I don't think it's off topic at all, Twinky. It seems like your question is perfectly aligned with this thread.
Dividing to every man severally as he wills...
Does "he" refer to the man, or to the Spirit? Makes all the difference, doesn't it?
I don't know the correct grammatical answer. I know what we were taught (it's the man) and I know the alternative view (it's the Spirit), but I am unqualified to judge which answer is correct.
Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos were inconsistent and often ridiculous. I believe he said heteros was "another when only two are involved"
and allos was "another when more than two may be involved." He never got around to explaining why the word "other" in "turn the other cheek" was allos. Maybe Jesus was counting butt cheeks to bring the number of cheeks on a human being from two to four?
Another distinction between the terms is that allos is another of the same kind, while heteros is another of a different kind. When I was reviewing usages of the word, these definitions struck me as more Biblically consistent. But my review was far, far from exhaustive. If you were to show me why that distinction is incorrect, my confidence would not be shaken (because it's so low to begin with).
By the way, yes, I am aware that Wierwille's heteros/allos distinction was borrowed from Bullinger (I won't say plagiarized, because that's unfair. Wierwille's articulation may have been plagiarized, but accepting the definitions and applying them are fair game). In any event, I am dismissive of the blatant inaccuracy, not the source.
I recently did an intro to NT Greek course taught by a student at a local church who is studying theology at Oxford University. (A lovely lass she is, too.) I sidled into the discussions the group had, an enquiry about the difference if any between heteros and allos. She gave a bit of an explanation which was so far from what VPW stated categorically that I couldn't take it in. Suffice to say that it was much looser and nothing like as black and white as VPW claimed.
But ... severally (separately) as He/he/it wills ??? Who? God? Man? the holy spirit? the Holy Spirit? ... the church minister, the congregation, the person next to you (LOL)...
This is only a bit off topic and Steve is going to have to deal with it anyway at some stage.
What does 1 Cor 12:11 mean? "...dividing to every man severally as He [he?] will."
And this whole passage is mixed up with that heteros/allos (alleged) difference that VPW claimed.
(And for you Wiewillites, I'm not interested in the PFAL "definition" - I'm interested in what a serious Biblical scholar or professor thinks this means.)
There is a school of thought that says 1 and 2 Cor are actually 1, 2, 3 and 4 Cor, in other words, not only two epistles but a combination of fragments of more than two. There are some changes of direction within these epistles and also a reference to a previous letter that we don't have, nowadays, which might be incorporated in the composite that we now call 1 Cor.
To the best of my current knowledge, I Corinthians 12:11 can be translated literally: and/but (weak conjunction) all these things (plural) energizes (singular) the one and the same spirit (neuter) dividing/distributing privately (attached to the previous verb) to each one (masculine) in the manner that he/she/it wills.
"All these things" is the predicate of "energizes, and "the one and the same spirit" is the subject, the English sense would be "The one and the same Spirit energizes all these things."
The phrase "dividing...wills" is a participle, a verb form used as an adjective, in this instance modifying the noun "spirit".
If we place the phrase after "spirit" in the English sense, the sentence becomes; "The one and the same spirit, distributing privately to each one (or each man) as he/she/it wills, energizes all these things.
If the word "wills" had gender in the Greek, it would settle the question decisively, since "spirit" is neuter and "each one" is masculine. Unfortunately, it's not as clear as all that, since the word "wills" doesn't carry any indication of gender.
The phrase "in the manner that he/she/it wills" is adverbial, describing HOW the Spirit divides, so I would be inclined to translate the verse "And the one and the same Spirit, distributing privately to each one as the Spirit wills, energizes all these things."
As far as allos and heteros go, heteros does carry a sense of "the other among two" and allos does carry a sense of "another of a different kind", but the Greeks never separated their meanings as radically as Wierwille did. Raf is right in pointing out that heteros was frequently used to mean "another among many", just as allos was frequently used without reference to "kind".
Thank you all for your patience and your trust in me. I DO NOT WANT to bias my translations! None of us can avoid that perfectly, but I have certainly been put off of tendentious translation by Wierwille and company!
Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos were inconsistent and often ridiculous. I believe he said heteros was "another when only two are involved"
and allos was "another when more than two may be involved." He never got around to explaining why the word "other" in "turn the other cheek" was allos. Maybe Jesus was counting butt cheeks to bring the number of cheeks on a human being from two to four?
...
I used to teach writing to middle and high schoolers. You are a good writer, Raf! This is a gem of the writer's art!
Steve, I think you got allos and heteros backward. At least partly.
Allos was another of the same kind and another when more than two are involved.
Heteros was another of a different kind or when only two are involved.
The source I am using is Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, (abridged, copy of the 1909 edition, first published at Oxford), Simon Wallenberg Press, 2007. It isn't limited to Biblical Greek, but includes the koine used in all kinds of Hellenistic documents! It has about a quarter-page on the word allos (p. 35), very much in the style of the Oxford English Dictionary. Part of the entry reads:
"II. more rarely like alloios, of other sort, different"
Under alloios we find:
"of another sort or kind"
Alla, the conjunction indicating strong contrast. is a form of allos.
The words "alien", "alibi" and "alias" all come to us indirectly from allos.
The entry for heteros is nearly as long (p. 277). One of the main meanings is "one of two" but the following are also included in the entry:
"II. put loosely for allos"
and:
"of other kind, like alloios"
Actually, it appears Wierwille was all over the map on this one:
Juedes is right. Wierwille WAS all over the place, because the Greeks themselves were all over the place. Wierwille was wrong in implying he was employing a degree of accuracy that is actually impossible.
