MRAP, there appears to be a thinly disguised criticism from you aimed at me for going off topic. I agree with you. I appear to be the only one concerned about it, until you came along.
So here's the deal. If you have a problem with a post, hit report and the mods will deal with it. That's the grown up way to handle it. The juvenile way to handle it is to come along and thank the people who stayed on topic, ignoring the fact that the off-topic digression was openly discussed, BY ME, and no one who actively participated in the thread objected.
Nice post Steve and you are 100% spot on with the tolerances stuff. The definitions of words are paramount in doctrinal studies for sure. The perspective on administrations is cool too. I noticed the most wacked out Way logic doctrinally w/r to administrations actually showed up in their teachings on debt. Listening to those acrobatics dealing with the topic migrate over the different administrations they teach is completely illogical.
With respect to
My feelings are to let it drift with some leeway as you see on courtroom TV. Some of the side journeys really contribute a lot like Steve's tolerances stuff. If we get too persnickety defining what's on topic it restricts the conversation. You know, kind of like every conversation you ever have with Way brained people.
I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't re: policing "on topic" posts. Either I'm persnickety and legalistic or I'm letting the conversation drift because I'm a mod. Tell me how to win when I'm wrong no matter what I do.
So I chose to err on the side of flexibility and allow the conversation to flow naturally. And I was explicit about it. And I still caught flack about it (from someone who clearly had not read what I said about it).
This thread is about what the Bible teaches about SIT. It is not about challenging the practice. There's a thread in About the Way that challenges the practice.
Waysider's question about Paul and the validity of Corinthian SIT probably belongs in questioning faith, since it does not necessarily accept the Bible's answer as authoritative. Now, I can blow up all these issues and make them separate threads, or just let the conversation flow freely here. I choose the latter, by apparent consensus. But I won't lose sleep if another mod jumps in. I'm not requesting it, and neither has anyone else.
Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.
I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.)
The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.)
What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...)
My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody):
The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.
Here was a another question in the next post:
...what are the fundamental reasons for even demonstrating God's Power?
To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here:
Just for the record (not to prove or disprove anything), I have heard in years past (early years in the ministry) what sounded to me like some number of very beautiful languages in "believers meetings." No, sure can't begin to tell you what they were or sounded like, but it did seem that several sounded nearly recognizable (one in particular stood out as being quite French in nature.) Living in a highly multinational area still exposes me (not infrequently) to a multiplicity of languages, and I'll say this... I seriously doubt that I (nor very many others) would have any success at telling many (or most) of them apart from a lot of the modern SIT (for lack of something better to call it).
As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here:
Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion:
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?
and here:
Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place.
and here:
If a follower of another religion were going through this many logical contortions and definition expansions to justify the failure of his claim to produce it's promised results, we would all reject the claim without hesitation.
Which I spoke out against here:
Which you poo-pooed here:
(part 2, continues in next post...)
So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response):
Maybe there's a post that you (or somebody else) made somewhere with the concession that glossolalia can or might be an authentic form or means of communication, but if so, I hadn't seen or read it.
Neither have I seen or read elsewhere that you (or anyone else here) have clarified what or how anything was "said" between the serpent and Eve.
It's been tossed out as being hypothetical or figurative, and subsequently irrelevant to what (or how anything else in the Bible) is or can be said between man and God.
IF it is so darn irrelevant here in Genesis how the serpent is "said" to have said anything unto the woman, then why put or suppose how a man "speaketh" unto God is any more necessary or important?
But then comes this concession:
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point
stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else.
So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post:
And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post:
But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon:
This analogy is holding up rather well.
So I try this approach::
If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?
Which you immediately cast aside:
No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.
And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this:
Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread.
I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria.
So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post:
(part 3, continues in next post...)
Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response:
I'm just going to inject one thought.
To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.
In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.
Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.)
And this post pretty much sums this all up:
Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.
There. Said it AGAIN.
Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?
Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated.
So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.
Nice post Steve and you are 100% spot on with the tolerances stuff. The definitions of words are paramount in doctrinal studies for sure. The perspective on administrations is cool too. I noticed the most wacked out Way logic doctrinally w/r to administrations actually showed up in their teachings on debt. Listening to those acrobatics dealing with the topic migrate over the different administrations they teach is completely illogical.
With respect to :offtopic:/>
My feelings are to let it drift with some leeway as you see on courtroom TV. Some of the side journeys really contribute a lot like Steve's tolerances stuff. If we get too persnickety defining what's on topic it restricts the conversation. You know, kind of like every conversation you ever have with Way brained people.
Just want to let you know, chockfull, that I very much appreciate your posts on this subject matter, and find myself mostly in agreement with you (with some relatively insignificant exceptions, of course.) I think it unfortunate that "the approach" (for lack of a better way to say it) to biblical research that most of us were taught (or learned) in TWI was no where near as good as we were all lead to believe. However, I think we would agree that it did (and still does) lead to one helluvalot of intellectualism and egotism, and very little genuine spirituality.
