The issue is not with English it is with the greek! The word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ is the greek word for fear at least thats what they teach you when learning greek. Granted when you look up the word it says respect although not used in scripture because I don't see the context in many of the passages as respect...
There are words for respect in the greek like αÏÎżÎœÎ”ÎŒÏ meaning to cause respect to treat with respect (with respect, as desvered) Str 642.
1791. áŒÎœÏÏÎżÏÎź entropÄ; from 1788; respect, shame:âshame(2).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Here are some words for REVERENCE
ÎŽÎÎżÏ deos; from ÎŽÎ”ÎŻÎŽÏ deidĆ (to fear); fear, reverence:âawe(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»Î±ÎČÎÎżÎŒÎ±Îč eulabeomai; from 2126; to be cautious:âreverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»ÎŹÎČΔÎčα eulabeia; from 2126; caution:âpiety(1), reverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
2152. ΔáœÏΔÎČÎźÏ ÄusÄbÄs, yoo-seb-aceÂŽ; from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:âdevout, godly.
. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2318. ΞΔοÏΔÎČÎźÏ thÄĆsÄbÄs, theh-os-eb-aceÂŽ; from 2316 and 4576; reverent of God, i.e. pious:âworshipper of God.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
5091. ÏÎčÎŒÎŹÏ timaĆ, tim-ahÂŽ-o; from 5093; to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by impl. to revere:âhonour, value.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
It seems to me that if God wanted it to be something other than fear he could of found a less confusing word. Unless it isn't confusing and when it says fear it says and I am sorry for the pun... "Says what it means".... If only VPW took his own advice.
When Jesus said "fear the one who has the power to throw you into hell and destroy it" He dosen't stop there. Jesus reiterates the point "Yes fear Him"... This isn't some respect or awe. None of the other words really even make sense in that story. As I illuded above with the word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ Jesus is saying it literally fear God...
Another thing to look at are peoples reactions to God or the glorified Jesus. I can't think of anyone who didn't tremble before them... John for example fell down as if dead... This is the one whom Jesus Loved. Jesus said do not be afraid. It wouldn't make since to say "Do not respect".. Johns natural reaction like everyone else in the bible was to fall down in fear of God. Why do I think I am going to act any different than the apostle John post pentecost? It just seems arrogant to assume anything other than that.
The fear of the LORD leads to life, and whoever has it rests satisfied; he will not be visited by harm.
Our ultimate peace is that we really know who God is... We can't understand who God is until we fear Him... Not in he will strike me down for cussing but for his holiness. As Isaiah did... "I am a man with unclean lips".
No one deserves salvation... No one..... as good old Romans 3 points out... This is where the fear comes from.... an acknowledgement of who we are and who God is. We should fear him... It makes since...
The issue is that we will never understand the Love of God until we know God. We won't know the distance we are form Him until we look into the mirror and see our own sin... That is what repentance is... The hard key element I see missing from TWI... An acknowledgement of our own sin and falling down to our knees in total naked abandonment saying I can't do it and he is faithful to forgive... What a Joy it is that we have forgiveness.
I think Steve said something about being in the right relationship... He is so right... We can't have the right relationship when we understand where we stand or stood. That will cause fear, sadness, grief, guilt....
Because I fear this God who loves me enough to die for me (not here to argue that it is what I believe) I now understand the power of my God and who is ultimately in control... It isn't about me and never was... It is about this being who is so much more than me. Yet this God whom I fear Loves me and He protects me even when it seems all is lost. Oh, do I find peace and Joy in it. I don't understand why fearing God that will sometimes bring me to my knees but I find peace and comfort in it.
How important are word definitions to the process of communication?
John Bagnall, Wordsmith
Ultimately, clear definitions (that are understood and agreed upon by all parties) are essential to successful communication.
If I use words believing them to mean one thing, but you understand them to mean another, we have a recipe for confusion. At best, our misunderstanding may simply cause some brief and harmless embarrassment that can be quickly resolved. At worst, there is the potential for deep and lasting damage.
This is all the more so for the fact that what words mean and what the user means when he or she uses them may also be at odds.
In 1953, 19-year-old Derek Bentley was executed in Wandsworth Prison, London for his part in the murder of a policeman. Bentley had shouted to his co-defendent, who was carrying a gun, ''Let him have it!'' The case hung on whether Bentley was instructing his younger accomplice to hand over the pistol or to fire it; the court decided it was the latter.
What are the words that have been so abused in their use that their original meaning is gone?
In other words, what are some good examples of words definitions gone crazy?
John Bagnall, Wordsmith
It's a moot point whether the shift in meaning of a word over time is the result of abuse per se as opposed to an entirely natural process of gradual evolution (known as language drift).
Examples of usages that have changed over different periods of time (and as the result of different influences and circumstances) include:
Decimate vb
now means: destroy all, devastate
did mean: kill/destroy one tenth
Gay adj (also now n)
now means: a sexual orientation
did mean: happy, free of care
Quantum adj
now means: big
did mean: small
Awesome adj
now means: stunning, wonderful, great
did mean: frightening, dreadful, weird
Aggravate vb
now means: annoy, make worse
did mean: burden, weigh down
Counterfeit n
now means: cheap, shoddy copy
did mean: perfect copy
Hopefully adv
now means: with luck, it is to be hoped that
did mean: in a hopeful manner
Fortuitous adj
now means: lucky, fortunate
did mean: by chance, accidental
Radical adj
now means: extreme, controversial
did mean: basic, fundamental
Want vb
now means: desire
did mean: lack
finally:
Defecate vb
did mean: purify, cleanse
now means: well, you decide....
===================================
Ok, the concept I was referring to is more often called LANGUAGE DRIFT.
But you can see it happens all the time, as long as a language is spoken-a "living" language.
A "dead" language doesn't change.
"The word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ is the greek word for fear at least thats what they teach you when learning greek. Granted when you look up the word it says respect although not used in scripture because I don't see the context in many of the passages as respect..."
The Greek word "phobos" isn't the issue-that's stayed the same.
It's been translated into English as "fear" for many centuries-and THAT's the issue.
"Phobos" always meant one thing-but "fear" has DRIFTED over at least the last 400 years.
The more generalized, previous meaning was a great emotion. That applied whether the
emotion was NEGATIVE (fear, anxiety) or POSITIVE (awe, reverence).
Many passages in Scripture, it MIGHT be translated either way and an argument-whether
valid or not-can be made for either. So, let's not waste our time on pages of
what would amount to a shrugged shoulder. The passages where it could not sensibly
be a NEGATIVE emotion, but an AWE and REVERENCE, are up for discussion.
If they don't exist, than there's insufficient proof to support a claim that the
language drift has changed the meaning, and we can try to claim it's all the
CURRENT meaning of "fear" and discuss why.
Since they DO exist, the existence of at least a DIFFERENT, POSITIVE meaning in
effect in 1611 is demonstrated, and this whole "fear has always only meant one thing"
position has been successfully DISPROVEN.
(You still are free to hold a disproven, refuted belief, however- there are still
Flat Earthers and people who think vpw really heard from God in 1942.)
Acts 2:42-43
King James Version (KJV)
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Luke 7:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
Luke 1:64-65
King James Version (KJV)
64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Matthew 28:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Myself,
I'm waiting for a good explanation as to exactly how one can have
"fear and great joy" at the same time-
if the MODERN MEANING of the word "fear" is meant.
You CAN'T feel GREAT JOY while experiencing fears.
If a person has a phobia of something, and is experiencing great joy,
and you introduce the object of the phobia,
then the person will STOP feeling great joy and REPLACE that feeling with FEAR.
If one takes into account that "fear" in 1611 meant something it no longer means in 2011,
then it makes sense.
==========================
Now, you've admitted that the dictionaries have a definition of "reverence" in them,
but claim surprise they do. Should have read my post in its entirety before announcing
it was incorrect. I posted the examples at least once already.
Ephesians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Ephesians 5:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
2 Corinthians 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
2 Corinthians 7
1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
2 Corinthians 7:1
New International Version (NIV)
2 Corinthians 7
1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
Romans 3:18
King James Version (KJV)
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Romans 3:18
Good News Translation (GNT)
18 nor have they learned reverence for God.
===============================
Now, if you want to dismiss the work of the committees that completed those Bible versions,
that's your privilege. Obviously, they saw something you did not.
So, the dictionaries saw something, you don't see why.
The translation committees of at least 2 popular Bible versions saw something, but you don't.
Rather than take me to task for seeing it and not just saying
"phobos has always meant exactly one thing",
might all of us have a point?]
"There are words for respect in the greek like αÏÎżÎœÎ”ÎŒÏ meaning to cause respect to treat with respect (with respect, as desvered) Str 642.
1791. áŒÎœÏÏÎżÏÎź entropÄ; from 1788; respect, shame:âshame(2).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Here are some words for REVERENCE
ÎŽÎÎżÏ deos; from ÎŽÎ”ÎŻÎŽÏ deidĆ (to fear); fear, reverence:âawe(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»Î±ÎČÎÎżÎŒÎ±Îč eulabeomai; from 2126; to be cautious:âreverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»ÎŹÎČΔÎčα eulabeia; from 2126; caution:âpiety(1), reverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
2152. ΔáœÏΔÎČÎźÏ ÄusÄbÄs, yoo-seb-aceÂŽ; from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:âdevout, godly.
. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2318. ΞΔοÏΔÎČÎźÏ thÄĆsÄbÄs, theh-os-eb-aceÂŽ; from 2316 and 4576; reverent of God, i.e. pious:âworshipper of God.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
5091. ÏÎčÎŒÎŹÏ timaĆ, tim-ahÂŽ-o; from 5093; to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by impl. to revere:âhonour, value.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[As you yourself have just shown,
there's more than one word in the Greek that mean similar things or
almost-identical things in English-at least English as we practice it now.
For that matter, "krima" and "krisis" are effectively interchangeable
in Bible meaning, and both are used in the New Testament.
You just made my point FOR me while saying it's invalid.]
"It seems to me that if God wanted it to be something other than fear he could of found a less confusing word."
[Frankly, I would have liked that as well, but if He has a certain word used,
then that is the word He used. Either we accept that and try to understand it,
or we toss away the Bible and say it's a book of man,
or we take God to task for not trying hard enough.]
"Unless it isn't confusing and when it says fear it says and I am sorry for the pun... "Says what it means".... If only VPW took his own advice."
[i REposted a few examples where "fear" (as written) doesn't mean "fear" (as understood by you).
It said what it meant, but you missed what it meant.
