good international term, not "hiberno-centric" - the best-laid plans ...
Finally if God allows the Devil to commit evil, the implication is that God needs the Devil in order to show his goodness. In other words, good needs evil in order to exist. Not exactly an almighty God.
Now, I have nothing to offer in terms of another explanation, but this one leaves me with a lot of questions.
I have to go and think/read about this stuff also, but for a start I wouldn't think that good needs evil to appear good - the evil is there but it's going to run its course and after that it'll still be good, I think.
I have to go and think/read about this stuff also, but for a start I wouldn't think that good needs evil to appear good - the evil is there but it's going to run its course and after that it'll still be good, I think.
Just for the record, I don't believe goods needs evil either. I'm just talking about a dichotemy I see when the "idiom of permission" is used to explain evil happenings.
The first paragraph of this excerpt cites one of the rare appearances of the Idiom of Permission in the church epistles; I include the second paragraph because it excites me! (italics mine):
"When Verse 11 says, 'God shall send them strong delusion,' God’s Word is using an Old Testament-style figure of speech. It is called the Idiom of Permission, and shows God actively causing what, literally speaking, He only permits or allows. The true God, who is light and who is love, does not send delusion. But if people decide that they want to be deluded, He allows it. Although the Idiom of Permission occurs hundreds of times in the Old Testament, this is one of the few places in the Church Epistles where it is used.
"When the events of II Thessalonians 2 come to pass, the oikonomia of the mystery of Ephesians 3:9, in which we are living now, will be over. Whatever benefits the unbelievers enjoy today, riding the coattails of God’s blessings through Christ Jesus to the body of Christ, will have vanished into the air. The oikonomia of the grace of God of Ephesians 3:2 will have ended forever."
***
I've also been thinking quite a lot over the past year about something else, namely the extraordinary lengths, the almost mind-boggling lengths God goes to in order to not violate man's freedom of will, while at the same time working His own will. He simply does not violate man's freedom of will. Consider back in the garden of Eden, for example; surely God could have somehow physically restrained Eve from eating of the fruit of the tree (whatever that was, I'm still not sure). But He didn't. He never does. Mankind's freedom of will is inviolate with God. Yet, so great a truth as this is, almost no attention is paid -- almost no ink has been spilled in the Word -- to describe it. It's just there to see, plain as day, for anyone who has eyes to see. More or less taken for granted.
I'm wondering if this idiom of permission is somehow linked to that. To avoid spilling a lot of ink mentioning the adversary's actions against mankind, God is mentioned instead. But in a manner that assumes we know God is light and good and perfect.
I've also been thinking quite a lot over the past year about something else, namely the extraordinary lengths, the almost mind-boggling lengths God goes to in order to not violate man's freedom of will, while at the same time working His own will. He simply does not violate man's freedom of will. Consider back in the garden of Eden, for example; surely God could have somehow physically restrained Eve from eating of the fruit of the tree (whatever that was, I'm still not sure). But He didn't. He never does. Mankind's freedom of will is inviolate with God. Yet, so great a truth as this is, almost no attention is paid -- almost no ink has been spilled in the Word -- to describe it. It's just there to see, plain as day, for anyone who has eyes to see. More or less taken for granted.
I'm wondering if this idiom of permission is somehow linked to that. To avoid spilling a lot of ink mentioning the adversary's actions against mankind, God is mentioned instead. But in a manner that assumes we know God is light and good and perfect.
This is very wonderful to me. Da1e Side$ years ago taught that the Nicolaitans that God hates (Revelations 2:6,15) were "people overcomers" (Nike, overcome; laos, people) It's been a long time I don't remember exactly the Greek words he used but I do remember that it set right in my spirit and I have been trying to understand it for the number of years or so since I heard it.
This discussion regarding the figure of speech "permission" and what you said, OperaBuff, most recently regarding the importance of free will to the Lord fits into that importance He attaches to overcoming free will by identifying people who do so as hated of Him. There are so very few things that God says He hates.
The concept of "hate" i understand carries with it separation, and that would explain why God does not speak much of these "nicolaitanes" that He hates.
There may be a number of things that I have come to understand regarding the "love and hate" dichotomy, among which are closeness of love and lovely and the separation that comes with hate and hateful things.