I don't know why the formatting didn't work on your post to me, TLC, but it doesn't appear to be something I can fix even with my modhat. So, on to substance:
The "new perspective" you claim to be offering is old. We've been through it. And we'll go through it again, I suppose. But you'll be doing it without me.
I fail to see the relevance of the serpent's conversation with Eve.
Some of WW's criticism did not appear to be aimed at you. I think you missed that. Some of it was.
You can call me "proud" all you want, but I note that you still have not offered a Biblical refutation of my position.
You don't have to bow out. I already have. I'm responding because you addressed your post to me specifically. I promise, if you offer something that causes me to reconsider, I will do so. But saying "What about the serpent's conversation with Eve?" does not qualify, in my opinion.
I think I figured out how to fix your formatting. Let's see if it works...
Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.
I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.)
The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.)
What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...)
My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody):
The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.
Here was a another question in the next post:
...what are the fundamental reasons for even demonstrating God's Power?
To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here:
Just for the record (not to prove or disprove anything), I have heard in years past (early years in the ministry) what sounded to me like some number of very beautiful languages in "believers meetings." No, sure can't begin to tell you what they were or sounded like, but it did seem that several sounded nearly recognizable (one in particular stood out as being quite French in nature.) Living in a highly multinational area still exposes me (not infrequently) to a multiplicity of languages, and I'll say this... I seriously doubt that I (nor very many others) would have any success at telling many (or most) of them apart from a lot of the modern SIT (for lack of something better to call it).
As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here:
Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion:
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?
and here:
Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place.
and here:
If a follower of another religion were going through this many logical contortions and definition expansions to justify the failure of his claim to produce it's promised results, we would all reject the claim without hesitation.
So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response):
Maybe there's a post that you (or somebody else) made somewhere with the concession that glossolalia can or might be an authentic form or means of communication, but if so, I hadn't seen or read it.
Neither have I seen or read elsewhere that you (or anyone else here) have clarified what or how anything was "said" between the serpent and Eve.
It's been tossed out as being hypothetical or figurative, and subsequently irrelevant to what (or how anything else in the Bible) is or can be said between man and God.
IF it is so darn irrelevant here in Genesis how the serpent is "said" to have said anything unto the woman, then why put or suppose how a man "speaketh" unto God is any more necessary or important?
But then comes this concession:
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point
stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else.
So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post:
And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post:
But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon:
This analogy is holding up rather well.
So I try this approach::
If a scenario were presented wherein the use of an invisible, undetectable (by the five senses), dragon (so to speak) was the most effective (if not the only) practical means for God to achieve the desired/intended results, would it in any way validate that such a beast must exist?
Which you immediately cast aside:
No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.
And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this:
Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread.
I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria.
So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post:
Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response:
I'm just going to inject one thought.
To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.
In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.
Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.)
And this post pretty much sums this all up:
Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.
There. Said it AGAIN.
Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?
Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated.
So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.
moderator's note: TLC's post was not changed. Not even typos. Blank citations were his errors, which probably would have been caught if not for the formatting issues. GSC apparently only allows a certain number of quotations per post, and when you post three times in quick succession, the page combines the posts. This was not his fault. Hopefully, reposting makes his post a bit easier to follow. Raf
Just want to let you know, chockfull, that I very much appreciate your posts on this subject matter, and find myself mostly in agreement with you (with some relatively insignificant exceptions, of course.) I think it unfortunate that "the approach" (for lack of a better way to say it) to biblical research that most of us were taught (or learned) in TWI was no where near as good as we were all lead to believe. However, I think we would agree that it did (and still does) lead to one helluvalot of intellectualism and egotism, and very little genuine spirituality.
Well, considering that I'm not claiming spirituality, it's hard to take that as an insult.
I do find it amusing that if I were to agree with you, the accusation of intellectualism and egotism would probably vanish. It's a safe way to dismiss an opposing position. Call it vain and unspiritual. Meanwhile, I've taken the vain and unspiritual position of showing exactly what the Bible says and nothing more.
What you can't do is call my position unbliblical. Well, you can do that. But you can't demonstrate it. My position remains quite Biblically sound. And "new perspectives" that cover the same old ground are not "new" at all, in my opinion. So please, have fun exploring more. I look forward to what you can come up with (which, I will repeat, you would not be doing if you produced a language as the Bible promises).
moderator's note: TLC's post was not changed. Not even typos. Blank citations were his errors, which probably would have been caught if not for the formatting issues. GSC apparently only allows a certain number of quotations per post, and when you post three times in quick succession, the page combines the posts. This was not his fault. Hopefully, reposting makes his post a bit easier to follow. Raf
Thanks for the format fix, it was beyond me. (Nor could I correct the typos.)