I can keep reposting them in the hopes you'll read them eventually, if you like,
or maybe spend some more time and find some more.
At present, I see no use in adding more time if you haven't read what I posted so far.]
"When Jesus said "fear the one who has the power to throw you into hell and destroy it" He dosen't stop there. Jesus reiterates the point "Yes fear Him"... This isn't some respect or awe. None of the other words really even make sense in that story. As I illuded above with the word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ Jesus is saying it literally fear God...
Another thing to look at are peoples reactions to God or the glorified Jesus. I can't think of anyone who didn't tremble before them... John for example fell down as if dead... This is the one whom Jesus Loved. Jesus said do not be afraid. It wouldn't make since to say "Do not respect".. Johns natural reaction like everyone else in the bible was to fall down in fear of God. Why do I think I am going to act any different than the apostle John post pentecost? It just seems arrogant to assume anything other than that.
[When the word "phobos" means a strong emotional response, it CAN mean "AWE AND REVERENCE"
or it CAN mean "fear, anxiety, shock".
It's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that clearly mean "awe" into "anxiety"-
which you did-
and it's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that probably mean "anxiety" into "respect"-
as you're CLAIMING I would.
The word "phobos" had/has a more GENERAL meaning and meant the deep emotional reaction.
That's why some verses are CORRECTLY rendered as "reverence" and some OTHER verses
are CORRECTLY rendered as "fear" (as we currently mean the word.)
By limiting "phobos" to EITHER meaning, you're making a mistake and doing a disservice to
The fear of the LORD leads to life, and whoever has it rests satisfied; he will not be visited by harm.
Our ultimate peace is that we really know who God is... We can't understand who God is until we fear Him... Not in he will strike me down for cussing but for his holiness. As Isaiah did... "I am a man with unclean lips".
No one deserves salvation... No one..... as good old Romans 3 points out... This is where the fear comes from.... an acknowledgement of who we are and who God is. We should fear him... It makes since...
The issue is that we will never understand the Love of God until we know God. We won't know the distance we are form Him until we look into the mirror and see our own sin... That is what repentance is... The hard key element I see missing from TWI... An acknowledgement of our own sin and falling down to our knees in total naked abandonment saying I can't do it and he is faithful to forgive... What a Joy it is that we have forgiveness.
I think Steve said something about being in the right relationship... He is so right... We can't have the right relationship when we understand where we stand or stood. That will cause fear, sadness, grief, guilt....
Because I fear this God who loves me enough to die for me (not here to argue that it is what I believe) I now understand the power of my God and who is ultimately in control... It isn't about me and never was... It is about this being who is so much more than me. Yet this God whom I fear Loves me and He protects me even when it seems all is lost. Oh, do I find peace and Joy in it. I don't understand why fearing God that will sometimes bring me to my knees but I find peace and comfort in it.
The REVERENCE of God is FAR more encompassing than the modern word "fear" would
limit things. If one is AFRAID of God, if one's understanding begins only with the
concept that God's ready to Smite thee as The Almighty Smiter,
then, hey, that's an understanding that I find both LIMITING and DiSQUIETING.
Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense of a God-Father, who receives my service
as a sort of "protection money" so He doesn't cause any "accidents" to happen to
me or mine? Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense that He's the Mightiest Mutha
in the Universe and anyone else would just get smacked down, so go with the toughest?
Sorry, I find that your concept of "fearing" neither matches all the verses nor motivates
me to serve Him, Your God sounds more like a bully or an organized crime boss than a
Heavenly Father whom I want to make proud of me. Me, I REVERENCE a God who's so awesome
I go to my knees in humility to Him-not because He requires it, but because He deserves
it and I wish to show Him respect out of my free will.
If having a God, and "fearing" Him drops you to your knees before Him, and this brings
you "peace and joy", well, I'm happy for you, but that sounds more like STOCKHOLM
SYNDROME, or a wife devoted to an abusive husband, or a devotee to twi who is afraid
to leave "the household" more than any relationship with any God I'd ever want to
Yorkies are an interesting kind of dog. They were originally bred to hunt rats, so they are aggressive and competitive dogs. But they were bred to hunt in packs, so they are also VERY social dogs among themselves.
My sister got a Yorkie pup about a-year-and-a-half ago. Named him "Benji."
It's not good to keep a solitary Yorkie. They can develop behavioral problems as a result. So about six months ago, she got another Yorkie pup and named him "Dunkie" (short for "Dunkin Donuts"). She didn't get the two pups at the same time, for another good reason. If you get the pups together, they form such a bond with each other that they fail to bond properly with the human members of their pack. So Benji bonded with my sister and her husband (who is the alpha male of the pack), and now Dunkie is bonding with all of them.
Dunkie spends his time pushing the boundaries to see what he can get away with. One time early on, when Dunkie went farther than Benjie wanted him to go, Benjie rolled Dunkin over on his back, and Benji put his teeth on Dunkie's neck. Dunkin got the message. Benji can kill him anytime he wants to.
Now Benji and Dunkie have the most marvelous time playing together. Dunkie RESPECTS Benji's boundaries, because he has the FEAR of the Benji. And everything is hunky-dory.
My wife has an adult nephew who faces some challenges. When I married into the family I was given to understand that it would be MY responsibility to keep my new nephew out of his grandfather's hair. My nephew has aspergers, and ALWAYS pushes the boundaries to see how much he can get away with. His grandfather (my father-in-law) also had aspergers, and was never able to define a boundary or hold it.
My nephew and his wife were living out of town at the time, but they came for a few days for my mother-in-law's funeral, and they stayed at our house. The very first day, after I had set out some guidelines for how we would do things in my house, my nephew began insisting that we would do things HIS way, or he would pitch a fit. So I put my coat and hat on, got out my car keys, and told him to put his gear in the car, because I was going to take him back to his own house (several hour's drive away).
He tried to face me down long enough to realize that I meant business, and then he changed his tune, and things were fine for the rest of the visit.
In dog terms, I had rolled him over on his back and put my teeth on his neck. It threw the fear of the Lortz into him, because he knew that I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, and I will back up my words with my actions.
That was 20 years ago. He still gets into senseless fights with everyone but me. We spend a lot of time joking around and making small talk, but he knows when I'm being serious, and when he needs to obey me. That has come in handy on a number of occassions that might otherwise have ended up in jail or the local psych ward (for a variety of different people, and a variety of different reasons).
I don't hesitate to say that the relationship he has with me is the BEST relationship he's ever had with a male relative, including his own Dad. Better than the relationship he's had with anybody except his wife. I don't think he'd hesitate to say the same thing. The reason our relationship is so good is because he RESPECTS the boundaries I set, because he FEARS me. And he knows I love him with the love of God.
=================================
Soooo... how do we define "fear"? My brother and I both taught humane letters to seventh-graders, and one of the things we taught them was how to define words. The formula, going all the way back to Aristotle is this: first tell the category that the subject belongs to, and then tell how the subject is different from all other members of the same category.
You gave this, WordWolf, as a modern usage definition: "'fear' is an emotion which is a negative response..."
It would appear that this definition could be sharpened up. Is the category to which "fear" belongs the category of "emotions" or the category of "responses"? Does the adjective "negative" sufficiently delimit? Are there responses or emotions other than fear which can be regarded as negative? If so, what distinguishes "fear" from those other responses or emotions. This definition seems to have a Pavlovian, soft-science feel to it, rather than a classically comprehensive feel. Are all emotions responses to stimuli? Are there any self-generating emotions? Could Pavlov have accounted for my wife's emotions? I very much doubt it.
So, what is the category to which "fear" belongs? The category of "emotions" (or "feelings"). Emotions are chemical signals from the hormonal system, which operate in tandem with the electrical signals of the nervous system. Emotions MOVE us to DO things. Emotions differ from each other in the things they move us to do. "Fear" differs from other emotions in that it moves us to get into a safe, or a right relation with the object of the fear. "Fear" is almost always provoked by crossing the boundary that separates what is perceived as "safe" from what is perceived as "dangerous".
Perhaps the Pavlovian definition of "fear" uses the word "negative" because fear can be painful, and Pavlov used pain to induce the feeling in his experimental animals.
Most of the time I enjoy eating my pistachios without giving a second thought to the condition of my teeth. But sometimes one of my teeth will be painful, which is my body's way of saying, "Hey! Jerk! We need some attention here, and we need it NOW?"
Fear becomes painful when we cross the boundary from a location of perceived safety to a location of perceived danger... when we see that rattlesnake within striking distance of our ankle... when we realize that our financial officer was cheating on the taxes... when we look over that precipice...
The pain WON'T go away until we MOVE back into safety... back away from the snake... file corrections on our tax forms... back away from the edge of the abyss...
===================================
The fear of the LORD moves us to get back into right, or safe relation with the LORD. The fear of the LORD gets painful when we cross the boundary HE has set in His Word between that behavior which He deems as safe, and that behavior which He deems as dangerous.
The fear of the LORD recognizes that HE is our Creator, and WE exist only at His good pleasure. He doesn't owe us anything, not even life.
The way to stop the pain of the fear of the LORD is to get back into safe territory, to repent of our transgressions, and to stop doing them.
Wierwille didn't like the pain of the fear of the LORD, and he didn't want to repent (arrogance), so he did his best to drown out the pain with Drambuie, and with the endorphins released through sex (he bacame a sex addict).
==================================
There are a few more things I could write, but I think I'm done for the time being.
However, I'm getting the feeling someone or more than someone may be skipping past
the Bible verses I posted, because they seem to not address them.
Me, I think the verses are of critical importance to the discussion.
Any example I or anyone else can spin means nothing if the verses
say something else.
(snip)
Dunkie spends his time pushing the boundaries to see what he can get away with. One time early on, when Dunkie went farther than Benjie wanted him to go, Benjie rolled Dunkin over on his back, and Benji put his teeth on Dunkie's neck. Dunkin got the message. Benji can kill him anytime he wants to.
Now Benji and Dunkie have the most marvelous time playing together. Dunkie RESPECTS Benji's boundaries, because he has the FEAR of the Benji. And everything is hunky-dory.
I disagree with your interpretation of events. Two canines interacted and eventually
they were bound to have to determine dominance between them-which one had authority over
which. (I've studied this with wolves, but I've read about dog interactions as well.)
The fight didn't go until one was about to "kill" the other- the fight went to the
(hard-wired) end of the fight when the winner was clearly evident to both.
(You left out the submission display of the loser-how the loser signified to the winner
he understood he lost-otherwise the fight would have continued.)