("Come out and be ye separate" has become a watchword to me of the way to deal with temptation. (not to be holier and thou outwardly, but it's an inward separation primarily.)
A recent book I am reading "23 questions about Hell," notes that the attributes of hell are all identified by the absence of God: For example, hell is dark because God is light (I John 1:5); Hell is only death because God is life (John 1:4); Hell is hatred because God is love (I John 4:16); Hell has no mercy because the mercy of the Lord is in the heavens (psalm 36.5).
Pretty amazing how this all fits together.
Thanks so much.
Thank you very much for the neat picture in the puzzle of Godliness for me.
Recommended Posts
Watered Garden
You might contact the English Department of a college of university near you. Remember the King James is roughly a contemporary of Shakespeare and some of the archaic language used in one is found also in the other. ("Anon" comes to mind).
You might possibly be able to find a dictionary with archaic usages and words somewhere. I saw one of those once, which is where I discovered that "throughly" is just another form of "thoroughly." But I think I must have been in a library as I never owned one that throughly explained the meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
Hello buff. If general use of thou/ye is what you mean, then thou is singular and ye is plural in the nominative case (subject) and they change to thee and you in the accusative (object). Just googling "thou ye" I found this:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-theethou.html
I read somewhere else that the usage had passed out of regular use at the time the KJV was put together:
As far as I was taught and can remember, the active for passive usage you were talking about is a figure of speech, so I suppose it has nothing to do with English.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting you should raise this.
"Thou" (or "thee") is second person singular. Its possessive is "thine" or "thy", approximately equivalent to French "tu" or German "du"
"You" = "ye" is second person plural. Possessives: "your" "yours" French: vous
If you work through some of the passages in the OT you will get quite a different perspective of some passages when you realize that they are in 2nd person singular. It can mean (a) that the Israelites as a group were being addressed as if they were one; or (b) makes it very personal to the individual and therefore very much more intimate and there is a greater sense of personal responsibility.
The standard English dictionary is the Oxford. It comes in several versions from the Pocket version through Concise version which is the most common words up to the Shorter (which is actually two large volumes) - so what the non-Shorter version is...is probably a library.
I found this website which might help: My link can't speak for how reliable it is. I notice one of its footnotes refers to the Oxford Dictionary. (None of this author's notes refer to "silly women" though this is specifically referred to in the Shorter Oxford!)
I note also that "prosper" isn't in the link above, either. "Prosper" doesn't particularly have to do with financial gain. It means to "thrive" or do well. Plants in a garden archaically could "prosper" if they grew well. An idea, course of action, etc, might or might not "prosper" someone, not in the sense of bringing in lots of dosh but more that it was good overall for their wellbeing.
Although the "thou" form is archaic in much spoken English, it survives as a dialect form particularly in the north of England though is more or less extinct further south (I was brought up with "thou").
I believe the "thou" form may also be widely spoken still in some Caribbean islands from when the slave trade exported people and the language just didn't quite keep up with modern developments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
Thanks to all for the info and links.
I have several old dictionaries in my book collection, including a Shorter Oxford, looks like I need to dust it off, thanks Twinky. You were brought up learning "thou"? I had no idea it was still in use any where in the world.
Cara thanks for the memory jog; I think you're right, the usage of active voice for passive is a figure of speech and not a Jacobean English device. I've been looking in the wrong places for that answer. Right church, wrong pew!
WG, I have an IT professor friend, think I'll ask him to check with his English department colleagues for reference advice. You might be interested in this, I recall reading several years ago that some high school and college administrators decided to remove Shakespeare from their library shelves. There are too many "dead white guys" swaying the minds of the youngsters, they explained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In twi and ex-twi circles, the idea you mentioned is called "the idiom of permission", and is where the active voice is switched for the passive voice.
In doing a search for that, all I found were ex-twi posts or ex-twi sites. (The use of twi-specific terms like "the adversary", insistence on the KJV, and so on, are obvious flags, especially when they're all grouped together.) Since it ONLY comes up on ex-twi sites, all by itself that raises a few "red flags" for me. Anything that nobody's ever heard of EXCEPT ex-twi'ers? Can it possibly be accurate?