The blank citations were intentional; it was an effort to make the post shorter and less complicated (even though somewhat less sensible), the time/date stamp giving sufficient reference for anyone wanting (or caring) to read the entire previous post. The point being, there was a background for the comments, and even though far from being "desperate" about anything relating to it, I found myself somewhat overwhelmed by (and not caring one whit for) the theatrics of it.
Well, considering that I'm not claiming spirituality, it's hard to take that as an insult.
I do find it amusing that if I were to agree with you, the accusation of intellectualism and egotism would probably vanish. It's a safe way to dismiss an opposing position. Call it vain and unspiritual. Meanwhile, I've taken the vain and unspiritual position of showing exactly what the Bible says and nothing more.
What you can't do is call my position unbliblical. Well, you can do that. But you can't demonstrate it. My position remains quite Biblically sound. And "new perspectives" that cover the same old ground are not "new" at all, in my opinion. So please, have fun exploring more. I look forward to what you can come up with (which, I will repeat, you would not be doing if you produced a language as the Bible promises).
Okay, I concede that the "proud" comment was unnecessary, and not well suited in my previous post. It's taken me years to chisel off some of my own pride and egotism, and after having to face and wrestle with the very difficult task of learning to adjust my own well developed "intellectually superior" approach to biblical research, there is really no reason for me not to be much more tolerant of it in others. And, for whatever it's worth (maybe not much, in the opinion of some), this was not (and is not) merely a line designed or intended to safely dismiss an opposing position. It's a statement of what I've (quite painfully) had to learn in my own life, and it's not my place to expect you or anyone else to likewise learn or know it.
In TWI we were NEVER TAUGHT, by precept or by example, HOW to have a reasonable discussion about doctrinal matters, and we were NEVER TAUGHT HOW to disagree without being disagreeable!
From 2003 to 2008 I taught seventh-graders HOW to write persuasive essays. It was the beginning of the process of teaching them HOW to write their senior theses.
(all of these HOWs have been capitalized as an indirect reference to the HOW thread showing on a different screen in the Cafe)
This thread is serving a VERY GOOD PURPOSE because the posters are thinking about the things they've said, and how the way they said those things affected other posters, and how we can say them better, both in the sense of making our own points clear, but also in acknowledging our differences while respecting each other as fellow PEOPLE, whether we still view each other as brothers and sisters in Christ or not.
And as far as I'm concerned, I think we would ALL lose out if anybody felt they had to leave the conversation!
In TWI we were NEVER TAUGHT, by precept or by example, HOW to have a reasonable discussion about doctrinal matters, and we were NEVER TAUGHT HOW to disagree without being disagreeable!
Well, I do recall it said (paraphrasing vpw from at least one occasion, probably more)... that to "lock everyone in the room" and don't come out until they all are agreed... was (more or less) the way they probably operated at Antioch (and supposedly as in Acts 15.) But hey... even if that were so, bringing that thought up to the 20th century and throwing a couple dozen "A type" personalities with oversized egos into the mix, and voila... you wouldn't need much imagination to predict what that might produce. However, in fairness to what is truth and what is fiction, the research fellowship at TWI (at least in the initial years of its formation) did display a reasonable amount of openness and tolerance to "new thoughts" and ideas. (Much more than anything I've yet seen or read from anyone giving it allowance for here...)
"However, in fairness to what is truth and what is fiction, the research fellowship at TWI (at least in the initial years of its formation) did display a reasonable amount of openness and tolerance to "new thoughts" and ideas."
There is someone who posts here who was part of that. Perhaps she'll offer a response if this thread should catch her eye.
Long ago, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was wrong to blame Job's fear for the calamity that befell him and his family. I won't go into too much detail. Wierwille cited the verse that has Job saying "The thing that I greatly feared has come upon me," and he uses that verse to assert that fear is believing in reverse, and just as we receive what we believe, we receive also what we fear. I'm summarizing. After studying the verse, along with the rest of the book of Job, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was drawing conclusions from the text that were not to be found in the text itself. Job was a parent who had just lost his whole family. His was a cry of despair, not a presentation of doctrine. Wierwille went on to say that Job, as described in the first chapter of the book that bears his name, was fearful when he offered sacrifices just in case his children had sinned. The Bible presents Job's sacrifices as evidence of his righteousness, not evidence of his fear.
After a while, I became convinced that Wierwille had simply misrepresented Job. Period. The more time passed, the less I was willing to entertain Wierwille's interpretation of the book.
We argued about it on more than one thread (GSers, not anyone in particular). To death. To the point that now, I'm just not going to participate in another argument about it. After a while, you just let go of the false and you move on.
I say all this not to pick on Wierwille, but to demonstrate that after you feel you've argued your position to death, it's time to move on.
My position is that "tongues" in the Bible are normal human languages. I went through every verse in the Bible, checked the usage, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. I even tackled the "difficult" verses about tongues of angels and "no man understands." There is nothing Biblical to argue against tongues as normal human languages. I've argued it to death. It's time for me to move on.