Shouldn't the context and the point of Paul's letter play some part in how we look at these verses? He started out trying to again share the gospel with them, but he had to wade through all kinds of questions. The things that were going on in this church with morality, personal relationships, and the influx of false teaches, all have to weigh into how we look at what Paul is trying to convey and the heart he is trying to encourage. Concerning ourselves with one verse and how it is translated seems short-sighted to me.....if we can't get a handle on intention....we can make that verse mean whatever we like.
Outside of Way world or its periphery, I have never heard anyone claim it is as he the man wills. It doesn't fit within a high view of God or within the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Then again, I have really not heard the Holy Spirit referred to as other than a person, meaning with personal characteristics. The belief that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is going to definitely play into how we look at this and other verses.
Concerning ourselves with one verse and how it is translated seems short-sighted to me.....if we can't get a handle on intention....we can make that verse mean whatever we like.
.....
You've hit a nail on the head here, geisha... if we can't get a handle on intention... we can make that verse mean whatever we like. Unfortunately, that's the whole crux of translation. The only way to get a handle on intention is to examine the verse in microscopic detail, down to whether an accent mark is grave, circumflex or acute, and whether the breathing mark is rough or smooth. Then we build our understanding of the intention of the wider context by doing the same thing to EVERY verse.
We have spent several weeks in advanced Greek translating Philippians 2:1-11. Verses 6-11 are a song, and yesterday, we read it out loud in Greek, over and over again, until we could recognize the beat. It became apparent that the phrase at the end of verse 8, "even the death of the cross" as KJV puts it, was not a part of the original song, and that Paul had inserted it. The prof spent a couple of hours pointing out to us what some people in the first century understood by various terms in the song, and how those terms fit together, and it came home to us what a SHOCKING thing Paul was saying about Jesus Christ when he inserted the phrase "even the death of the cross," at least in the eyes of some of the first century believers at Philippi. It became very easy for me to imagine a riot breaking out in the congregation when Paul's messenger sang that part of the letter for the first time to the church, just like the riot that broke out when Stravinsky first performed his Rite of Spring. The issue Paul raised with that insertion was at the heart of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and those councils FAILED to resolve it. All because of the placement of accent marks in six verses. Wars have been fought, and Christians have murdered their brothers and sisters in Christ, because the placement of accents in those six verses has been misinterpreted.
I think the prof started the semester with this project to impress upon us a sense of responsibility as we make our translations.
It certainly was NOT like any training I received in TWI!
You mean to tell me that reading the context of the letter to the Corinthians is fruitless without dissecting every verse? How do we mere mortals manage? You can't trust any translation of the bible enough to simply read it for context? I don't buy that for a second. In TWI we studied, parsed, and argued over words and microscopic details incessantly....look how far that got us.
There are probably only a handful of scholars who could truly claim to understand scripture and context if it is based purely on a knowledge of Greek semantics. What happens when someone more knowledgeable than you Steve, comes along and blows your translation out of the water? What are you left with then?
Good Lord, I was simply speaking of a reading of context and maybe some other places where Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit. We could have a field day with the Greek in Ephesians 2:8-10, but, any born again Christian can explain what it means......without Greek. Then again, someone could study it in the Greek for months and still be clueless.
In the end, we are left with three choices....we can believe it, we can deny it, or we can twist it. We don't need Greek for that, but a knowledge of Greek is not going to prevent that either.
ESV study bible.....this is an excellent bible and when you buy it you get access to their website which is a wonderful study aid. This is a very trustworthy bible which was a collaboration effort of 95 well known and respected bible scholars and teachers.
Created by an outstanding team of 95 evangelical Christian scholars and teachers, the ESV Study Bible presents completely new study notes, maps, illustrations, charts, timelines, articles, and introductions. Altogether the ESV Study Bible comprises 2 million words of Bible text, insightful explanation, teaching, and reference material—equivalent to a 20-volume Bible resource library all contained in one volume.
ESV study bible.....this is an excellent bible and when you buy it you get access to their website which is a wonderful study aid. This is a very trustworthy bible which was a collaboration effort of 95 well known and respected bible scholars and teachers.
Created by an outstanding team of 95 evangelical Christian scholars and teachers, the ESV Study Bible presents completely new study notes, maps, illustrations, charts, timelines, articles, and introductions. Altogether the ESV Study Bible comprises 2 million words of Bible text, insightful explanation, teaching, and reference material—equivalent to a 20-volume Bible resource library all contained in one volume.
If we want to know what the original writers meant, we have to allow the theology to flow from the interpretation. If we interpret from our theology (which is impossible to avoid entirely), then we aren't discovering the writers original intentions, we are simply re-iterating what we already believe, and ascribing our own beliefs to the authors.
The advanced Greek class is a seminar class, that is, each one of us prepares our own translations of a passage, then we present them and discuss why we decided to translate the passage the way we did. Each of us seems to see possibilities that the others didn't, and we learn from each other. It is the way committee interpretation works, just like the 95 scholars who worked on the ESV. Speaking of which, would 95 Catholic scholars have interpreted the Greek the same way 95 evangelicals did? Would 95 Orthodox scholars? Would 95 Coptic scholars. And there is a Coptic student at the school, though not in my Greek class. He's teaching us how to sing Christian hymns in Arabic, which is a lot of fun! He's studying Hebrew. The danger of committee translation is falling into group-think, as with any other type of team effort.
We have freedom here to translate from the Greek without any dogmatic restraints. That freedom is not available to the students at Dallas Theological Seminary, and their translation suffers for it.