The dogs worked out their ranking between each other. Unless something changes the
situation, that will hold for years, possibly their entire lives. It's based on which
is STRONGER, but is not FEAR-BASED. I think you're IMPOSING a label on the situation
in order to understand it by your terms, not canine terms.
(If you were some people I'd think you were doing it to fuzz the issues, but I think
you're making a good-faith attempt both to understand and communicate that understanding,
despite us disagreeing. I'd much rather have that even if we never agree.)
My wife has an adult nephew who faces some challenges. When I married into the family I was given to understand that it would be MY responsibility to keep my new nephew out of his grandfather's hair. My nephew has aspergers, and ALWAYS pushes the boundaries to see how much he can get away with. His grandfather (my father-in-law) also had aspergers, and was never able to define a boundary or hold it.
My nephew and his wife were living out of town at the time, but they came for a few days for my mother-in-law's funeral, and they stayed at our house. The very first day, after I had set out some guidelines for how we would do things in my house, my nephew began insisting that we would do things HIS way, or he would pitch a fit. So I put my coat and hat on, got out my car keys, and told him to put his gear in the car, because I was going to take him back to his own house (several hour's drive away).
He tried to face me down long enough to realize that I meant business, and then he changed his tune, and things were fine for the rest of the visit.
In dog terms, I had rolled him over on his back and put my teeth on his neck. It threw the fear of the Lortz into him, because he knew that I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, and I will back up my words with my actions.
That was 20 years ago. He still gets into senseless fights with everyone but me. We spend a lot of time joking around and making small talk, but he knows when I'm being serious, and when he needs to obey me. That has come in handy on a number of occassions that might otherwise have ended up in jail or the local psych ward (for a variety of different people, and a variety of different reasons).
I don't hesitate to say that the relationship he has with me is the BEST relationship he's ever had with a male relative, including his own Dad. Better than the relationship he's had with anybody except his wife. I don't think he'd hesitate to say the same thing. The reason our relationship is so good is because he RESPECTS the boundaries I set, because he FEARS me. And he knows I love him with the love of God.
Those people who think humans and apes are closely related can have trouble
with the greater similarity between canine family structures and human family
structures than either with apes.
Looks to me that you ended up with a similar situation-a dominance struggle.
One party challenged the other, and it progressed until one accepted the
dominance of the other. You mentioned nothing of any VIOLENCE. I don't see
him as FEARING you but as RESPECTING you-especially seeing you as dominant
to him. Without any threat or display of violence, I see no trigger for any
FEAR, but rather indicators of a dominance display that played out.
If you left out important details, perhaps there was some violence or threats.
Otherwise, I interpret this differently than you as well.
=================================
Soooo... how do we define "fear"? My brother and I both taught humane letters to seventh-graders, and one of the things we taught them was how to define words. The formula, going all the way back to Aristotle is this: first tell the category that the subject belongs to, and then tell how the subject is different from all other members of the same category.
You gave this, WordWolf, as a modern usage definition: "'fear' is an emotion which is a negative response..."
It would appear that this definition could be sharpened up. Is the category to which "fear" belongs the category of "emotions" or the category of "responses"? Does the adjective "negative" sufficiently delimit? Are there responses or emotions other than fear which can be regarded as negative? If so, what distinguishes "fear" from those other responses or emotions. This definition seems to have a Pavlovian, soft-science feel to it, rather than a classically comprehensive feel. Are all emotions responses to stimuli? Are there any self-generating emotions? Could Pavlov have accounted for my wife's emotions? I very much doubt it.
So, what is the category to which "fear" belongs? The category of "emotions" (or "feelings"). Emotions are chemical signals from the hormonal system, which operate in tandem with the electrical signals of the nervous system. Emotions MOVE us to DO things. Emotions differ from each other in the things they move us to do. "Fear" differs from other emotions in that it moves us to get into a safe, or a right relation with the object of the fear. "Fear" is almost always provoked by crossing the boundary that separates what is perceived as "safe" from what is perceived as "dangerous".
Perhaps the Pavlovian definition of "fear" uses the word "negative" because fear can be painful, and Pavlov used pain to induce the feeling in his experimental animals.
Most of the time I enjoy eating my pistachios without giving a second thought to the condition of my teeth. But sometimes one of my teeth will be painful, which is my body's way of saying, "Hey! Jerk! We need some attention here, and we need it NOW?"
Fear becomes painful when we cross the boundary from a location of perceived safety to a location of perceived danger... when we see that rattlesnake within striking distance of our ankle... when we realize that our financial officer was cheating on the taxes... when we look over that precipice...
The pain WON'T go away until we MOVE back into safety... back away from the snake... file corrections on our tax forms... back away from the edge of the abyss...
I wasn't trying to make a definition as much as illustrate the contrast.
(But thank you for reading what I came up with.)
For definitions of the modern meaning of "fear", I'll go with what the
PROFESSIONAL wordsmiths said-which I also posted.
"a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined;"
"something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension"
"A very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger"
"A feeling of disquiet or apprehension"
"A reason for dread or apprehension"
If you actually want to discuss the modern meaning of the word "fear", I'd strongly recommend
we proceed THERE rather than from anything you or I would dash off typing.
===================================
The fear of the LORD moves us to get back into right, or safe relation with the LORD. The fear of the LORD gets painful when we cross the boundary HE has set in His Word between that behavior which He deems as safe, and that behavior which He deems as dangerous.
The fear of the LORD recognizes that HE is our Creator, and WE exist only at His good pleasure. He doesn't owe us anything, not even life.
The way to stop the pain of the fear of the LORD is to get back into safe territory, to repent of our transgressions, and to stop doing them.
Wierwille didn't like the pain of the fear of the LORD, and he didn't want to repent (arrogance), so he did his best to drown out the pain with Drambuie, and with the endorphins released through sex (he bacame a sex addict).
==================================
Inadvertently,
you keep presenting me with a False Dilemma between 2 choices,
both of which I consider error:
A) be afraid of God and serve and obey Him because the Almighty Smiter may Smite me
B) be like vpw, sin like crazy, refuse to repent, and just run around with no self-control
I reject the first position because I am FAR more loyal to a Loving Father whom I wish
to please to make Him happy than I would be a Mighty Boss or God-Father I MUST please...
or else.....
I reject the second position because vpw lied completely when he claimed to respect
God at all, revere or even care about Him. I'm under no restriction to lie in any
way about respect, reverence, or AWE about God.
There are a few more things I could write, but I think I'm done for the time being.
Love,
Steve
I'm curious about your thoughts concerning how some respected research teams from
legitimate Bible organizations have rendered "phobos" as "reverence" rather than
"fear"- as I posted above. Do you think they are in error when they do so?
What about the verses I posted where the concept of "fear" as we know it seems
antithetical to what's happening in the sentence, where people have joy and
seem in AWE of God, but the KJV renders their emotions as "fear" and "joy"
simultaneously. Should that really be rendered AWE, or do you think the
people were afraid of God while being joyful about Him at the same time?
And should I repost the verses again for easy reference?
I don't have time to give any fuller responses right now, and probably won't until after a couple of days. I too am glad we are having this discussion in a more appropriate place (though my understanding of the fear of the Lord comes from my experience with Momentus as well as with TWI). In all my years at Greasespot I have always admired your thought processes and ability to articulate, so I welcome this opportunity, not as a disagreement, but as a process for iron to truly sharpen iron. I've already had to refine my thinking several notches.
Just out of curiousity, what do you imagine my standing might be as a professional word-smith? I ask, not least of all, because I wonder myself how my current standing as a professional word-smith might be accurately described. :)
By the way, WordWolf, what do you think Benji would have done if Dunkie had not given the sign of submission? They DID use Yorkies as pit fighters, you know, though mostly against rats.
I just have to mention that likening God to a snake to make a point is probably not the best choice? I read about getting in a right relationship to the object of our fear by obedience......and thought.... good luck with that. It is not going to happen. Are we really still, still, still, going to try and bypass God's appointed means to get in right relation to Him? Jesus Christ. We don't jump from fear to obedience. Blood was shed for a reason.
And I don't think VP"s "problem" was simply a lack of the fear of God, define it as reverence, define it as fear.....in his case it doesn't matter. VP's lack of reverence for God was a result of the complete absence of a right relationship to Jesus Christ, who for a Christian is all in all. Jesus is Lord. VP tried to bypass Him.
Jesus is God's appointed means to be in right relationship to Him.......no one comes to God except through Him. That includes self-confessed Christians, of which there is none. Some of us just did a good job of faking it in TWI. Obedience, knowledge, words....are all empty and are all meaningless before God, they don't get us anywhere. They are not enough....and they will never be enough. He who honors the Father must honor the Son in the same way. It is dishonor to try and bypass Him.
Who is Lord in our lives and why do we need Him if obedience out of fear gets us in right relationship to the object of our fear?
It is when we recognize this holy, holy, holy God..... when we come up against this immoveable being who really is so perfect and only good that we recognize ourselves as the sinful creatures we are......then we begin to learn about the amazing love He has for us in making a way through unimaginable sacrifice. This is the work of the Holy Spirit who reveals Jesus Christ. Again, we get no credit.......we were dead in trespasses and sins.....dead people don't obey. And we love Him because He first loved us.
We obey out of love, because Jesus transforms us......it is not in our sinful nature to love God's nature but as we grow in a relationship with Him through faith in Jesus and His relationship with the Father......our desires change. We desire God. And yes, sometimes we obey out of fear because we know a little tiny bit about this unchanging perfect God. It is not only consequence, but we know God is faithful and He will find a way to change us. It is prudent. That change includes our deceitful hearts....He gives us a new one. Jesus becomes our heart . If our hearts are still so deceitful......we can humbly ask God to create in us a new heart. He is able....nothing is too difficult for Him.
You can try to obey all the laws, all the promises, all the doctrine.....whatever you want to call it. Go ahead and obey them out of fear to get into right relationship.....It is not going to mean a thing without God's appointed way to reconciliation to Him.
Fear will keep you out of a burning building .......but faith in Jesus Christ, who he is, His obedience and His work on the cross is the way to please God. Faith, love, and recognition which comes from the Holy Spirit is the path to obedience.....the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Sorry for the interrupt WW......I understand you two are having a conversation....it just struck me as odd that God is being compared to a snake and I believe we have to be careful that the idea of obedience out of fear is the way to be in right relationship to the object of fear. We are in a love relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Fear Should come upon us when doing what they did. When coming to the full understanding who we are.
Luke 7:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
I would be afraid of the man who raised someone from the dead.... You can glorify someone and fear them at the same time.