You guys can continue to review anything you want. If you think it will persuade me, by all means, try. If you don't, then by all means, carry on without me. Nothing about this conversation demands my participation.
Steve, I agree with your last post, but I don't see where MY beating a dead horse advances your observation one whit. I do think this has been a productive chat. I don't think my continued participation will produce anything it has not already produced.
The docs are adjusting my meds... I'm beginning to experience side effects... I hope it won't get bad like it did a year or so ago. Hopefully, I'll be back in a few days...
Meanwhile, I'm reading The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture by Christian Smith (2011). Smith has a PhD in Sociology and is the director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame. It's the best analysis of evangelical Protestant bibliolatry I've seen. It strikes me as pertinent for anybody who wants to flush their thinking of Wierwille's particular flavor of biblicism.
I'm not feeling normal, but I'm not feeling bad. My wife won't let me read descriptions of the possible side effects, so that I won't start imagining I am experiencing them. We are all interpreting our own experiences all the time, whether or not we realize we are doing so. We are always asking ourselves "what does this mean?" and telling ourselves stories to make sense of our experience.
Lessee... where were we?
Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used language.
Paul opens up the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14 by writing "Now about the spirituals, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant."
Paul's use of "spiritual" here refers us back to 1 Corinthians 13:1, "And I, brothers, could not speak to you as the spirituals (people belonging to the coming age, the age of the Spirit), but as the fleshly (people belonging to this present evil age, the age of the flesh), as infants in Christ. The reference to "infants" here refers us back to verses 6 and 7 in chapter 2, "Yet among the mature we speak wisdom, but not the wisdom of this age (this present evil age, the age of the flesh), or of the rulers of this age... but we speak God's wisdom..."
In verses 7 through 11, Paul expounds on some of this wisdom of God, then in verse 12 he says "Now we have not received (lambano) the spirit belonging to the cosmos, but the out-from-the-God Spirit, that we might understand the favors done for us by the God." He goes on to say, "And we speak of those things not in teachings of man's wisdom, but in teachings of the Spirit, spirituals (people belonging to the age of the Spirit) articulating spirituals (things pertaining to the age of the spirit, the favors done for us by God).
So we see already, before arriving at 1 Corinthians 12, Paul has used the word "spiritual" in two different senses, to mean "people who belong to the age of the Spirit" and "the favors God does for us by means of the Spirit." Here in chapter 12 verse 1, we find the strong possibility of a third meaning. The major problem at Corinth was that the congregation had split into a number of factions over a variety of issues. Some scholars have suggested that one of the factions prided themselves on being more "spiritual" than others, as demonstrated by their misuse of speaking in tongues. It seems highly probable that these people called themselves something like "the spiritual ones."
That may well be why Paul went on to write, "You know that when you were gentiles, you were enticed and led away to idols that could not speak." None of you are more spiritual than any of the others because of your backgrounds, you were all gentiles and spiritually blind before you came to Christ. "Therefore, know you that no one speaking by the spirit of God says "Curse Jesus!" Where had the Corinthians ever heard anybody say "Curse Jesus"?
That's probably what the members of the synagogue at Corinth were saying when they reviled Paul and Jesus in Acts 18:6. The members of the synagogue who chucked the followers of Christ out had certainly not been speaking by the Spirit of God!
"And no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit." "Jesus is Lord" is something that each and every one of the Corinthians had said as part of their baptism. Paul is saying that EVERY ONE of the Corinthians is equally spiritual, no matter how much any of them speak in tongues!
When Paul wrote, "Now about the spirituals, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant," he was using the word "spirituals" with at least two, and very possibly three, different meanings!
Words can be multivocal, polysemic and multivalent.
WHOA WHOA WHOA THERE STEVE!!!!!!!!!
Are you speaking in tongues on this thread?????
Are you speaking in an indecipherable code?????
"Multivocal" means that words have more than one voice. It usually means that there are more than one speaker, but there are qualities of verbs known as "voice." English has two , active and passive. Greek has three, active, passive and middle. Hebrew verbs don't have "voice" (or "tense" either). Hebrew verbs have seven binyanim ("structures" or "aspects") which determine the voice when translating into Greek or English.
"Polysemic" means that a word has more than one significance, more than one thing it can mean.
"Multivalent" means that a word can have more than one value, there can be more than one weight attached to it.
Christian Smith wrote on page 48 of The Bible Made Impossible, "Therefore, when all the multivocality of words, passages and thematic groups of passages are added together, the Bible as a whole is exponentially more multivocal, polysemic and multivalent. As a result, church history is replete with multiple credible understandings, interpretations and conclusions about the Bible's teachings. This makes scripture somewhat "semantically indeterminate," in that the exact meanings of its texts are undetermined by the words of the texts themselves."
The Bible has inherent ambiguity. Interpreting ANYTHING from the Bible as absolute (free of imperfection) is doomed to fail.