Instead of taking an exam, each one of us in the class is required to pick a passage of scripture, interpret it, and spend three hours presenting and defending our translation. I chose I Corinthians 8:6. I present on November 14. I guarantee it's going to knock some socks off, and I'll give a play-by-play sometime thereafter.
By the way, Paul DOES write about Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 8:6, and reveals some very interesting things about It (the word "spirit" is neuter in the Greek), even though the words pneuma hagion do not appear in the verse!
I have two dear friends who graduated from Dallas theological....I will be sure to pass on the info about their inferior education due to dogmatic restraints. Although, there is another way to consider restraint....it can be a good thing, as it prevents us from veering to the controversial and spectacular and may keep us focused on the gospel.
I hope I haven't given you the wrong impression, geisha. The Lord has confirmed for me through my Coptic brother and friend in Christ that He is perfectly capable of teaching each of His people exactly what that person needs to know in order to do the job He has for her or him, in terms that person will understand, whether that person has access to a Bible or not.
NOBODY is required to know Greek, or have a particular version of the Bible, in order to faithfully serve the Lord, unless the particular job Jesus has for a person to do requires a knowledge of Greek or a particular understanding of the Bible. One time, when we were putting a class together, a Roman Catholic woman came to us and said that God had told her to take the foundational class. She did, and when the class was over, she told us that God told her not to get involved with the organization, He just wanted her to take the foundational class. Why? I have NO idea. But I believed then and I believe now that she was following what the Lord was telling her to do.
I have no doubt in my mind, geisha, that you are exactly where God wants you to be, and you are doing the job He wants you to do, and you are receiving every bit as much direction from Him as anybody else ever has.
I'm not studying Greek so that I can lord it over other people. Some of the young students at the seminary view their time here as something they don't necessarily want to do, but they put up with it till they can get on with their lives. I view it as a reward the Lord is giving me for having put up with so many things I didn't necessarily want to do through the biggest part of my adult life (including but not limited to my time involved with TWI).
I think the Lord wants me to write an interpretation of Acts 2. I think He's been preparing me since before I was born. My Pop was a newspaper man, who taught me that writing is a practical, as well as a fine art. Pop taught me that he regarded the pursuit of truth as something worth putting his life on the line for. Pop taught me many objective things, including how to aim an artillery piece! Mama dropped out of school at the end of the eighth grade, but when she was in the hills of Kentucky, she studied poetry. Not the goofy stuff. Classic poems. She taught me as a child about Jesus. She didn't preach sermons, she lived them. Whenever anybody in the neighborhood was sick or in trouble, she served them. Mama taught me subjective things about poetic knowledge and compassion and service.
When I was on the boat, going crazy, and I called on God in the name of Jesus Christ, He began teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart. He didn't teach me in theological terms; He taught me in terms of thermodynamics, hydraulics, pneumatics and the six-factor formula of reactor kinetics. All of these things have to do with flow in a closed system; the flow of energy in the form of heat, the flow of water and oil in the form of liquid in the steam cycle and lube systems, the flow of steam in the form of gas in the steam cycle, and the flow of neutrons through the reactor core. He taught me in terms of atoms changing into other nuclides, and how energy is released in the process. He taught me in terms of storing energy and releasing it through changes of state. He taught me in terms of converting thermal energy into rotational mechanical energy, and then converting that rotational energy into thrust.
After I got involved with TWI the Lord taught me that I could trust the Bible, but then He taught me that I could not trust ANY other man's interpretation of it.
Now the Lord is teaching me how to interpret parts of the Bible for myself. Not so I can lord it over other people. Not because every Christian has to learn to do that in order to serve the Lord faithfully... they don't... but because I need to know how to do it in order to do the job He has set before me. That job is to translate the things He taught me on the boat into theological terms that other people can understand. And in order to do that, the Lord has given me the responsibility of doing an interpretation of Acts chapter 2, not according to Wierwille, not according to the traditions of Pentecostalism and not according to the received tradition. Nobody else that I know of has been tasked with that job. But I'm discovering that each one of my professors, though tasked with different jobs, have different pieces of the puzzle that I couldn't do my job without. I'm not the Lone Ranger.
And you, geisha, just by being yourself, and doing the things you believe the Lord has called you to do, and saying the things you believe the Lord has called you to say, are serving God faithfully and offering irreplacable support for my effort. I can love you because I know the Lord loves me, and He loves you, and He wants me to love you, too!
I really thought God's grace and mercy had allowed you to finally finally be around Christians to see and to come to a simple knowledge of Jesus Christ. To share fully in a Christians common faith. I believed that was where your journey was leading you.
I stand corrected.
Didn't realize God rewarded us for being in a Christ denying cult. Silly me....I spent all that time repenting!
Just curious though....if the Lord taught you not to trust ANY man's interpretation of scripture....why would He call you to write one for others to trust? If every other interpretation is not to be trusted, yet your job from the Lord is to interpret for others....you must have a special calling indeed! You must be the ONLY one to ever write about Acts that the Lord deems trustworthy! Is this the same Jesus who blinded you, led you into a pit, and who placed you under a curse?
Thanks....you have made my point about restraint being a good thing.
Steve, you're going to spend three hours expounding on this one verse to your profs? Though that of course means that you've spent a good many other hours working everything else in this section of 1 Cor and a good few other places as well. (Three hours...!)
Decaf is about as useful as non alcoholic beer. Decaf is a baaad word. :)
In 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul states that God has appointed teachers in the church. Teachers, are to have sound speech, rejoice in truth, have sound doctrine and are to teach with faith in and love for Jesus Christ. Teachers, are held more accountable before the Lord.