Luke 1:64-65
King James Version (KJV)
64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Fear came on all of them... I see it as real fear... Seems to happen when someone sees miracles
Matthew 28:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
I don't see a contradiction in your verses. In the definition of fear.
To note I did read them the first time I was giving my point of view before I went to bed. I wasn't trying to offend you in any manner by not addressing the verses. I was speaking from my heart and what i have studied.
Again and I didn't read you addressing my points of John falling in fear of Jesus... Jesus didn't say do not be afraid because he was reverencing him.... I think the context is clear... I mean if the apostle John the one whom Jesus loved died as if dead out of fear to the glorified Christ post Pentecost.... WHy do I think I am going to operate any differently?
This was was not a one time occurrence... Isaiah did and thought he was going to die... At the mount of transfiguration Peter was so scared coming into contact of the glorified Christ and God that he started to say lets put of houses for you out of fear as the text says.
When I read or view the picture I see about the interaction of all the prophets, apostles, people who came into contact with God as these examples it dosn't look like a respect, awe or reverence. It looks like they were terrified.
To say that these incidences where reverence and awe just doesn't fit the description.
I never said we serve out of of fearful obedience. I said our fear comes out of realizing who we are like Isaiah said " I am a man of unclean lips".... God says it's ok I will clean you. Seeing who God is... Just his presence will cause fear... Because he is holy. The concept of God being Holy is huge.
God is Holy, Holy, Holy.... That is why I fear him....
I don't have time to give any fuller responses right now, and probably won't until after a couple of days.
[How dare you have a life while I'm pontificating?] ;)
I too am glad we are having this discussion in a more appropriate place (though my understanding of the fear of the Lord comes from my experience with Momentus as well as with TWI).
[i may not have a lot of anxiety and stress when I think about God,
but being forced to deal with Momentus and Momentus survivors is scary!] ;)
In all my years at Greasespot I have always admired your thought processes and ability to articulate, so I welcome this opportunity, not as a disagreement, but as a process for iron to truly sharpen iron. I've already had to refine my thinking several notches.
[i think the journey will be worthwhile even if we both end up concluding exactly the
same things we did when we started. We're both bringing something to the table.]
Just out of curiousity, what do you imagine my standing might be as a professional word-smith? I ask, not least of all, because I wonder myself how my current standing as a professional word-smith might be accurately described. :)
Love,
Steve
[That would depend on your professional status as one. I don't think of myself as one
because I'm really a hobbyist concerning words, and haven't put in the time yet at any
academic or paycheck-level. I like to quote the websites for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because those are
the 2 most reputable dictionaries in print form that are available, and either would serve
a person a lifetime (or as long as the book holds out.) I've used both in the past, in
paper form, and can say their reputations are deserved.
One old operating definition of an "expert" is "anyone from out of town with a briefcase."
This doesn't work with us because twi had too many people come in from out of town, carrying
briefcases, who were incompetent at anything except yelling and spouting platitudes.]
By the way, WordWolf, what do you think Benji would have done if Dunkie had not given the sign of submission? They DID use Yorkies as pit fighters, you know, though mostly against rats.
Love,
Steve
[i don't know Yorkies. If you'd described their equivalents in a wolf pack, I could give a
decent opinion. So I shall pretend for a moment that's exactly what you asked, since the
answers should be the same in this instance and for this discussion.
(Canine experts and zoologists would disagree, especially in a different context.)
The losing canine ENDS the fight by giving the sign of submission. It's a fight, but not one
"to the death", more to determine which is stronger. So, if Dunkie had not given the sign of
submission, the other dog would have roughed him up, then done the neck thing again,
in effect "requesting" a "surrender" or "submission." Dunkie would then have submitted.
If not, the other dog would have been a LOT rougher and Dunkie might not have been in any
shape to submit. I'm not sure if the alpha would have considered "too beaten to move"
as an "official" submission since I've never heard of a canine that was beaten in a
straight fight and refused to submit if offered the chance. My understanding is that both
the signal of dominance (the neck grab) and the signal of submission (of a number of types)
are instinctive and essentially "hard-wired."
If they WERE wolves, they would be easier to read afterwards, too. Dogs often can't display
the same body language as wolves due to biological differences. An alpha will demonstrate
his status by his stance, position, and the positions of his tail and ears. A lesser rank
will similarly signal his submission to the alpha through all of those as well.
(IIRC, failing to do so can initiate a fresh dominance challenge.) However, a dog whose tail
has been docked can't use his tail to signal dominance nor submission, and a dog with floppy
ears can likewise signal neither.
I really don't think of any of that as about "fear", but more about social structure,
I just have to mention that likening God to a snake to make a point is probably not the best choice? I read about getting in a right relationship to the object of our fear by obedience......and thought.... good luck with that. It is not going to happen. Are we really still, still, still, going to try and bypass God's appointed means to get in right relation to Him? Jesus Christ. We don't jump from fear to obedience. Blood was shed for a reason.
And I don't think VP"s "problem" was simply a lack of the fear of God, define it as reverence, define it as fear.....in his case it doesn't matter. VP's lack of reverence for God was a result of the complete absence of a right relationship to Jesus Christ, who for a Christian is all in all. Jesus is Lord. VP tried to bypass Him.
Jesus is God's appointed means to be in right relationship to Him.......no one comes to God except through Him. That includes self-confessed Christians, of which there is none. Some of us just did a good job of faking it in TWI. Obedience, knowledge, words....are all empty and are all meaningless before God, they don't get us anywhere. They are not enough....and they will never be enough. He who honors the Father must honor the Son in the same way. It is dishonor to try and bypass Him.
Who is Lord in our lives and why do we need Him if obedience out of fear gets us in right relationship to the object of our fear?
It is when we recognize this holy, holy, holy God..... when we come up against this immoveable being who really is so perfect and only good that we recognize ourselves as the sinful creatures we are......then we begin to learn about the amazing love He has for us in making a way through unimaginable sacrifice. This is the work of the Holy Spirit who reveals Jesus Christ. Again, we get no credit.......we were dead in trespasses and sins.....dead people don't obey. And we love Him because He first loved us.
We obey out of love, because Jesus transforms us......it is not in our sinful nature to love God's nature but as we grow in a relationship with Him through faith in Jesus and His relationship with the Father......our desires change. We desire God. And yes, sometimes we obey out of fear because we know a little tiny bit about this unchanging perfect God. It is not only consequence, but we know God is faithful and He will find a way to change us. It is prudent. That change includes our deceitful hearts....He gives us a new one. Jesus becomes our heart . If our hearts are still so deceitful......we can humbly ask God to create in us a new heart. He is able....nothing is too difficult for Him.
You can try to obey all the laws, all the promises, all the doctrine.....whatever you want to call it. Go ahead and obey them out of fear to get into right relationship.....It is not going to mean a thing without God's appointed way to reconciliation to Him.
Fear will keep you out of a burning building .......but faith in Jesus Christ, who he is, His obedience and His work on the cross is the way to please God. Faith, love, and recognition which comes from the Holy Spirit is the path to obedience.....the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Sorry for the interrupt WW......I understand you two are having a conversation....it just struck me as odd that God is being compared to a snake and I believe we have to be careful that the idea of obedience out of fear is the way to be in right relationship to the object of fear. We are in a love relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Carry on. :)
This is not a conversation between two, it's a group discussion that started out from what the 4 of us posted
in another thread. It's the type of comparison that bothered you that bothered me enough to start
this thread. Our relationships with God are complicated enough that there's probably some "fear"
in there somewhere-and a "healthy" amount, if there is one, is that there's enough to help remind
one to obey without being the prime reason for obeying.
I've spoken to a non-Christian, and they've said that one of the reasons they're a NON-Christian
is that Christians never came by with any motivation to believe that they could get behind.
The relevant part of that for this discussion is that Christians kept trying to get them to believe
and serve God to prevent that same Loving God from doing horrible things to them.
Oh, gee, where do I sign up, that sounds like just the god I was looking for?
I really don't get that. I mean, how many Christians out there can't recite John 3:16?
Again, any post relating to the actual discussion topic is welcome and appreciated.
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Fear Should come upon us when doing what they did. When coming to the full understanding who we are.
Luke 7:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
I would be afraid of the man who raised someone from the dead.... You can glorify someone and fear them at the same time.
Luke 1:64-65
King James Version (KJV)
64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Fear came on all of them... I see it as real fear... Seems to happen when someone sees miracles
Matthew 28:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
I don't see a contradiction in your verses. In the definition of fear.
[Ok, you looked them over, and you see that as perfectly sensible.
Me, I looked them over and see that as contradictory.
I suppose we'll end up agreeing to disagree there.]
To note I did read them the first time I was giving my point of view before I went to bed. I wasn't trying to offend you in any manner by not addressing the verses. I was speaking from my heart and what i have studied.
[Cool. It looked differently to me with 2 people "skipping over" what I saw were the relevant
verses, but it was just 2 people with only so many hours in a day.]
Again and I didn't read you addressing my points of John falling in fear of Jesus... Jesus didn't say do not be afraid because he was reverencing him.... I think the context is clear... I mean if the apostle John the one whom Jesus loved died as if dead out of fear to the glorified Christ post Pentecost.... WHy do I think I am going to operate any differently?
This was was not a one time occurrence... Isaiah did and thought he was going to die... At the mount of transfiguration Peter was so scared coming into contact of the glorified Christ and God that he started to say lets put of houses for you out of fear as the text says.
When I read or view the picture I see about the interaction of all the prophets, apostles, people who came into contact with God as these examples it dosn't look like a respect, awe or reverence. It looks like they were terrified.
To say that these incidences where reverence and awe just doesn't fit the description.
I never said we serve out of of fearful obedience. I said our fear comes out of realizing who we are like Isaiah said " I am a man of unclean lips".... God says it's ok I will clean you. Seeing who God is... Just his presence will cause fear... Because he is holy. The concept of God being Holy is huge.
God is Holy, Holy, Holy.... That is why I fear him....
[i don't think ALL occurrences of "phobos" should be rendered "reverence" or "awe", but I'm
convinced rendering them ALL as "fear" is error. Not all strong emotions are fearful-
but SOME are. Not all strong emotions are reverent- but SOME are.
I can easily see some accounts where someone is fearful-either appropriately or not- and
other accounts where they are not, but are too filled with awe at God's Majesty to
even wonder if they should be scared.