And if you don't believe that, look back at this sentence, "Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used language." It can as equally correctly be understood as "Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used glossa."
In Numbers, God ordered a man to be stoned to death. So the people got together, rolled up a big fat blunt, and forced him to smoke it. They kept doing this until his heart gave out.
Because, you know, God ordered the man to get stoned, and that is a possible meaning of stoned.
It's not Biblical, true. But God is all knowing, so what's to stop him from projecting a future meaning onto a past event?
I know, the Bible says they picked up rocks, but if we go with this stoned-as-Marijuana definition, which is perfectly valid according to the Urban Dictionary, then those rocks would stand for blunts as a metaphor.
If you're spiritual and open minded, you'll see it. Otherwise, you're limiting God.
Now, if you think you can read Numbers and determine that stoning him meant holding a rock concert (that is, a concerted effort to throw rocks st the guy until he died), and you're not even going to consider an alternative definition of stoned, then you've got a bad case of myopia.
Any attempt to limit the definition of "stone him with stones until he dies" is doomed to fail.
In Numbers, God ordered a man to be stoned to death. So the people got together, rolled up a big fat blunt, and forced him to smoke it. They kept doing this until his heart gave out.
Because, you know, got ordered the man to get stoned, and that is a possible meaning of stoned.
It's not Biblical, true. But God is sll knowing, so what's to stop him from projecting a future meaning onto a past event.
I know, the Bible says they picked up rocks, but if we go with this stoned-as-Marijuana definition, which is perfectly valid according to the Urban Dictionary, then those rocks would stand for blunts as a metaphor.
If you're spiritual and open minded, you'll see it. Otherwise, you're limiting God.
Now, if you think you can read Numbers and determine that stoning him meant holding a rock concert (that is, a concerted effort to throw rocks st the guy until he died), and you're not even going to consider an alternative definition of stoned, then you've got a bad case of myopia.
Any attempt to limit the definition of "stone him with stones until he dies" is doomed to fail.
I am wasting my time here.
Why do you feel you are wasting your time on this thread, Raf?
What exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish?
This is not a sarcastic or argumentative question. I really want to know. Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
Steve Lortz
Thanks, WordWolf!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MRAP, there appears to be a thinly disguised criticism from you aimed at me for going off topic. I agree with you. I appear to be the only one concerned about it, until you came along.
So here's the deal. If you have a problem with a post, hit report and the mods will deal with it. That's the grown up way to handle it. The juvenile way to handle it is to come along and thank the people who stayed on topic, ignoring the fact that the off-topic digression was openly discussed, BY ME, and no one who actively participated in the thread objected.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Nice post Steve and you are 100% spot on with the tolerances stuff. The definitions of words are paramount in doctrinal studies for sure. The perspective on administrations is cool too. I noticed the most wacked out Way logic doctrinally w/r to administrations actually showed up in their teachings on debt. Listening to those acrobatics dealing with the topic migrate over the different administrations they teach is completely illogical.
With respect to
My feelings are to let it drift with some leeway as you see on courtroom TV. Some of the side journeys really contribute a lot like Steve's tolerances stuff. If we get too persnickety defining what's on topic it restricts the conversation. You know, kind of like every conversation you ever have with Way brained people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't re: policing "on topic" posts. Either I'm persnickety and legalistic or I'm letting the conversation drift because I'm a mod. Tell me how to win when I'm wrong no matter what I do.
So I chose to err on the side of flexibility and allow the conversation to flow naturally. And I was explicit about it. And I still caught flack about it (from someone who clearly had not read what I said about it).
This thread is about what the Bible teaches about SIT. It is not about challenging the practice. There's a thread in About the Way that challenges the practice.
Waysider's question about Paul and the validity of Corinthian SIT probably belongs in questioning faith, since it does not necessarily accept the Bible's answer as authoritative. Now, I can blow up all these issues and make them separate threads, or just let the conversation flow freely here. I choose the latter, by apparent consensus. But I won't lose sleep if another mod jumps in. I'm not requesting it, and neither has anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.)
The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.)
What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...)
My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody):
Here was a another question in the next post:
To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here:
As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here:
Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion:
and here:
and here:
Which I spoke out against here:
Which you poo-pooed here:
(part 2, continues in next post...)
So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response):
But then comes this concession:
Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point
stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else.
So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post:
And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post:
But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon:
So I try this approach::
Which you immediately cast aside:
And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this:
So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post:
(part 3, continues in next post...)
Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response:
Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.)
And this post pretty much sums this all up:
Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated.
So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Just want to let you know, chockfull, that I very much appreciate your posts on this subject matter, and find myself mostly in agreement with you (with some relatively insignificant exceptions, of course.) I think it unfortunate that "the approach" (for lack of a better way to say it) to biblical research that most of us were taught (or learned) in TWI was no where near as good as we were all lead to believe. However, I think we would agree that it did (and still does) lead to one helluvalot of intellectualism and egotism, and very little genuine spirituality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know why the formatting didn't work on your post to me, TLC, but it doesn't appear to be something I can fix even with my modhat. So, on to substance:
The "new perspective" you claim to be offering is old. We've been through it. And we'll go through it again, I suppose. But you'll be doing it without me.