Jesus, does not place teachers in the church, abandon them, and later go around and whisper in people's ears that they can't be trusted. Do you see how that personal revelation contradicts scripture and paints Jesus in a bad light? Not to mention, that personal revelation goes against the Lord's nature, character, and His ability to head His church.
We have some amazing teachers and scholars in the church right now.....here for our benefit. They serve God at His pleasure. We are still to be discerning, no doubt there are plenty of false teachers as well, but we do have genuine God given teachers. I am just being discerning.
And yes, I do get a bit passionate when I hear the Lord portrayed as someone other than He is. . . . when I hear of another Jesus who is capable of all kinds of nefarious things.
I don't have time for an indepth post right now, but sometimes this stuff is just TOO MUCH FUN!
Yesterday, while my wife and I were waiting in a doctor's examination room (it was a real medical doctor!), I was explaining to her what the Stoics meant by the hegemonikon. This morning, we were eating breakfast at McDonalds, and I started explaining why my coffee would cool down quicker if I took the lid off. That led us back into cosmology again. She still couldn't understand why the Stoics didn't just consider hegemonikon another word for "god".
So I explained it again, and she came up with a song to help her remember:
There ain't no god like the hegemonikon!
There ain't no God like the hegemonikon!
There ain't no god like the hegemonikon,
"Cuz the hegemonikon ain't a god!
In I Corinthians 8:5, Paul wrote that there ARE many gods! What are we to make of this if all words have to be representational in order to be true, something Wierwille learned from the fundamentalist protestants?
The Stoic hegemonikon was above every god. By his us of the prepositions "out of" and "into" in verse 6, Paul implies that the God of Israel's shemah is to the other gods of verse 5 as the Stoics hegemonikon was to the all the other gods.
Now at this point, some of you are muttering, "Steve, much study has driven you mad!"
But I assure you, if you plot the frequency of occurance of words in this post, you will get a 45 degree slope!
I've got to go facilitate my NAMI support group! Have fun! More later...
Raf posted a really interesting article in the SIT reading room thread and I thought it was well worth posting a link here. The author also has a book entitled Fanning the Flames: Probing the issues in Acts. At least I believe it is the same person. I ordered the book either way, it looks like an interesting read. Of course, much of his article reiterates things I think are evident in these scriptures, :) but it was nice to see someone else draw similar parallels.
Basham gives a classic Pentecostal definition: "Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer in which the Christian yields himself to the Holy Spirit and receives from the Spirit a supernatural language with which to praise God." This definition assumes two things. First, the primary form of tongues is prayer. Second, tongues constitute a divine, rather than a human language. Basham is right on if we're looking at the dominant contemporary exercise of tongues. However, laid next to the Scriptures, both of these assumptions are suspect.
. . . It is common to read testimonies of tongue-speakers who laud the personal benefits of the gift. It is extolled as a wonderful experience that enhances one's devotion to God. These statements stand on 1 Corinthians 14:4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." MacDonald says, "'Glossolalia' is the one gift given primarily for the benefit of the individual."Again, Basham says, "The primary purpose of it is for us in one's own devotional life."The problem is this: 1 Corinthians 14:4 is not advocating the private use of tongues; rather, Paul is criticizing their use. Turning gifts inward is unhelpful to the body; that is Paul's point. In fact, in light of 1 Corinthians 14:1a, Paul might even argue that uninterpreted tongues are unloving.The purpose of all spiritual gifts is to build up the body (1 Cor 12:7ff; 14:1-8). We are not suggesting that ministry is not deeply satisfying. We are arguing that being deeply satisfied through ministering to oneself is misguided.
Certainly a different perspective than the one we adopted in TWI concerning the benefit and purpose of tongues. The problem I see with the way we viewed tongues as something for private use and self edification is of course the obvious....it is a self-centered theology. But, even greater, is that we missed a particularly poignant admonitionto strive for and seek out the building up of the body. Ironically, this is where our edification truly does come into play. VP had no problem pounding that theme home in other areas where it served his purpose. A lifetime commitment and service to his ministry springs to mind.
I shudder to think of the beauty and God glorifying and faith building meaning missed in the other verses VP used to prop up his thoughts on SIT. These are some of the things that make me queasy when I revisit Way theology.
Does "he" refer to the man, or to the Spirit? Makes all the difference, doesn't it?
Does it? Wierwille's angst over "he" referring to the Spirit is about what most charismatics have trouble with. Why would God play favorites?
But underlying, we know God is no respecter of persons and we also know that God respects freedom of will. So what if the translation is better of "he" the Spirit, and that the understanding is God helps those to pursue spiritual gifts they are interested in?
There are lots of possibilities outside of Wierwille's shoddy Greek work.
Does it? Wierwille's angst over "he" referring to the Spirit is about what most charismatics have trouble with. Why would God play favorites?
But underlying, we know God is no respecter of persons and we also know that God respects freedom of will. So what if the translation is better of "he" the Spirit, and that the understanding is God helps those to pursue spiritual gifts they are interested in?
There are lots of possibilities outside of Wierwille's shoddy Greek work.
It does say to desire gifts. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. I think we could desire gifts for the purpose of edification of the body and if it is His will He would grant them or Paul is saying change your attitude. I can see both ways. Which one fits in more with the context?
Chockfull, when you say God respects freedom of will.....I am not sure what that means? People always say that and I don't really see that articulated as a theme in scripture. I kind of see the opposite....it is His will that matters. Not because He is a bully, but because He is righteous. Right. I never really understood the freedom of will thing. I don't see it.