I'm getting the impression that you're saying something like this (while you're saying that's
at least partially incorrect):
-God wants us to be afraid of Him
-it is appropriate and healthy to be afraid of God
-obedience to God is motivated by being afraid of God-and that is as it should be
What I'm saying is more like:
-God wants us to love Him and consider Him with the utmost respect and reverence
-it is appropriate and healthy to be in awe of God
-obedience to God is motivated by love for a truly Awesome God, and wanting to please Him
If possible, I'd like to explore these concepts, because I think that's really where
the meat of this discussion is. Maybe you can start by expanding what you were saying
at the end, about the interactions of Peter, the prophets, and so on.
I'd especially like it if you could either include the verse references for specific
incidents, or the complete verses as well. If we're going to discuss what some
verses mean, we should look at what they say, first.
Whenever you actually have time, of course. This will take time to do right.]
I can see it might be useful to open up another approach to understanding the nature and purpose of the FEAR!!! :o of the LORD!
...but I haven't got time to develop the next argument fully right now...
Soooo.... I 'll hand out a little bit of homework for your amusement and edification (once you've taught seventh-graders, there's no going back).
The key to understanding the importance of the fear of the Lord is in Jeremiah 17:9.
I won't ask for a 500 word paper by tomorrow, but you might read the verse and start considering how you intend to "stump the teacher" in the near future!
This morning, after I woke up, I was working a sudoku puzzle to clear my mind of the cobwebs of dreams, when a thought occured to me: "What if the conflict we're having over 'phobos' is one of those 'Certs is a breath mint! No, Certs is a candy mint!' or 'Great taste! No, less filling!' kind of arguments?"
What if "trust" and "fear" are simply two different ways of looking at "phobos"?
Like "freedom" and "responsibility"? The two things are like the faces of a coin. You can't have one without the other. Generally speaking, if you accept responsibility, you gain freedom. If you repudiate your responsibility, you will lose some degree of your freedom.
Remember, we're not trying to impose our own definitions, here. We're trying to figure out what the Bible means by the word "phobos". What if the way we view the "trust/fear" thing depends on how we stand in relation to a boundary set by the object of our "trust/fear"? If we're standing in a safe relation to the boundary, then we experience trust/fear as awe, if we're standing in a dangerous place in relation to the boundary, we experience trust/fear as terror?
I haven't had time to even start a word study, but just off the top of my Blue Letter Bible I found Proverbs 29:25 "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe."
The first part of the verse contrasts the negative side of the trust/fear thing with the safe (literally) side of the trust/fear thing in the second part of the verse.
The trust/fear of Wierwille certainly brought a snare!
It would appear that one of the deficiencies in my earlier groping toward a definition of phobos was thinking of it in terms of stationary boundaries. The language of Proverbs 3 speaks of trust and fear in dynamic terms. When we trust the LORD, He directs our paths. When we stray off the paths the LORD sets before us, then the fear of the LORD moves us to depart from evil, that is, to get back on the right path.
When people saw the miracles Jesus did, they were moved to get back on the right path. How's that for regarding the way they experienced the phobos of the LORD?
The trust/fear of man would present a snare because it would entangle a person's feet, and prevent her/him from being moved back onto the right path by the trust/fear of the LORD.
Well, I spent a little more time on Blue Letter Bible and found some interesting things:
========================
Psalm 40:3&4,
"3 And he [the LORD] hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
"4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies."
So here in verse 3 we see the fear of the LORD paralleled with trust in the LORD.
In verse 4 we see respect of the proud contrasted with the trust/fear of the LORD. The idea of "respect" is associated with trust/fear in a minor sort of way.
We also see the dynamic of going away from the safety of the path in "such as turn aside to lies."
====================
Psalm 56:4
"4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me."
There seems to be a theme of trusting/fearing God or trusting/fearing flesh.
====================
Psalm 115:11
"11 Ye that fear the LORD, that trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."
Fear of the LORD and trust in the LORD are put into apposition with each other here.
======================
Psalm 31:19
"19 Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men!"
You can do in a few clicks what it used to take hours of compiling lists from the backs of concordances to do.
I had especial fun looking up uses of phobeo, the verb form of phobos.
Among other things, Herod didn't immediately kill John the Baptist because Herod feared the multitude (Matt. 14:5), the chief priests and the Pharisees didn't lay hands on Jesus because they feared the multitude (Matt. 21:46), the disciples feared to ask Jesus the meaning of a parable (Luke 9:45), the parents of the man born blind denied Jesus because they feared the Jews (John 9:22), and the captain and the guards treated the apostles without violence because they feared that the people would stone them (Acts 5:26).
I'm gonna post this now, and finish it after I make a run to the drug store!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
16
29
9
Popular Days
Dec 16
11
Jan 2
9
Dec 17
8
Jan 1
7
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 7 posts
WordWolf 16 posts
Steve Lortz 29 posts
geisha779 9 posts
Popular Days
Dec 16 2011
11 posts
Jan 2 2012
9 posts
Dec 17 2011
8 posts
Jan 1 2012
7 posts
Naten00
The issue is not with English it is with the greek! The word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ is the greek word for fear at least thats what they teach you when learning greek. Granted when you look up the word it says respect although not used in scripture because I don't see the context in many of the passages as respect...
There are words for respect in the greek like αÏÎżÎœÎ”ÎŒÏ meaning to cause respect to treat with respect (with respect, as desvered) Str 642.
1791. áŒÎœÏÏÎżÏÎź entropÄ; from 1788; respect, shame:âshame(2).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Here are some words for REVERENCE
ÎŽÎÎżÏ deos; from ÎŽÎ”ÎŻÎŽÏ deidĆ (to fear); fear, reverence:âawe(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»Î±ÎČÎÎżÎŒÎ±Îč eulabeomai; from 2126; to be cautious:âreverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»ÎŹÎČΔÎčα eulabeia; from 2126; caution:âpiety(1), reverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
2152. ΔáœÏΔÎČÎźÏ ÄusÄbÄs, yoo-seb-aceÂŽ; from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:âdevout, godly.
. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2318. ΞΔοÏΔÎČÎźÏ thÄĆsÄbÄs, theh-os-eb-aceÂŽ; from 2316 and 4576; reverent of God, i.e. pious:âworshipper of God.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
5091. ÏÎčÎŒÎŹÏ timaĆ, tim-ahÂŽ-o; from 5093; to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by impl. to revere:âhonour, value.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
It seems to me that if God wanted it to be something other than fear he could of found a less confusing word. Unless it isn't confusing and when it says fear it says and I am sorry for the pun... "Says what it means".... If only VPW took his own advice.
When Jesus said "fear the one who has the power to throw you into hell and destroy it" He dosen't stop there. Jesus reiterates the point "Yes fear Him"... This isn't some respect or awe. None of the other words really even make sense in that story. As I illuded above with the word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ Jesus is saying it literally fear God...
Another thing to look at are peoples reactions to God or the glorified Jesus. I can't think of anyone who didn't tremble before them... John for example fell down as if dead... This is the one whom Jesus Loved. Jesus said do not be afraid. It wouldn't make since to say "Do not respect".. Johns natural reaction like everyone else in the bible was to fall down in fear of God. Why do I think I am going to act any different than the apostle John post pentecost? It just seems arrogant to assume anything other than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
In proverbs it says
Proverbs 19:23
The fear of the LORD leads to life, and whoever has it rests satisfied; he will not be visited by harm.
Our ultimate peace is that we really know who God is... We can't understand who God is until we fear Him... Not in he will strike me down for cussing but for his holiness. As Isaiah did... "I am a man with unclean lips".
No one deserves salvation... No one..... as good old Romans 3 points out... This is where the fear comes from.... an acknowledgement of who we are and who God is. We should fear him... It makes since...
The issue is that we will never understand the Love of God until we know God. We won't know the distance we are form Him until we look into the mirror and see our own sin... That is what repentance is... The hard key element I see missing from TWI... An acknowledgement of our own sin and falling down to our knees in total naked abandonment saying I can't do it and he is faithful to forgive... What a Joy it is that we have forgiveness.
I think Steve said something about being in the right relationship... He is so right... We can't have the right relationship when we understand where we stand or stood. That will cause fear, sadness, grief, guilt....
Because I fear this God who loves me enough to die for me (not here to argue that it is what I believe) I now understand the power of my God and who is ultimately in control... It isn't about me and never was... It is about this being who is so much more than me. Yet this God whom I fear Loves me and He protects me even when it seems all is lost. Oh, do I find peace and Joy in it. I don't understand why fearing God that will sometimes bring me to my knees but I find peace and comfort in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"The issue is not with English it is with the greek!"
The issue is not with the Greek, it is with the English.
Koine Greek is a dead language, and so the words in Koine Greek don't change in meaning.
What changes in meaning is the English it's translated into. English has changed a LOT in 400 years.
The Koine Greek word has remained the same, but the English word has become victim to the
perfectly normal, everyday process of "the specialization of language."
Down the centuries, we've seen what's called the SPECIALIZATION of language.
That's why the phrase "meat and drink" in English once meant "food and beverage"
but now "meat" only refers to what a carnivore will eat, and "drink" generally
means a beverage with alcohol (or we call it a "SOFT drink".)
There's lots of words where that's happened. A "facsimile" is an imitation, a copy.
Yet, a "copy" now is often thought to be a "photocopy", and a "facsimile copy", or
as it's shortened, "FAX", is a photocopy produced through a specific machine that
operates as a remote printer. All living languages do that.]
www.quora.com/John-Bagnall/Word-Definitions/answers
How important are word definitions to the process of communication?
John Bagnall, Wordsmith
Ultimately, clear definitions (that are understood and agreed upon by all parties) are essential to successful communication.
If I use words believing them to mean one thing, but you understand them to mean another, we have a recipe for confusion. At best, our misunderstanding may simply cause some brief and harmless embarrassment that can be quickly resolved. At worst, there is the potential for deep and lasting damage.
This is all the more so for the fact that what words mean and what the user means when he or she uses them may also be at odds.
In 1953, 19-year-old Derek Bentley was executed in Wandsworth Prison, London for his part in the murder of a policeman. Bentley had shouted to his co-defendent, who was carrying a gun, ''Let him have it!'' The case hung on whether Bentley was instructing his younger accomplice to hand over the pistol or to fire it; the court decided it was the latter.
www.quora.com/What-are-the-words-that-have-been-so-abused-in-their-use-that-their-original-meaning-is-gone
What are the words that have been so abused in their use that their original meaning is gone?
In other words, what are some good examples of words definitions gone crazy?
John Bagnall, Wordsmith
It's a moot point whether the shift in meaning of a word over time is the result of abuse per se as opposed to an entirely natural process of gradual evolution (known as language drift).