I fail to see the relevance of the serpent's conversation with Eve.
Some of WW's criticism did not appear to be aimed at you. I think you missed that. Some of it was.
You can call me "proud" all you want, but I note that you still have not offered a Biblical refutation of my position.
You don't have to bow out. I already have. I'm responding because you addressed your post to me specifically. I promise, if you offer something that causes me to reconsider, I will do so. But saying "What about the serpent's conversation with Eve?" does not qualify, in my opinion.
I think I figured out how to fix your formatting. Let's see if it works...
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
The following was posted by TLC
I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.)
The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.)
What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...)
My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody):
Here was a another question in the next post:
To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here:
As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here:
Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion:
and here:
and here:
Which I spoke out against here:
Which you poo-pooed here:
(part 2, continues in next post...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The following continues TLC's post #356
So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response):
But then comes this concession:
Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point
stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else.
So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post:
And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post:
But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon:
So I try this approach::
Which you immediately cast aside:
And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this:
So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post:
(part 3, continues in next post...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
The following concludes TLC's post #356
Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response:
Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.)
And this post pretty much sums this all up:
Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated.
So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.
moderator's note: TLC's post was not changed. Not even typos. Blank citations were his errors, which probably would have been caught if not for the formatting issues. GSC apparently only allows a certain number of quotations per post, and when you post three times in quick succession, the page combines the posts. This was not his fault. Hopefully, reposting makes his post a bit easier to follow. Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, considering that I'm not claiming spirituality, it's hard to take that as an insult.
I do find it amusing that if I were to agree with you, the accusation of intellectualism and egotism would probably vanish. It's a safe way to dismiss an opposing position. Call it vain and unspiritual. Meanwhile, I've taken the vain and unspiritual position of showing exactly what the Bible says and nothing more.
What you can't do is call my position unbliblical. Well, you can do that. But you can't demonstrate it. My position remains quite Biblically sound. And "new perspectives" that cover the same old ground are not "new" at all, in my opinion. So please, have fun exploring more. I look forward to what you can come up with (which, I will repeat, you would not be doing if you produced a language as the Bible promises).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Thanks for the format fix, it was beyond me. (Nor could I correct the typos.)
The blank citations were intentional; it was an effort to make the post shorter and less complicated (even though somewhat less sensible), the time/date stamp giving sufficient reference for anyone wanting (or caring) to read the entire previous post. The point being, there was a background for the comments, and even though far from being "desperate" about anything relating to it, I found myself somewhat overwhelmed by (and not caring one whit for) the theatrics of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Understood
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, I concede that the "proud" comment was unnecessary, and not well suited in my previous post. It's taken me years to chisel off some of my own pride and egotism, and after having to face and wrestle with the very difficult task of learning to adjust my own well developed "intellectually superior" approach to biblical research, there is really no reason for me not to be much more tolerant of it in others. And, for whatever it's worth (maybe not much, in the opinion of some), this was not (and is not) merely a line designed or intended to safely dismiss an opposing position. It's a statement of what I've (quite painfully) had to learn in my own life, and it's not my place to expect you or anyone else to likewise learn or know it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just thought it was amusing.
Look, we disagree. I'm good with that. Show me Biblically why I'm wrong and I'll reconsider, if you even want me to. You don't owe me that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
TLC, Raf, chockfull and EVERYBODY ELSE!
In TWI we were NEVER TAUGHT, by precept or by example, HOW to have a reasonable discussion about doctrinal matters, and we were NEVER TAUGHT HOW to disagree without being disagreeable!
From 2003 to 2008 I taught seventh-graders HOW to write persuasive essays. It was the beginning of the process of teaching them HOW to write their senior theses.
(all of these HOWs have been capitalized as an indirect reference to the HOW thread showing on a different screen in the Cafe)
This thread is serving a VERY GOOD PURPOSE because the posters are thinking about the things they've said, and how the way they said those things affected other posters, and how we can say them better, both in the sense of making our own points clear, but also in acknowledging our differences while respecting each other as fellow PEOPLE, whether we still view each other as brothers and sisters in Christ or not.
And as far as I'm concerned, I think we would ALL lose out if anybody felt they had to leave the conversation!
I love you ALL,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I do recall it said (paraphrasing vpw from at least one occasion, probably more)... that to "lock everyone in the room" and don't come out until they all are agreed... was (more or less) the way they probably operated at Antioch (and supposedly as in Acts 15.) But hey... even if that were so, bringing that thought up to the 20th century and throwing a couple dozen "A type" personalities with oversized egos into the mix, and voila... you wouldn't need much imagination to predict what that might produce. However, in fairness to what is truth and what is fiction, the research fellowship at TWI (at least in the initial years of its formation) did display a reasonable amount of openness and tolerance to "new thoughts" and ideas. (Much more than anything I've yet seen or read from anyone giving it allowance for here...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"However, in fairness to what is truth and what is fiction, the research fellowship at TWI (at least in the initial years of its formation) did display a reasonable amount of openness and tolerance to "new thoughts" and ideas."