Pardon me if this seems crass, but, it sounds like the sort of project that might appeal to a certain poster who has done something similar with PFAL.
Actually ALL of this has followed from an argument that same "certain poster" made. About ten years ago, when Actual Errors in PFAL was in full swing, he and I were engaged on another thread where that poster said that the senses referred to in Hebrews 5:14 had to be referencing the "spiritual" senses, and not our "5 senses". He claimed that the "5 senses" could not be relied on for ANY truth... only the "spiritual" senses. He based this on Wierwille's teaching that there are two realms, the spirit realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm supercede the laws of the senses realm.
That got me to thinking: Does the Bible really teach that there are two different realms, a natural realm and a supernatural realm? Are there really "spiritual" laws that supercede the laws of nature? Can the things the Bible says be explained without resorting to a "two realm" model of reality?
I started out by tracking aistheterion, the word translated "senses" in Hebrews 5:14, not just its uses in the Bible, but its uses in philosophy during the first century as well.
After ten years of tinkering around, I think I can demonstrate that Paul did not subscribe to a "two realm" model, based on I Corinthians 8:4-7a. The literal translation is very simple, not much different from how it's translated in KJV. BUT, there's a difference in the sense translation... a WORLD of difference. Most of the three hours will be consumed in presenting, and answering questions about, what exactly the Stoics meant when they put the prepositions "out of" and "into" in conjunction.
By the way, I Corinthians 8:6 illustrates the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, all things and ourselves.
I present on November 14th. I'll post more about the "one realm" model after that.
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
Raf
I don't think it's off topic at all, Twinky. It seems like your question is perfectly aligned with this thread.
Dividing to every man severally as he wills...
Does "he" refer to the man, or to the Spirit? Makes all the difference, doesn't it?
I don't know the correct grammatical answer. I know what we were taught (it's the man) and I know the alternative view (it's the Spirit), but I am unqualified to judge which answer is correct.
Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos were inconsistent and often ridiculous. I believe he said heteros was "another when only two are involved"
and allos was "another when more than two may be involved." He never got around to explaining why the word "other" in "turn the other cheek" was allos. Maybe Jesus was counting butt cheeks to bring the number of cheeks on a human being from two to four?
Another distinction between the terms is that allos is another of the same kind, while heteros is another of a different kind. When I was reviewing usages of the word, these definitions struck me as more Biblically consistent. But my review was far, far from exhaustive. If you were to show me why that distinction is incorrect, my confidence would not be shaken (because it's so low to begin with).
By the way, yes, I am aware that Wierwille's heteros/allos distinction was borrowed from Bullinger (I won't say plagiarized, because that's unfair. Wierwille's articulation may have been plagiarized, but accepting the definitions and applying them are fair game). In any event, I am dismissive of the blatant inaccuracy, not the source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
's why I'm interested in Steve's view, Raf.
I recently did an intro to NT Greek course taught by a student at a local church who is studying theology at Oxford University. (A lovely lass she is, too.) I sidled into the discussions the group had, an enquiry about the difference if any between heteros and allos. She gave a bit of an explanation which was so far from what VPW stated categorically that I couldn't take it in. Suffice to say that it was much looser and nothing like as black and white as VPW claimed.
But ... severally (separately) as He/he/it wills ??? Who? God? Man? the holy spirit? the Holy Spirit? ... the church minister, the congregation, the person next to you (LOL)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
To the best of my current knowledge, I Corinthians 12:11 can be translated literally: and/but (weak conjunction) all these things (plural) energizes (singular) the one and the same spirit (neuter) dividing/distributing privately (attached to the previous verb) to each one (masculine) in the manner that he/she/it wills.
"All these things" is the predicate of "energizes, and "the one and the same spirit" is the subject, the English sense would be "The one and the same Spirit energizes all these things."
The phrase "dividing...wills" is a participle, a verb form used as an adjective, in this instance modifying the noun "spirit".
If we place the phrase after "spirit" in the English sense, the sentence becomes; "The one and the same spirit, distributing privately to each one (or each man) as he/she/it wills, energizes all these things.
If the word "wills" had gender in the Greek, it would settle the question decisively, since "spirit" is neuter and "each one" is masculine. Unfortunately, it's not as clear as all that, since the word "wills" doesn't carry any indication of gender.
The phrase "in the manner that he/she/it wills" is adverbial, describing HOW the Spirit divides, so I would be inclined to translate the verse "And the one and the same Spirit, distributing privately to each one as the Spirit wills, energizes all these things."
As far as allos and heteros go, heteros does carry a sense of "the other among two" and allos does carry a sense of "another of a different kind", but the Greeks never separated their meanings as radically as Wierwille did. Raf is right in pointing out that heteros was frequently used to mean "another among many", just as allos was frequently used without reference to "kind".
Thank you all for your patience and your trust in me. I DO NOT WANT to bias my translations! None of us can avoid that perfectly, but I have certainly been put off of tendentious translation by Wierwille and company!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I used to teach writing to middle and high schoolers. You are a good writer, Raf! This is a gem of the writer's art!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, I think you got allos and heteros backward. At least partly.
Allos was another of the same kind and another when more than two are involved.
Heteros was another of a different kind or when only two are involved.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, it appears Wierwille was all over the map on this one:
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_cntradef.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The source I am using is Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, (abridged, copy of the 1909 edition, first published at Oxford), Simon Wallenberg Press, 2007. It isn't limited to Biblical Greek, but includes the koine used in all kinds of Hellenistic documents! It has about a quarter-page on the word allos (p. 35), very much in the style of the Oxford English Dictionary. Part of the entry reads:
"II. more rarely like alloios, of other sort, different"
Under alloios we find:
"of another sort or kind"
Alla, the conjunction indicating strong contrast. is a form of allos.