Anyroad, so I looked around, and found what I think were the most intelligent pages on the subject. I found 2 of them. A quick skim will show that they are the same page (the contents are more than 95A% the same, down to the same words on the same spots) and are probably cut-and-pastes. I do not know if one is a cut-and-paste of the other. I do not know if both are cut-and-pastes of yet a third page. However, what I DO know is that they are the same article, and both pages clearly give credit to someone-and those are 2 different people in both cases. So, ex-twi and plagiarism seem to be co-inciding again. Unlike in vpw's day, it can be caught a LOT more easily now- a few clicks of a mouse versus research in a library.
So, having said all that, and having given what I consider are prudent caveats,
here are the links to those pages:
http://thefaithofjesus.blogspot.com/2007/08/did-jesus-raise-himself-from-dead.html
http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/177.htm
Although this is not an article itself focused on that subject, it uses it clearly and with illustrations.
So, IF the idiom of permission is correct, I would use this to help explain it.
However, I still have unanswered questions concerning the entire subject, as you can see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
WordWolf, thank you. That's what I needed to do further digging, the name (or at least one name) of the thing. Idiom of permission.
I found another website that encapsulates it nicely, or at least addresses my initial lack of understanding. The link is here:
http://www.picturesofsilver.com/appendix/idiomperm.htm
To quote the money graf from there:
"In the Old Testament, God uses an idiom in which a verb is used in a permissive sense. What is written as the Lord 'smote Uzzah' was actually the Lord 'allowed Uzzah to be smitten.' God set up His laws and man can break himself on them if he so desires. God also set up the law of gravity, but only a fool would think that God killed a man who jumped off a ten-story building. The man killed himself by violating God's law of gravity. So the true picture in the Scripture is that the adversary kills, hurts, and harms. Man allows this to happen as he attempts to break God's laws.
"God uses the idiom of permission for several reasons. The idiom of permission does not glorify the adversary. Imagine how the Old Testament would read if everything the adversary did to man was attributed to him. We would read about the adversary on every page! This would be clearly out of harmony with God's commandment in Exodus 23:13, and would not be a blessing to God's people to read."
Exodus 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Too bad for the apparent plagiarism in the two links you gave. So painfully obvious. Unless Evangelion (cited in the first link) and David Burke (cited in the second link) are the same person, someone would appear to be a thief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
EW Bullinger describes the Idiom of Permission in his book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible." In my book on p.823 subheading 4: "Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do."
This link may help: FoS. Be aware it is a very big document. If you do a Find on permission, the fourth item is p.808 which I think will be the same as my book's page 823.
It is not a TWI-thing, but TWI undoubtedly picked up on this Idiom and gave it their own idiosyncratic interpretation.
You might find this link entertaining - do get down to the end: Dialectical use
And this one: Yorkies
Thee/thou/tha etc are pretty much out of use now except in rural Yorkshire and Lancashire, where they're still commonly to be found. These forms used to be much more common in Derbyshire (near where I was brought up) - tha'd be 'ard put to it, lad, to find 'm now. (= you'd find it difficult, young man, to find them now)
Okay, seriously now: Oxford Online Dictionary
In passing, I'd remark (and this is totally off topic) that under the heading no.4 above, it mentions Mt 6:13 from "the Lord's prayer" - "lead us not (ie, suffer us not to be led) into temptation." I have been pondering this phrase for a little while now but not actually got round to researching anythng about it. All I know is that God himself - does not lead us into temptation - not to test us nor to trick us out. Not no ways. So the traditional meaning (?) according to the usual words can't possibly be right. I'd wondered if that must be the Idiom of Permission but hadn't looked it up. Sur-pri-ise!!!
Oh you've posted something else while I was putting this together.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Am I now surprised to discover that Wierwille coincidentally taught a relatively obscure figure of speech that seems to have been "researched" long ago by E.W. Bullinger?
uuuhhhh.....no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I wish we still used "ye". We seem to have no second person plural word now. You can't say "ye" now because it is outdated and sounds old fashioned. You can't say, "you people" because that's offensive. That leaves us with "you all", y'all if you're from the South, "you guys" if you're from my part of the country (which is kind of dumb if much of the audience is women. We say it anyway.), and "y'uns" if you're from certain parts of Pennsylvania.