There is someone who posts here who was part of that. Perhaps she'll offer a response if this thread should catch her eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By way of example:
Long ago, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was wrong to blame Job's fear for the calamity that befell him and his family. I won't go into too much detail. Wierwille cited the verse that has Job saying "The thing that I greatly feared has come upon me," and he uses that verse to assert that fear is believing in reverse, and just as we receive what we believe, we receive also what we fear. I'm summarizing. After studying the verse, along with the rest of the book of Job, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was drawing conclusions from the text that were not to be found in the text itself. Job was a parent who had just lost his whole family. His was a cry of despair, not a presentation of doctrine. Wierwille went on to say that Job, as described in the first chapter of the book that bears his name, was fearful when he offered sacrifices just in case his children had sinned. The Bible presents Job's sacrifices as evidence of his righteousness, not evidence of his fear.
After a while, I became convinced that Wierwille had simply misrepresented Job. Period. The more time passed, the less I was willing to entertain Wierwille's interpretation of the book.
We argued about it on more than one thread (GSers, not anyone in particular). To death. To the point that now, I'm just not going to participate in another argument about it. After a while, you just let go of the false and you move on.
I say all this not to pick on Wierwille, but to demonstrate that after you feel you've argued your position to death, it's time to move on.
My position is that "tongues" in the Bible are normal human languages. I went through every verse in the Bible, checked the usage, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. I even tackled the "difficult" verses about tongues of angels and "no man understands." There is nothing Biblical to argue against tongues as normal human languages. I've argued it to death. It's time for me to move on.
You guys can continue to review anything you want. If you think it will persuade me, by all means, try. If you don't, then by all means, carry on without me. Nothing about this conversation demands my participation.
Steve, I agree with your last post, but I don't see where MY beating a dead horse advances your observation one whit. I do think this has been a productive chat. I don't think my continued participation will produce anything it has not already produced.
Now, if you were to produce a language... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The docs are adjusting my meds... I'm beginning to experience side effects... I hope it won't get bad like it did a year or so ago. Hopefully, I'll be back in a few days...
Meanwhile, I'm reading The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture by Christian Smith (2011). Smith has a PhD in Sociology and is the director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame. It's the best analysis of evangelical Protestant bibliolatry I've seen. It strikes me as pertinent for anybody who wants to flush their thinking of Wierwille's particular flavor of biblicism.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm not feeling normal, but I'm not feeling bad. My wife won't let me read descriptions of the possible side effects, so that I won't start imagining I am experiencing them. We are all interpreting our own experiences all the time, whether or not we realize we are doing so. We are always asking ourselves "what does this mean?" and telling ourselves stories to make sense of our experience.
Lessee... where were we?
Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used language.
Paul opens up the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14 by writing "Now about the spirituals, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant."
Paul's use of "spiritual" here refers us back to 1 Corinthians 13:1, "And I, brothers, could not speak to you as the spirituals (people belonging to the coming age, the age of the Spirit), but as the fleshly (people belonging to this present evil age, the age of the flesh), as infants in Christ. The reference to "infants" here refers us back to verses 6 and 7 in chapter 2, "Yet among the mature we speak wisdom, but not the wisdom of this age (this present evil age, the age of the flesh), or of the rulers of this age... but we speak God's wisdom..."
In verses 7 through 11, Paul expounds on some of this wisdom of God, then in verse 12 he says "Now we have not received (lambano) the spirit belonging to the cosmos, but the out-from-the-God Spirit, that we might understand the favors done for us by the God." He goes on to say, "And we speak of those things not in teachings of man's wisdom, but in teachings of the Spirit, spirituals (people belonging to the age of the Spirit) articulating spirituals (things pertaining to the age of the spirit, the favors done for us by God).
So we see already, before arriving at 1 Corinthians 12, Paul has used the word "spiritual" in two different senses, to mean "people who belong to the age of the Spirit" and "the favors God does for us by means of the Spirit." Here in chapter 12 verse 1, we find the strong possibility of a third meaning. The major problem at Corinth was that the congregation had split into a number of factions over a variety of issues. Some scholars have suggested that one of the factions prided themselves on being more "spiritual" than others, as demonstrated by their misuse of speaking in tongues. It seems highly probable that these people called themselves something like "the spiritual ones."
That may well be why Paul went on to write, "You know that when you were gentiles, you were enticed and led away to idols that could not speak." None of you are more spiritual than any of the others because of your backgrounds, you were all gentiles and spiritually blind before you came to Christ. "Therefore, know you that no one speaking by the spirit of God says "Curse Jesus!" Where had the Corinthians ever heard anybody say "Curse Jesus"?