The words "alien", "alibi" and "alias" all come to us indirectly from allos.
The entry for heteros is nearly as long (p. 277). One of the main meanings is "one of two" but the following are also included in the entry:
"II. put loosely for allos"
and:
"of other kind, like alloios"
Juedes is right. Wierwille WAS all over the place, because the Greeks themselves were all over the place. Wierwille was wrong in implying he was employing a degree of accuracy that is actually impossible.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Shouldn't the context and the point of Paul's letter play some part in how we look at these verses? He started out trying to again share the gospel with them, but he had to wade through all kinds of questions. The things that were going on in this church with morality, personal relationships, and the influx of false teaches, all have to weigh into how we look at what Paul is trying to convey and the heart he is trying to encourage. Concerning ourselves with one verse and how it is translated seems short-sighted to me.....if we can't get a handle on intention....we can make that verse mean whatever we like.
Outside of Way world or its periphery, I have never heard anyone claim it is as he the man wills. It doesn't fit within a high view of God or within the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Then again, I have really not heard the Holy Spirit referred to as other than a person, meaning with personal characteristics. The belief that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is going to definitely play into how we look at this and other verses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You've hit a nail on the head here, geisha... if we can't get a handle on intention... we can make that verse mean whatever we like. Unfortunately, that's the whole crux of translation. The only way to get a handle on intention is to examine the verse in microscopic detail, down to whether an accent mark is grave, circumflex or acute, and whether the breathing mark is rough or smooth. Then we build our understanding of the intention of the wider context by doing the same thing to EVERY verse.
We have spent several weeks in advanced Greek translating Philippians 2:1-11. Verses 6-11 are a song, and yesterday, we read it out loud in Greek, over and over again, until we could recognize the beat. It became apparent that the phrase at the end of verse 8, "even the death of the cross" as KJV puts it, was not a part of the original song, and that Paul had inserted it. The prof spent a couple of hours pointing out to us what some people in the first century understood by various terms in the song, and how those terms fit together, and it came home to us what a SHOCKING thing Paul was saying about Jesus Christ when he inserted the phrase "even the death of the cross," at least in the eyes of some of the first century believers at Philippi. It became very easy for me to imagine a riot breaking out in the congregation when Paul's messenger sang that part of the letter for the first time to the church, just like the riot that broke out when Stravinsky first performed his Rite of Spring. The issue Paul raised with that insertion was at the heart of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and those councils FAILED to resolve it. All because of the placement of accent marks in six verses. Wars have been fought, and Christians have murdered their brothers and sisters in Christ, because the placement of accents in those six verses has been misinterpreted.
I think the prof started the semester with this project to impress upon us a sense of responsibility as we make our translations.
It certainly was NOT like any training I received in TWI!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You mean to tell me that reading the context of the letter to the Corinthians is fruitless without dissecting every verse? How do we mere mortals manage? You can't trust any translation of the bible enough to simply read it for context? I don't buy that for a second. In TWI we studied, parsed, and argued over words and microscopic details incessantly....look how far that got us.
There are probably only a handful of scholars who could truly claim to understand scripture and context if it is based purely on a knowledge of Greek semantics. What happens when someone more knowledgeable than you Steve, comes along and blows your translation out of the water? What are you left with then?
Good Lord, I was simply speaking of a reading of context and maybe some other places where Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit. We could have a field day with the Greek in Ephesians 2:8-10, but, any born again Christian can explain what it means......without Greek. Then again, someone could study it in the Greek for months and still be clueless.
In the end, we are left with three choices....we can believe it, we can deny it, or we can twist it. We don't need Greek for that, but a knowledge of Greek is not going to prevent that either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
http://esvstudybible.org/
ESV study bible.....this is an excellent bible and when you buy it you get access to their website which is a wonderful study aid. This is a very trustworthy bible which was a collaboration effort of 95 well known and respected bible scholars and teachers.
Created by an outstanding team of 95 evangelical Christian scholars and teachers, the ESV Study Bible presents completely new study notes, maps, illustrations, charts, timelines, articles, and introductions. Altogether the ESV Study Bible comprises 2 million words of Bible text, insightful explanation, teaching, and reference material—equivalent to a 20-volume Bible resource library all contained in one volume.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If we want to know what the original writers meant, we have to allow the theology to flow from the interpretation. If we interpret from our theology (which is impossible to avoid entirely), then we aren't discovering the writers original intentions, we are simply re-iterating what we already believe, and ascribing our own beliefs to the authors.
The advanced Greek class is a seminar class, that is, each one of us prepares our own translations of a passage, then we present them and discuss why we decided to translate the passage the way we did. Each of us seems to see possibilities that the others didn't, and we learn from each other. It is the way committee interpretation works, just like the 95 scholars who worked on the ESV. Speaking of which, would 95 Catholic scholars have interpreted the Greek the same way 95 evangelicals did? Would 95 Orthodox scholars? Would 95 Coptic scholars. And there is a Coptic student at the school, though not in my Greek class. He's teaching us how to sing Christian hymns in Arabic, which is a lot of fun! He's studying Hebrew. The danger of committee translation is falling into group-think, as with any other type of team effort.
We have freedom here to translate from the Greek without any dogmatic restraints. That freedom is not available to the students at Dallas Theological Seminary, and their translation suffers for it.
Instead of taking an exam, each one of us in the class is required to pick a passage of scripture, interpret it, and spend three hours presenting and defending our translation. I chose I Corinthians 8:6. I present on November 14. I guarantee it's going to knock some socks off, and I'll give a play-by-play sometime thereafter.