Then again, if this is the biggest deal in life for me to lament, I need to get out more. Y'all have a good one. Take care "you guys".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Yes, BA, and using the "you" form for 2nd person sing (probably started long ago as a sort of politeness or formality, to add distance, as some languages like Spanish still do) - using "you" also loses the comfortable intimacy of the real 2nd person sing (thee/thou) which was more laterly used for family, friends, people you know well or at least are familiar with. Helps you know status and standing, if you like, to use a TWI-type expression.
Not sure that thee/thou was always reserved for closeness, but for a KJV equivalent it would be worth a look at Shakespeare to see when he used thee/thou and its other forms. Certainly he used it between intimates (eg Hamlet and his buddies) - and between people of roughly similar rank or from a higher person to a lower person; not sure that the lower person (the peasant, rascal, whatever) would commonly use it to address the duke, king, lord, etc. But then again - it's a literary device so may not strictly adhere to "normal" usage of the time, though it should not be egregiously different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
Broken Arrow, did yinz ever live arahnd Pittsburgh? That's where I'm from. We usually spell it yinz, which is closer to its pronunciation.
http://www.pittsburghese.com/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
This is a very interesting thread - thanks all, for the reminders and links. I'll have to go back and study. Twinky and Broken Arrow, I grew up using "ye" for plural "you" informally - it's fairly common in Hiberno-English. In some parts they say "yous" but I think ye is nicer, though I wouldn't use it with someone from another country. I like the Northern English thees and thas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
To my mind, this idiom of permission is tremendously important. I'm thinking of many examples of Old Testament scripture that always seemed perfectly clear to me, but when this idiom is applied the meaning of the scripture changes entirely.
The exodus from Egypt and the passover, for example. I always thought God decided to kick some Egyptian butt to get His people out of bondage to Pharaoh. Maybe it's not that cut and dry. God didn't kill all those firstborns? I always thought He did. God didn't harden the heart of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh who hardened his own heart by ignoring God's commandment? God didn't send the hail and fire upon the land of Egypt, He permitted the adversary to do it? That can't be right, can it? Guess I need to figure out when and where the idiom of permission applies and when it does not.
Looks like I have a busy summer of studying ahead of me!
Edited by OperaBuffLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
See - - if you grew up speaking Brooklyneze, as I did, one determines the difference between singular and plural you this way: it's singular if you're only talking to one other person; it's plural if you're pointing at them while carving an arc - - and usually in a louder voice too. ;D
Edited by krysLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Oh, I see. No, never lived around Pittsburgh but I worked with and went to school with people from there. That's how I learned about "yinz". I was never taught the correct spelling.
Thank you. If I may ask, just what is "Hiberno-English?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I must admit, I sort of threw this "idiom of permission" thing on the trash heap along with the other teaching errors of TWI. You're helping me to see that maybe there was something to this. I have problems with two key aspects of this argument. Certain acts in the Old Testament do not line up with the loving and merciful God of the New Testament; killing of the first born being a prime example. The idiom of permission that says God allowed the Devil to do it helps reconcile the two contradictory ideas. However, saying that God allows evil to be unleashed connotes that God can stop it if He wishes. If God allows evil to occur when He has the power to stop it, isn't that the same as committing the act itself?
Also, if God is merely allowing the adversary to commit an evil act, can't the adversary just say, "No! that would make God look good in the long run, and I'm therefore not cooperating.
Finally if God allows the Devil to commit evil, the implication is that God needs the Devil in order to show his goodness. In other words, good needs evil in order to exist. Not exactly an almighty God.
Now, I have nothing to offer in terms of another explanation, but this one leaves me with a lot of questions.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
Me too. One of the web links above described the idiom of permission as a Hebrew idiom. I'm going to search in the direction of Judaism for more info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Did someone mention the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary. It's available electronically. I got mine through the Christian Book Distributors. David Anderson has a hard copy and told me about it. It's a treasure. (I read dictionaries for pleasure). It's got some nice stuff in there.Helps you bend your mind into the frame of thinking of earlier times.