That's probably what the members of the synagogue at Corinth were saying when they reviled Paul and Jesus in Acts 18:6. The members of the synagogue who chucked the followers of Christ out had certainly not been speaking by the Spirit of God!
"And no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit." "Jesus is Lord" is something that each and every one of the Corinthians had said as part of their baptism. Paul is saying that EVERY ONE of the Corinthians is equally spiritual, no matter how much any of them speak in tongues!
When Paul wrote, "Now about the spirituals, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant," he was using the word "spirituals" with at least two, and very possibly three, different meanings!
Words can be multivocal, polysemic and multivalent.
WHOA WHOA WHOA THERE STEVE!!!!!!!!!
Are you speaking in tongues on this thread?????
Are you speaking in an indecipherable code?????
"Multivocal" means that words have more than one voice. It usually means that there are more than one speaker, but there are qualities of verbs known as "voice." English has two , active and passive. Greek has three, active, passive and middle. Hebrew verbs don't have "voice" (or "tense" either). Hebrew verbs have seven binyanim ("structures" or "aspects") which determine the voice when translating into Greek or English.
"Polysemic" means that a word has more than one significance, more than one thing it can mean.
"Multivalent" means that a word can have more than one value, there can be more than one weight attached to it.
Christian Smith wrote on page 48 of The Bible Made Impossible, "Therefore, when all the multivocality of words, passages and thematic groups of passages are added together, the Bible as a whole is exponentially more multivocal, polysemic and multivalent. As a result, church history is replete with multiple credible understandings, interpretations and conclusions about the Bible's teachings. This makes scripture somewhat "semantically indeterminate," in that the exact meanings of its texts are undetermined by the words of the texts themselves."
The Bible has inherent ambiguity. Interpreting ANYTHING from the Bible as absolute (free of imperfection) is doomed to fail.
And if you don't believe that, look back at this sentence, "Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used language." It can as equally correctly be understood as "Oh, yeh... looking at the way Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians, in order to see how Paul used glossa."
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In Numbers, God ordered a man to be stoned to death. So the people got together, rolled up a big fat blunt, and forced him to smoke it. They kept doing this until his heart gave out.
Because, you know, God ordered the man to get stoned, and that is a possible meaning of stoned.
It's not Biblical, true. But God is all knowing, so what's to stop him from projecting a future meaning onto a past event?
I know, the Bible says they picked up rocks, but if we go with this stoned-as-Marijuana definition, which is perfectly valid according to the Urban Dictionary, then those rocks would stand for blunts as a metaphor.
If you're spiritual and open minded, you'll see it. Otherwise, you're limiting God.
Now, if you think you can read Numbers and determine that stoning him meant holding a rock concert (that is, a concerted effort to throw rocks st the guy until he died), and you're not even going to consider an alternative definition of stoned, then you've got a bad case of myopia.
Any attempt to limit the definition of "stone him with stones until he dies" is doomed to fail.
I am wasting my time here.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Why do you feel you are wasting your time on this thread, Raf?
What exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish?
This is not a sarcastic or argumentative question. I really want to know. Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not him, but he probably sees the same point I do.
I will illustrate it a different way.
Right by the Port Authority in Manhattan is a store.
I used to see it every time I took a Greyhound Bus leaving the Port
Authority. It sold Greek stuff. I found it interesting because
the store also had a sign that said something in Greek.
Based on my modest attempts at Koine Greek, I was able to recognize
the letters. The Greek text read "Ellanikon."
Now, I knew the Greeks don't call their country "Greece"- they
call it "Hellas." I knew the suffix "-tikos" from I Corinthians 12.
Whenever I covered I Corinthians 12 with anybody, I used to explain
that "pneumatikos" was the plural form, with "pneuma" as the root,
and that it could properly be translated as
"spiritual matters"
"spiritual things"
"spiritual stuff",
depending on the translator's whims, since that was all effectively
synonymous.
So, I knew this store sold "Greek stuff."
A digression into possible alternative meanings of "spirituals" without
properly addressing it as "pneumatikos" and completely leaving out
what "-tikos" means to the word-other than a plural-
is about as honest as vpw explaining in detail what the significance is
of using the word "replenish" in early Genesis while completely ignoring
that the Hebrew word meant "to fill" and rendering it "replenish" in the
first place injected meanings into the word that it never had in the
first place. Even if it matched my theology perfectly, I would not want
to be that dishonest, that sloppy with my work.
I find that it becomes FAR too easy to ascribe all sorts of things to texts
that have a clear, direct meaning, simply because one WANTS to see something
other than the clear, direct meaning (at least in cases where there is a
clear, direct meaning that makes sense by itself.) Ockham's Razor would
strongly suggest we skip the verbal gymnastics.
I don't know if thats what Raf meant, but he might have.'
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.