By the way, Paul DOES write about Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 8:6, and reveals some very interesting things about It (the word "spirit" is neuter in the Greek), even though the words pneuma hagion do not appear in the verse!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have two dear friends who graduated from Dallas theological....I will be sure to pass on the info about their inferior education due to dogmatic restraints. Although, there is another way to consider restraint....it can be a good thing, as it prevents us from veering to the controversial and spectacular and may keep us focused on the gospel.
I will risk it with ESV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I hope I haven't given you the wrong impression, geisha. The Lord has confirmed for me through my Coptic brother and friend in Christ that He is perfectly capable of teaching each of His people exactly what that person needs to know in order to do the job He has for her or him, in terms that person will understand, whether that person has access to a Bible or not.
NOBODY is required to know Greek, or have a particular version of the Bible, in order to faithfully serve the Lord, unless the particular job Jesus has for a person to do requires a knowledge of Greek or a particular understanding of the Bible. One time, when we were putting a class together, a Roman Catholic woman came to us and said that God had told her to take the foundational class. She did, and when the class was over, she told us that God told her not to get involved with the organization, He just wanted her to take the foundational class. Why? I have NO idea. But I believed then and I believe now that she was following what the Lord was telling her to do.
I have no doubt in my mind, geisha, that you are exactly where God wants you to be, and you are doing the job He wants you to do, and you are receiving every bit as much direction from Him as anybody else ever has.
I'm not studying Greek so that I can lord it over other people. Some of the young students at the seminary view their time here as something they don't necessarily want to do, but they put up with it till they can get on with their lives. I view it as a reward the Lord is giving me for having put up with so many things I didn't necessarily want to do through the biggest part of my adult life (including but not limited to my time involved with TWI).
I think the Lord wants me to write an interpretation of Acts 2. I think He's been preparing me since before I was born. My Pop was a newspaper man, who taught me that writing is a practical, as well as a fine art. Pop taught me that he regarded the pursuit of truth as something worth putting his life on the line for. Pop taught me many objective things, including how to aim an artillery piece! Mama dropped out of school at the end of the eighth grade, but when she was in the hills of Kentucky, she studied poetry. Not the goofy stuff. Classic poems. She taught me as a child about Jesus. She didn't preach sermons, she lived them. Whenever anybody in the neighborhood was sick or in trouble, she served them. Mama taught me subjective things about poetic knowledge and compassion and service.
When I was on the boat, going crazy, and I called on God in the name of Jesus Christ, He began teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart. He didn't teach me in theological terms; He taught me in terms of thermodynamics, hydraulics, pneumatics and the six-factor formula of reactor kinetics. All of these things have to do with flow in a closed system; the flow of energy in the form of heat, the flow of water and oil in the form of liquid in the steam cycle and lube systems, the flow of steam in the form of gas in the steam cycle, and the flow of neutrons through the reactor core. He taught me in terms of atoms changing into other nuclides, and how energy is released in the process. He taught me in terms of storing energy and releasing it through changes of state. He taught me in terms of converting thermal energy into rotational mechanical energy, and then converting that rotational energy into thrust.
After I got involved with TWI the Lord taught me that I could trust the Bible, but then He taught me that I could not trust ANY other man's interpretation of it.
Now the Lord is teaching me how to interpret parts of the Bible for myself. Not so I can lord it over other people. Not because every Christian has to learn to do that in order to serve the Lord faithfully... they don't... but because I need to know how to do it in order to do the job He has set before me. That job is to translate the things He taught me on the boat into theological terms that other people can understand. And in order to do that, the Lord has given me the responsibility of doing an interpretation of Acts chapter 2, not according to Wierwille, not according to the traditions of Pentecostalism and not according to the received tradition. Nobody else that I know of has been tasked with that job. But I'm discovering that each one of my professors, though tasked with different jobs, have different pieces of the puzzle that I couldn't do my job without. I'm not the Lone Ranger.
And you, geisha, just by being yourself, and doing the things you believe the Lord has called you to do, and saying the things you believe the Lord has called you to say, are serving God faithfully and offering irreplacable support for my effort. I can love you because I know the Lord loves me, and He loves you, and He wants me to love you, too!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Steve,
I really thought God's grace and mercy had allowed you to finally finally be around Christians to see and to come to a simple knowledge of Jesus Christ. To share fully in a Christians common faith. I believed that was where your journey was leading you.
I stand corrected.
Didn't realize God rewarded us for being in a Christ denying cult. Silly me....I spent all that time repenting!
Just curious though....if the Lord taught you not to trust ANY man's interpretation of scripture....why would He call you to write one for others to trust? If every other interpretation is not to be trusted, yet your job from the Lord is to interpret for others....you must have a special calling indeed! You must be the ONLY one to ever write about Acts that the Lord deems trustworthy! Is this the same Jesus who blinded you, led you into a pit, and who placed you under a curse?
Thanks....you have made my point about restraint being a good thing.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
reminds me of 1 Cor 14
understanding has to work to get the intent
which will not be seen or heard without knowing some meanings
if they are not clarified in the words themselves
i suspect that looking for the edification is a good start
either words from a book or each other
to find the spirit in the words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Calm down, geisha. Switch to decaff.
Steve, you're going to spend three hours expounding on this one verse to your profs?