Edited by Kit SoberLink to comment
Share on other sites
cara
Sorry, BA, I did it again - Hibernia is what the Romans called Ireland, though they never went there, not as an army anyway, and when I was googling "irish english" one time, looking for a dictionary to check something, a link to a Wikipedia page about the English spoken in Ireland came up and they called it Hiberno-English, so I thought that was a good international term, not "hiberno-centric" - the best-laid plans ...
I have to go and think/read about this stuff also, but for a start I wouldn't think that good needs evil to appear good - the evil is there but it's going to run its course and after that it'll still be good, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Just for the record, I don't believe goods needs evil either. I'm just talking about a dichotemy I see when the "idiom of permission" is used to explain evil happenings.
I don't have an answer myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
This study of II Thessalonians 2 seems pretty decent, written by one Jeff Stanley, whoever he is.
http://www.biblicalresearchjournal.org/brj-pages_pdf/002jfs_2007-04_ii_thess_2.pdf
The first paragraph of this excerpt cites one of the rare appearances of the Idiom of Permission in the church epistles; I include the second paragraph because it excites me! (italics mine):
"When Verse 11 says, 'God shall send them strong delusion,' God’s Word is using an Old Testament-style figure of speech. It is called the Idiom of Permission, and shows God actively causing what, literally speaking, He only permits or allows. The true God, who is light and who is love, does not send delusion. But if people decide that they want to be deluded, He allows it. Although the Idiom of Permission occurs hundreds of times in the Old Testament, this is one of the few places in the Church Epistles where it is used.
"When the events of II Thessalonians 2 come to pass, the oikonomia of the mystery of Ephesians 3:9, in which we are living now, will be over. Whatever benefits the unbelievers enjoy today, riding the coattails of God’s blessings through Christ Jesus to the body of Christ, will have vanished into the air. The oikonomia of the grace of God of Ephesians 3:2 will have ended forever."
***
I've also been thinking quite a lot over the past year about something else, namely the extraordinary lengths, the almost mind-boggling lengths God goes to in order to not violate man's freedom of will, while at the same time working His own will. He simply does not violate man's freedom of will. Consider back in the garden of Eden, for example; surely God could have somehow physically restrained Eve from eating of the fruit of the tree (whatever that was, I'm still not sure). But He didn't. He never does. Mankind's freedom of will is inviolate with God. Yet, so great a truth as this is, almost no attention is paid -- almost no ink has been spilled in the Word -- to describe it. It's just there to see, plain as day, for anyone who has eyes to see. More or less taken for granted.
I'm wondering if this idiom of permission is somehow linked to that. To avoid spilling a lot of ink mentioning the adversary's actions against mankind, God is mentioned instead. But in a manner that assumes we know God is light and good and perfect.
Edited by OperaBuffLink to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
From OperaBuff
This is very wonderful to me. Da1e Side$ years ago taught that the Nicolaitans that God hates (Revelations 2:6,15) were "people overcomers" (Nike, overcome; laos, people) It's been a long time I don't remember exactly the Greek words he used but I do remember that it set right in my spirit and I have been trying to understand it for the number of years or so since I heard it.
This discussion regarding the figure of speech "permission" and what you said, OperaBuff, most recently regarding the importance of free will to the Lord fits into that importance He attaches to overcoming free will by identifying people who do so as hated of Him. There are so very few things that God says He hates.
The concept of "hate" i understand carries with it separation, and that would explain why God does not speak much of these "nicolaitanes" that He hates.
There may be a number of things that I have come to understand regarding the "love and hate" dichotomy, among which are closeness of love and lovely and the separation that comes with hate and hateful things.
("Come out and be ye separate" has become a watchword to me of the way to deal with temptation. (not to be holier and thou outwardly, but it's an inward separation primarily.)
A recent book I am reading "23 questions about Hell," notes that the attributes of hell are all identified by the absence of God: For example, hell is dark because God is light (I John 1:5); Hell is only death because God is life (John 1:4); Hell is hatred because God is love (I John 4:16); Hell has no mercy because the mercy of the Lord is in the heavens (psalm 36.5).
Pretty amazing how this all fits together.
Thanks so much.
Thank you very much for the neat picture in the puzzle of Godliness for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.