Examples of usages that have changed over different periods of time (and as the result of different influences and circumstances) include:
Decimate vb
now means: destroy all, devastate
did mean: kill/destroy one tenth
Gay adj (also now n)
now means: a sexual orientation
did mean: happy, free of care
Quantum adj
now means: big
did mean: small
Awesome adj
now means: stunning, wonderful, great
did mean: frightening, dreadful, weird
Aggravate vb
now means: annoy, make worse
did mean: burden, weigh down
Counterfeit n
now means: cheap, shoddy copy
did mean: perfect copy
Hopefully adv
now means: with luck, it is to be hoped that
did mean: in a hopeful manner
Fortuitous adj
now means: lucky, fortunate
did mean: by chance, accidental
Radical adj
now means: extreme, controversial
did mean: basic, fundamental
Want vb
now means: desire
did mean: lack
finally:
Defecate vb
did mean: purify, cleanse
now means: well, you decide....
===================================
Ok, the concept I was referring to is more often called LANGUAGE DRIFT.
But you can see it happens all the time, as long as a language is spoken-a "living" language.
A "dead" language doesn't change.
"The word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ is the greek word for fear at least thats what they teach you when learning greek. Granted when you look up the word it says respect although not used in scripture because I don't see the context in many of the passages as respect..."
The Greek word "phobos" isn't the issue-that's stayed the same.
It's been translated into English as "fear" for many centuries-and THAT's the issue.
"Phobos" always meant one thing-but "fear" has DRIFTED over at least the last 400 years.
The more generalized, previous meaning was a great emotion. That applied whether the
emotion was NEGATIVE (fear, anxiety) or POSITIVE (awe, reverence).
Many passages in Scripture, it MIGHT be translated either way and an argument-whether
valid or not-can be made for either. So, let's not waste our time on pages of
what would amount to a shrugged shoulder. The passages where it could not sensibly
be a NEGATIVE emotion, but an AWE and REVERENCE, are up for discussion.
If they don't exist, than there's insufficient proof to support a claim that the
language drift has changed the meaning, and we can try to claim it's all the
CURRENT meaning of "fear" and discuss why.
Since they DO exist, the existence of at least a DIFFERENT, POSITIVE meaning in
effect in 1611 is demonstrated, and this whole "fear has always only meant one thing"
position has been successfully DISPROVEN.
(You still are free to hold a disproven, refuted belief, however- there are still
Flat Earthers and people who think vpw really heard from God in 1942.)
Acts 2:42-43
King James Version (KJV)
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Luke 7:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
Luke 1:64-65
King James Version (KJV)
64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Matthew 28:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Myself,
I'm waiting for a good explanation as to exactly how one can have
"fear and great joy" at the same time-
if the MODERN MEANING of the word "fear" is meant.
You CAN'T feel GREAT JOY while experiencing fears.
If a person has a phobia of something, and is experiencing great joy,
and you introduce the object of the phobia,
then the person will STOP feeling great joy and REPLACE that feeling with FEAR.
If one takes into account that "fear" in 1611 meant something it no longer means in 2011,
then it makes sense.
==========================
Now, you've admitted that the dictionaries have a definition of "reverence" in them,
but claim surprise they do. Should have read my post in its entirety before announcing
it was incorrect. I posted the examples at least once already.
Ephesians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Ephesians 5:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
2 Corinthians 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
2 Corinthians 7
1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
2 Corinthians 7:1
New International Version (NIV)
2 Corinthians 7
1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
Romans 3:18
King James Version (KJV)
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Romans 3:18
Good News Translation (GNT)
18 nor have they learned reverence for God.
===============================
Now, if you want to dismiss the work of the committees that completed those Bible versions,
that's your privilege. Obviously, they saw something you did not.
So, the dictionaries saw something, you don't see why.
The translation committees of at least 2 popular Bible versions saw something, but you don't.
Rather than take me to task for seeing it and not just saying
"phobos has always meant exactly one thing",
might all of us have a point?]
"There are words for respect in the greek like αÏÎżÎœÎ”ÎŒÏ meaning to cause respect to treat with respect (with respect, as desvered) Str 642.
1791. áŒÎœÏÏÎżÏÎź entropÄ; from 1788; respect, shame:âshame(2).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Here are some words for REVERENCE
ÎŽÎÎżÏ deos; from ÎŽÎ”ÎŻÎŽÏ deidĆ (to fear); fear, reverence:âawe(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»Î±ÎČÎÎżÎŒÎ±Îč eulabeomai; from 2126; to be cautious:âreverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
ΔáœÎ»ÎŹÎČΔÎčα eulabeia; from 2126; caution:âpiety(1), reverence(1).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
2152. ΔáœÏΔÎČÎźÏ ÄusÄbÄs, yoo-seb-aceÂŽ; from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:âdevout, godly.
. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2318. ΞΔοÏΔÎČÎźÏ thÄĆsÄbÄs, theh-os-eb-aceÂŽ; from 2316 and 4576; reverent of God, i.e. pious:âworshipper of God.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
5091. ÏÎčÎŒÎŹÏ timaĆ, tim-ahÂŽ-o; from 5093; to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by impl. to revere:âhonour, value.
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[As you yourself have just shown,
there's more than one word in the Greek that mean similar things or
almost-identical things in English-at least English as we practice it now.
For that matter, "krima" and "krisis" are effectively interchangeable
in Bible meaning, and both are used in the New Testament.
You just made my point FOR me while saying it's invalid.]
"It seems to me that if God wanted it to be something other than fear he could of found a less confusing word."
[Frankly, I would have liked that as well, but if He has a certain word used,
then that is the word He used. Either we accept that and try to understand it,
or we toss away the Bible and say it's a book of man,
or we take God to task for not trying hard enough.]
"Unless it isn't confusing and when it says fear it says and I am sorry for the pun... "Says what it means".... If only VPW took his own advice."
[i REposted a few examples where "fear" (as written) doesn't mean "fear" (as understood by you).
It said what it meant, but you missed what it meant.
I can keep reposting them in the hopes you'll read them eventually, if you like,
or maybe spend some more time and find some more.
At present, I see no use in adding more time if you haven't read what I posted so far.]
"When Jesus said "fear the one who has the power to throw you into hell and destroy it" He dosen't stop there. Jesus reiterates the point "Yes fear Him"... This isn't some respect or awe. None of the other words really even make sense in that story. As I illuded above with the word ÏÎżÎČÎżÏ Jesus is saying it literally fear God...
Another thing to look at are peoples reactions to God or the glorified Jesus. I can't think of anyone who didn't tremble before them... John for example fell down as if dead... This is the one whom Jesus Loved. Jesus said do not be afraid. It wouldn't make since to say "Do not respect".. Johns natural reaction like everyone else in the bible was to fall down in fear of God. Why do I think I am going to act any different than the apostle John post pentecost? It just seems arrogant to assume anything other than that.
[When the word "phobos" means a strong emotional response, it CAN mean "AWE AND REVERENCE"
or it CAN mean "fear, anxiety, shock".
It's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that clearly mean "awe" into "anxiety"-
which you did-
and it's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that probably mean "anxiety" into "respect"-
as you're CLAIMING I would.
The word "phobos" had/has a more GENERAL meaning and meant the deep emotional reaction.
That's why some verses are CORRECTLY rendered as "reverence" and some OTHER verses
are CORRECTLY rendered as "fear" (as we currently mean the word.)
By limiting "phobos" to EITHER meaning, you're making a mistake and doing a disservice to
God's Word. I expect better of you than that.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The REVERENCE of God is FAR more encompassing than the modern word "fear" would
limit things. If one is AFRAID of God, if one's understanding begins only with the
concept that God's ready to Smite thee as The Almighty Smiter,
then, hey, that's an understanding that I find both LIMITING and DiSQUIETING.
Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense of a God-Father, who receives my service
as a sort of "protection money" so He doesn't cause any "accidents" to happen to
me or mine? Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense that He's the Mightiest Mutha
in the Universe and anyone else would just get smacked down, so go with the toughest?
Sorry, I find that your concept of "fearing" neither matches all the verses nor motivates
me to serve Him, Your God sounds more like a bully or an organized crime boss than a
Heavenly Father whom I want to make proud of me. Me, I REVERENCE a God who's so awesome
I go to my knees in humility to Him-not because He requires it, but because He deserves
it and I wish to show Him respect out of my free will.
If having a God, and "fearing" Him drops you to your knees before Him, and this brings
you "peace and joy", well, I'm happy for you, but that sounds more like STOCKHOLM
SYNDROME, or a wife devoted to an abusive husband, or a devotee to twi who is afraid
to leave "the household" more than any relationship with any God I'd ever want to
serve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Yorkies are an interesting kind of dog. They were originally bred to hunt rats, so they are aggressive and competitive dogs. But they were bred to hunt in packs, so they are also VERY social dogs among themselves.
My sister got a Yorkie pup about a-year-and-a-half ago. Named him "Benji."
It's not good to keep a solitary Yorkie. They can develop behavioral problems as a result. So about six months ago, she got another Yorkie pup and named him "Dunkie" (short for "Dunkin Donuts"). She didn't get the two pups at the same time, for another good reason. If you get the pups together, they form such a bond with each other that they fail to bond properly with the human members of their pack. So Benji bonded with my sister and her husband (who is the alpha male of the pack), and now Dunkie is bonding with all of them.
Dunkie spends his time pushing the boundaries to see what he can get away with. One time early on, when Dunkie went farther than Benjie wanted him to go, Benjie rolled Dunkin over on his back, and Benji put his teeth on Dunkie's neck. Dunkin got the message. Benji can kill him anytime he wants to.
Now Benji and Dunkie have the most marvelous time playing together. Dunkie RESPECTS Benji's boundaries, because he has the FEAR of the Benji. And everything is hunky-dory.
My wife has an adult nephew who faces some challenges. When I married into the family I was given to understand that it would be MY responsibility to keep my new nephew out of his grandfather's hair. My nephew has aspergers, and ALWAYS pushes the boundaries to see how much he can get away with. His grandfather (my father-in-law) also had aspergers, and was never able to define a boundary or hold it.
My nephew and his wife were living out of town at the time, but they came for a few days for my mother-in-law's funeral, and they stayed at our house. The very first day, after I had set out some guidelines for how we would do things in my house, my nephew began insisting that we would do things HIS way, or he would pitch a fit. So I put my coat and hat on, got out my car keys, and told him to put his gear in the car, because I was going to take him back to his own house (several hour's drive away).
He tried to face me down long enough to realize that I meant business, and then he changed his tune, and things were fine for the rest of the visit.
In dog terms, I had rolled him over on his back and put my teeth on his neck. It threw the fear of the Lortz into him, because he knew that I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, and I will back up my words with my actions.
That was 20 years ago. He still gets into senseless fights with everyone but me. We spend a lot of time joking around and making small talk, but he knows when I'm being serious, and when he needs to obey me. That has come in handy on a number of occassions that might otherwise have ended up in jail or the local psych ward (for a variety of different people, and a variety of different reasons).
I don't hesitate to say that the relationship he has with me is the BEST relationship he's ever had with a male relative, including his own Dad. Better than the relationship he's had with anybody except his wife. I don't think he'd hesitate to say the same thing. The reason our relationship is so good is because he RESPECTS the boundaries I set, because he FEARS me. And he knows I love him with the love of God.
=================================
Soooo... how do we define "fear"? My brother and I both taught humane letters to seventh-graders, and one of the things we taught them was how to define words. The formula, going all the way back to Aristotle is this: first tell the category that the subject belongs to, and then tell how the subject is different from all other members of the same category.
You gave this, WordWolf, as a modern usage definition: "'fear' is an emotion which is a negative response..."
It would appear that this definition could be sharpened up. Is the category to which "fear" belongs the category of "emotions" or the category of "responses"? Does the adjective "negative" sufficiently delimit? Are there responses or emotions other than fear which can be regarded as negative? If so, what distinguishes "fear" from those other responses or emotions. This definition seems to have a Pavlovian, soft-science feel to it, rather than a classically comprehensive feel. Are all emotions responses to stimuli? Are there any self-generating emotions? Could Pavlov have accounted for my wife's emotions? I very much doubt it.
So, what is the category to which "fear" belongs? The category of "emotions" (or "feelings"). Emotions are chemical signals from the hormonal system, which operate in tandem with the electrical signals of the nervous system. Emotions MOVE us to DO things. Emotions differ from each other in the things they move us to do. "Fear" differs from other emotions in that it moves us to get into a safe, or a right relation with the object of the fear. "Fear" is almost always provoked by crossing the boundary that separates what is perceived as "safe" from what is perceived as "dangerous".
Perhaps the Pavlovian definition of "fear" uses the word "negative" because fear can be painful, and Pavlov used pain to induce the feeling in his experimental animals.
Most of the time I enjoy eating my pistachios without giving a second thought to the condition of my teeth. But sometimes one of my teeth will be painful, which is my body's way of saying, "Hey! Jerk! We need some attention here, and we need it NOW?"
Fear becomes painful when we cross the boundary from a location of perceived safety to a location of perceived danger... when we see that rattlesnake within striking distance of our ankle... when we realize that our financial officer was cheating on the taxes... when we look over that precipice...
The pain WON'T go away until we MOVE back into safety... back away from the snake... file corrections on our tax forms... back away from the edge of the abyss...
===================================
The fear of the LORD moves us to get back into right, or safe relation with the LORD. The fear of the LORD gets painful when we cross the boundary HE has set in His Word between that behavior which He deems as safe, and that behavior which He deems as dangerous.
The fear of the LORD recognizes that HE is our Creator, and WE exist only at His good pleasure. He doesn't owe us anything, not even life.
The way to stop the pain of the fear of the LORD is to get back into safe territory, to repent of our transgressions, and to stop doing them.
Wierwille didn't like the pain of the fear of the LORD, and he didn't want to repent (arrogance), so he did his best to drown out the pain with Drambuie, and with the endorphins released through sex (he bacame a sex addict).
==================================
There are a few more things I could write, but I think I'm done for the time being.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, I'm glad we're having a discussion here.
However, I'm getting the feeling someone or more than someone may be skipping past
the Bible verses I posted, because they seem to not address them.
Me, I think the verses are of critical importance to the discussion.
Any example I or anyone else can spin means nothing if the verses
say something else.
I disagree with your interpretation of events. Two canines interacted and eventually
they were bound to have to determine dominance between them-which one had authority over
which. (I've studied this with wolves, but I've read about dog interactions as well.)
The fight didn't go until one was about to "kill" the other- the fight went to the
(hard-wired) end of the fight when the winner was clearly evident to both.
(You left out the submission display of the loser-how the loser signified to the winner
he understood he lost-otherwise the fight would have continued.)
The dogs worked out their ranking between each other. Unless something changes the
situation, that will hold for years, possibly their entire lives. It's based on which
is STRONGER, but is not FEAR-BASED. I think you're IMPOSING a label on the situation
in order to understand it by your terms, not canine terms.
(If you were some people I'd think you were doing it to fuzz the issues, but I think
you're making a good-faith attempt both to understand and communicate that understanding,
despite us disagreeing. I'd much rather have that even if we never agree.)
Those people who think humans and apes are closely related can have trouble
with the greater similarity between canine family structures and human family
structures than either with apes.
Looks to me that you ended up with a similar situation-a dominance struggle.
One party challenged the other, and it progressed until one accepted the
dominance of the other. You mentioned nothing of any VIOLENCE. I don't see
him as FEARING you but as RESPECTING you-especially seeing you as dominant
to him. Without any threat or display of violence, I see no trigger for any
FEAR, but rather indicators of a dominance display that played out.
If you left out important details, perhaps there was some violence or threats.
Otherwise, I interpret this differently than you as well.
I wasn't trying to make a definition as much as illustrate the contrast.
(But thank you for reading what I came up with.)
For definitions of the modern meaning of "fear", I'll go with what the
PROFESSIONAL wordsmiths said-which I also posted.
"a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined;"
"Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm. Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity."
"concern or anxiety"
"something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension"
"A very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger"
"A feeling of disquiet or apprehension"
"A reason for dread or apprehension"
If you actually want to discuss the modern meaning of the word "fear", I'd strongly recommend
we proceed THERE rather than from anything you or I would dash off typing.
Inadvertently,
you keep presenting me with a False Dilemma between 2 choices,
both of which I consider error:
A) be afraid of God and serve and obey Him because the Almighty Smiter may Smite me
B) be like vpw, sin like crazy, refuse to repent, and just run around with no self-control
I reject the first position because I am FAR more loyal to a Loving Father whom I wish
to please to make Him happy than I would be a Mighty Boss or God-Father I MUST please...
or else.....
I reject the second position because vpw lied completely when he claimed to respect
God at all, revere or even care about Him. I'm under no restriction to lie in any
way about respect, reverence, or AWE about God.
I'm curious about your thoughts concerning how some respected research teams from
legitimate Bible organizations have rendered "phobos" as "reverence" rather than
"fear"- as I posted above. Do you think they are in error when they do so?
What about the verses I posted where the concept of "fear" as we know it seems
antithetical to what's happening in the sentence, where people have joy and
seem in AWE of God, but the KJV renders their emotions as "fear" and "joy"
simultaneously. Should that really be rendered AWE, or do you think the
people were afraid of God while being joyful about Him at the same time?
And should I repost the verses again for easy reference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't have time to give any fuller responses right now, and probably won't until after a couple of days. I too am glad we are having this discussion in a more appropriate place (though my understanding of the fear of the Lord comes from my experience with Momentus as well as with TWI). In all my years at Greasespot I have always admired your thought processes and ability to articulate, so I welcome this opportunity, not as a disagreement, but as a process for iron to truly sharpen iron. I've already had to refine my thinking several notches.
Just out of curiousity, what do you imagine my standing might be as a professional word-smith? I ask, not least of all, because I wonder myself how my current standing as a professional word-smith might be accurately described. :)
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
By the way, WordWolf, what do you think Benji would have done if Dunkie had not given the sign of submission? They DID use Yorkies as pit fighters, you know, though mostly against rats.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
To fear God, to me, is like fearing surgery...sort of.
You know it will help and fix a problem.
Yet I still fear the procedure of it being done.
Similar is the fear of God.
And his 'surgery' on us.
Knowing it will be ok, yet fearing the Procedures and Methods
of what will be done....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I just have to mention that likening God to a snake to make a point is probably not the best choice? I read about getting in a right relationship to the object of our fear by obedience......and thought.... good luck with that. It is not going to happen. Are we really still, still, still, going to try and bypass God's appointed means to get in right relation to Him? Jesus Christ. We don't jump from fear to obedience. Blood was shed for a reason.
And I don't think VP"s "problem" was simply a lack of the fear of God, define it as reverence, define it as fear.....in his case it doesn't matter. VP's lack of reverence for God was a result of the complete absence of a right relationship to Jesus Christ, who for a Christian is all in all. Jesus is Lord. VP tried to bypass Him.
Jesus is God's appointed means to be in right relationship to Him.......no one comes to God except through Him. That includes self-confessed Christians, of which there is none. Some of us just did a good job of faking it in TWI. Obedience, knowledge, words....are all empty and are all meaningless before God, they don't get us anywhere. They are not enough....and they will never be enough. He who honors the Father must honor the Son in the same way. It is dishonor to try and bypass Him.
Who is Lord in our lives and why do we need Him if obedience out of fear gets us in right relationship to the object of our fear?
It is when we recognize this holy, holy, holy God..... when we come up against this immoveable being who really is so perfect and only good that we recognize ourselves as the sinful creatures we are......then we begin to learn about the amazing love He has for us in making a way through unimaginable sacrifice. This is the work of the Holy Spirit who reveals Jesus Christ. Again, we get no credit.......we were dead in trespasses and sins.....dead people don't obey. And we love Him because He first loved us.
We obey out of love, because Jesus transforms us......it is not in our sinful nature to love God's nature but as we grow in a relationship with Him through faith in Jesus and His relationship with the Father......our desires change. We desire God. And yes, sometimes we obey out of fear because we know a little tiny bit about this unchanging perfect God. It is not only consequence, but we know God is faithful and He will find a way to change us. It is prudent. That change includes our deceitful hearts....He gives us a new one. Jesus becomes our heart . If our hearts are still so deceitful......we can humbly ask God to create in us a new heart. He is able....nothing is too difficult for Him.
You can try to obey all the laws, all the promises, all the doctrine.....whatever you want to call it. Go ahead and obey them out of fear to get into right relationship.....It is not going to mean a thing without God's appointed way to reconciliation to Him.
Fear will keep you out of a burning building .......but faith in Jesus Christ, who he is, His obedience and His work on the cross is the way to please God. Faith, love, and recognition which comes from the Holy Spirit is the path to obedience.....the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Sorry for the interrupt WW......I understand you two are having a conversation....it just struck me as odd that God is being compared to a snake and I believe we have to be careful that the idea of obedience out of fear is the way to be in right relationship to the object of fear. We are in a love relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Carry on. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hm, no fear if you are not going into the fire....
but you are
yeah JC gave his life for reasons
one is, you can take the heat, and live
he proved it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
King James Version (KJV)
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Fear Should come upon us when doing what they did. When coming to the full understanding who we are.
Luke 7:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
I would be afraid of the man who raised someone from the dead.... You can glorify someone and fear them at the same time.
Luke 1:64-65
King James Version (KJV)
64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
Fear came on all of them... I see it as real fear... Seems to happen when someone sees miracles
Matthew 28:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
I don't see a contradiction in your verses. In the definition of fear.
To note I did read them the first time I was giving my point of view before I went to bed. I wasn't trying to offend you in any manner by not addressing the verses. I was speaking from my heart and what i have studied.
Again and I didn't read you addressing my points of John falling in fear of Jesus... Jesus didn't say do not be afraid because he was reverencing him.... I think the context is clear... I mean if the apostle John the one whom Jesus loved died as if dead out of fear to the glorified Christ post Pentecost.... WHy do I think I am going to operate any differently?
This was was not a one time occurrence... Isaiah did and thought he was going to die... At the mount of transfiguration Peter was so scared coming into contact of the glorified Christ and God that he started to say lets put of houses for you out of fear as the text says.
When I read or view the picture I see about the interaction of all the prophets, apostles, people who came into contact with God as these examples it dosn't look like a respect, awe or reverence. It looks like they were terrified.
To say that these incidences where reverence and awe just doesn't fit the description.
I never said we serve out of of fearful obedience. I said our fear comes out of realizing who we are like Isaiah said " I am a man of unclean lips".... God says it's ok I will clean you. Seeing who God is... Just his presence will cause fear... Because he is holy. The concept of God being Holy is huge.
God is Holy, Holy, Holy.... That is why I fear him....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[How dare you have a life while I'm pontificating?] ;)
[i may not have a lot of anxiety and stress when I think about God,
but being forced to deal with Momentus and Momentus survivors is scary!] ;)
[i think the journey will be worthwhile even if we both end up concluding exactly the
same things we did when we started. We're both bringing something to the table.]
[That would depend on your professional status as one. I don't think of myself as one
because I'm really a hobbyist concerning words, and haven't put in the time yet at any
academic or paycheck-level. I like to quote the websites for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because those are
the 2 most reputable dictionaries in print form that are available, and either would serve
a person a lifetime (or as long as the book holds out.) I've used both in the past, in
paper form, and can say their reputations are deserved.
One old operating definition of an "expert" is "anyone from out of town with a briefcase."
This doesn't work with us because twi had too many people come in from out of town, carrying
briefcases, who were incompetent at anything except yelling and spouting platitudes.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[i don't know Yorkies. If you'd described their equivalents in a wolf pack, I could give a
decent opinion. So I shall pretend for a moment that's exactly what you asked, since the
answers should be the same in this instance and for this discussion.
(Canine experts and zoologists would disagree, especially in a different context.)
The losing canine ENDS the fight by giving the sign of submission. It's a fight, but not one
"to the death", more to determine which is stronger. So, if Dunkie had not given the sign of
submission, the other dog would have roughed him up, then done the neck thing again,
in effect "requesting" a "surrender" or "submission." Dunkie would then have submitted.
If not, the other dog would have been a LOT rougher and Dunkie might not have been in any
shape to submit. I'm not sure if the alpha would have considered "too beaten to move"
as an "official" submission since I've never heard of a canine that was beaten in a
straight fight and refused to submit if offered the chance. My understanding is that both
the signal of dominance (the neck grab) and the signal of submission (of a number of types)
are instinctive and essentially "hard-wired."
If they WERE wolves, they would be easier to read afterwards, too. Dogs often can't display
the same body language as wolves due to biological differences. An alpha will demonstrate
his status by his stance, position, and the positions of his tail and ears. A lesser rank
will similarly signal his submission to the alpha through all of those as well.
(IIRC, failing to do so can initiate a fresh dominance challenge.) However, a dog whose tail
has been docked can't use his tail to signal dominance nor submission, and a dog with floppy
ears can likewise signal neither.
I really don't think of any of that as about "fear", but more about social structure,
ritual, and instinctive behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is not a conversation between two, it's a group discussion that started out from what the 4 of us posted
in another thread. It's the type of comparison that bothered you that bothered me enough to start
this thread. Our relationships with God are complicated enough that there's probably some "fear"
in there somewhere-and a "healthy" amount, if there is one, is that there's enough to help remind
one to obey without being the prime reason for obeying.
I've spoken to a non-Christian, and they've said that one of the reasons they're a NON-Christian
is that Christians never came by with any motivation to believe that they could get behind.
The relevant part of that for this discussion is that Christians kept trying to get them to believe
and serve God to prevent that same Loving God from doing horrible things to them.
Oh, gee, where do I sign up, that sounds like just the god I was looking for?
I really don't get that. I mean, how many Christians out there can't recite John 3:16?
Again, any post relating to the actual discussion topic is welcome and appreciated.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Ok, you looked them over, and you see that as perfectly sensible.
Me, I looked them over and see that as contradictory.
I suppose we'll end up agreeing to disagree there.]
[Cool. It looked differently to me with 2 people "skipping over" what I saw were the relevant
verses, but it was just 2 people with only so many hours in a day.]
[i don't think ALL occurrences of "phobos" should be rendered "reverence" or "awe", but I'm
convinced rendering them ALL as "fear" is error. Not all strong emotions are fearful-
but SOME are. Not all strong emotions are reverent- but SOME are.
I can easily see some accounts where someone is fearful-either appropriately or not- and
other accounts where they are not, but are too filled with awe at God's Majesty to
even wonder if they should be scared.
I'm getting the impression that you're saying something like this (while you're saying that's
at least partially incorrect):
-God wants us to be afraid of Him
-it is appropriate and healthy to be afraid of God
-obedience to God is motivated by being afraid of God-and that is as it should be
What I'm saying is more like:
-God wants us to love Him and consider Him with the utmost respect and reverence
-it is appropriate and healthy to be in awe of God
-obedience to God is motivated by love for a truly Awesome God, and wanting to please Him
If possible, I'd like to explore these concepts, because I think that's really where
the meat of this discussion is. Maybe you can start by expanding what you were saying
at the end, about the interactions of Peter, the prophets, and so on.
I'd especially like it if you could either include the verse references for specific
incidents, or the complete verses as well. If we're going to discuss what some
verses mean, we should look at what they say, first.
Whenever you actually have time, of course. This will take time to do right.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for the kind words, WordWolf!
I can see it might be useful to open up another approach to understanding the nature and purpose of the FEAR!!! :o of the LORD!
...but I haven't got time to develop the next argument fully right now...
Soooo.... I 'll hand out a little bit of homework for your amusement and edification (once you've taught seventh-graders, there's no going back).
The key to understanding the importance of the fear of the Lord is in Jeremiah 17:9.
I won't ask for a 500 word paper by tomorrow, but you might read the verse and start considering how you intend to "stump the teacher" in the near future!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
This morning, after I woke up, I was working a sudoku puzzle to clear my mind of the cobwebs of dreams, when a thought occured to me: "What if the conflict we're having over 'phobos' is one of those 'Certs is a breath mint! No, Certs is a candy mint!' or 'Great taste! No, less filling!' kind of arguments?"
What if "trust" and "fear" are simply two different ways of looking at "phobos"?
Like "freedom" and "responsibility"? The two things are like the faces of a coin. You can't have one without the other. Generally speaking, if you accept responsibility, you gain freedom. If you repudiate your responsibility, you will lose some degree of your freedom.
Remember, we're not trying to impose our own definitions, here. We're trying to figure out what the Bible means by the word "phobos". What if the way we view the "trust/fear" thing depends on how we stand in relation to a boundary set by the object of our "trust/fear"? If we're standing in a safe relation to the boundary, then we experience trust/fear as awe, if we're standing in a dangerous place in relation to the boundary, we experience trust/fear as terror?
What do you think? Am I being symptomatic?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I haven't had time to even start a word study, but just off the top of my Blue Letter Bible I found Proverbs 29:25 "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe."
The first part of the verse contrasts the negative side of the trust/fear thing with the safe (literally) side of the trust/fear thing in the second part of the verse.
The trust/fear of Wierwille certainly brought a snare!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And then there's always the ever-popular Proverbs 3:5-7
"5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
"6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
"7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD and depart from evil."
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
It would appear that one of the deficiencies in my earlier groping toward a definition of phobos was thinking of it in terms of stationary boundaries. The language of Proverbs 3 speaks of trust and fear in dynamic terms. When we trust the LORD, He directs our paths. When we stray off the paths the LORD sets before us, then the fear of the LORD moves us to depart from evil, that is, to get back on the right path.
When people saw the miracles Jesus did, they were moved to get back on the right path. How's that for regarding the way they experienced the phobos of the LORD?
The trust/fear of man would present a snare because it would entangle a person's feet, and prevent her/him from being moved back onto the right path by the trust/fear of the LORD.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well, I spent a little more time on Blue Letter Bible and found some interesting things:
========================
Psalm 40:3&4,
"3 And he [the LORD] hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
"4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies."
So here in verse 3 we see the fear of the LORD paralleled with trust in the LORD.
In verse 4 we see respect of the proud contrasted with the trust/fear of the LORD. The idea of "respect" is associated with trust/fear in a minor sort of way.
We also see the dynamic of going away from the safety of the path in "such as turn aside to lies."
====================
Psalm 56:4
"4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me."
There seems to be a theme of trusting/fearing God or trusting/fearing flesh.
====================
Psalm 115:11
"11 Ye that fear the LORD, that trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."
Fear of the LORD and trust in the LORD are put into apposition with each other here.
======================
Psalm 31:19
"19 Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men!"
Again we see a trust/fear identity.
All for now.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've been having a blast today with Blue Letter Bible!
My link
You can do in a few clicks what it used to take hours of compiling lists from the backs of concordances to do.
I had especial fun looking up uses of phobeo, the verb form of phobos.
Among other things, Herod didn't immediately kill John the Baptist because Herod feared the multitude (Matt. 14:5), the chief priests and the Pharisees didn't lay hands on Jesus because they feared the multitude (Matt. 21:46), the disciples feared to ask Jesus the meaning of a parable (Luke 9:45), the parents of the man born blind denied Jesus because they feared the Jews (John 9:22), and the captain and the guards treated the apostles without violence because they feared that the people would stone them (Acts 5:26).
I'm gonna post this now, and finish it after I make a run to the drug store!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I will not be able to give a response till about Monday... I am out of town... God bless
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.