Though that of course means that you've spent a good many other hours working everything else in this section of 1 Cor and a good few other places as well. (Three hours...!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Pardon me if this seems crass, but, it sounds like the sort of project that might appeal to a certain poster who has done something similar with PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Decaf is about as useful as non alcoholic beer. Decaf is a baaad word. :)
In 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul states that God has appointed teachers in the church. Teachers, are to have sound speech, rejoice in truth, have sound doctrine and are to teach with faith in and love for Jesus Christ. Teachers, are held more accountable before the Lord.
Jesus, does not place teachers in the church, abandon them, and later go around and whisper in people's ears that they can't be trusted. Do you see how that personal revelation contradicts scripture and paints Jesus in a bad light? Not to mention, that personal revelation goes against the Lord's nature, character, and His ability to head His church.
We have some amazing teachers and scholars in the church right now.....here for our benefit. They serve God at His pleasure. We are still to be discerning, no doubt there are plenty of false teachers as well, but we do have genuine God given teachers. I am just being discerning.
And yes, I do get a bit passionate when I hear the Lord portrayed as someone other than He is. . . . when I hear of another Jesus who is capable of all kinds of nefarious things.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't have time for an indepth post right now, but sometimes this stuff is just TOO MUCH FUN!
Yesterday, while my wife and I were waiting in a doctor's examination room (it was a real medical doctor!), I was explaining to her what the Stoics meant by the hegemonikon. This morning, we were eating breakfast at McDonalds, and I started explaining why my coffee would cool down quicker if I took the lid off. That led us back into cosmology again. She still couldn't understand why the Stoics didn't just consider hegemonikon another word for "god".
So I explained it again, and she came up with a song to help her remember:
There ain't no god like the hegemonikon!
There ain't no God like the hegemonikon!
There ain't no god like the hegemonikon,
"Cuz the hegemonikon ain't a god!
In I Corinthians 8:5, Paul wrote that there ARE many gods! What are we to make of this if all words have to be representational in order to be true, something Wierwille learned from the fundamentalist protestants?
The Stoic hegemonikon was above every god. By his us of the prepositions "out of" and "into" in verse 6, Paul implies that the God of Israel's shemah is to the other gods of verse 5 as the Stoics hegemonikon was to the all the other gods.
Now at this point, some of you are muttering, "Steve, much study has driven you mad!"
But I assure you, if you plot the frequency of occurance of words in this post, you will get a 45 degree slope!
I've got to go facilitate my NAMI support group! Have fun! More later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Raf posted a really interesting article in the SIT reading room thread and I thought it was well worth posting a link here. The author also has a book entitled Fanning the Flames: Probing the issues in Acts. At least I believe it is the same person. I ordered the book either way, it looks like an interesting read. Of course, much of his article reiterates things I think are evident in these scriptures, :) but it was nice to see someone else draw similar parallels.
http://markmoore.org...s/tongues.shtml
Basham gives a classic Pentecostal definition: "Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer in which the Christian yields himself to the Holy Spirit and receives from the Spirit a supernatural language with which to praise God." This definition assumes two things. First, the primary form of tongues is prayer. Second, tongues constitute a divine, rather than a human language. Basham is right on if we're looking at the dominant contemporary exercise of tongues. However, laid next to the Scriptures, both of these assumptions are suspect.
.........................................................
. . . It is common to read testimonies of tongue-speakers who laud the personal benefits of the gift. It is extolled as a wonderful experience that enhances one's devotion to God. These statements stand on 1 Corinthians 14:4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." MacDonald says, "'Glossolalia' is the one gift given primarily for the benefit of the individual."Again, Basham says, "The primary purpose of it is for us in one's own devotional life."The problem is this: 1 Corinthians 14:4 is not advocating the private use of tongues; rather, Paul is criticizing their use. Turning gifts inward is unhelpful to the body; that is Paul's point. In fact, in light of 1 Corinthians 14:1a, Paul might even argue that uninterpreted tongues are unloving. The purpose of all spiritual gifts is to build up the body (1 Cor 12:7ff; 14:1-8). We are not suggesting that ministry is not deeply satisfying. We are arguing that being deeply satisfied through ministering to oneself is misguided.
Certainly a different perspective than the one we adopted in TWI concerning the benefit and purpose of tongues. The problem I see with the way we viewed tongues as something for private use and self edification is of course the obvious....it is a self-centered theology. But, even greater, is that we missed a particularly poignant admonition to strive for and seek out the building up of the body. Ironically, this is where our edification truly does come into play. VP had no problem pounding that theme home in other areas where it served his purpose. A lifetime commitment and service to his ministry springs to mind.
I shudder to think of the beauty and God glorifying and faith building meaning missed in the other verses VP used to prop up his thoughts on SIT. These are some of the things that make me queasy when I revisit Way theology.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Does it? Wierwille's angst over "he" referring to the Spirit is about what most charismatics have trouble with. Why would God play favorites?
But underlying, we know God is no respecter of persons and we also know that God respects freedom of will. So what if the translation is better of "he" the Spirit, and that the understanding is God helps those to pursue spiritual gifts they are interested in?
There are lots of possibilities outside of Wierwille's shoddy Greek work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It does say to desire gifts. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. I think we could desire gifts for the purpose of edification of the body and if it is His will He would grant them or Paul is saying change your attitude. I can see both ways. Which one fits in more with the context?
Chockfull, when you say God respects freedom of will.....I am not sure what that means? People always say that and I don't really see that articulated as a theme in scripture. I kind of see the opposite....it is His will that matters. Not because He is a bully, but because He is righteous. Right. I never really understood the freedom of will thing. I don't see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Actually ALL of this has followed from an argument that same "certain poster" made. About ten years ago, when Actual Errors in PFAL was in full swing, he and I were engaged on another thread where that poster said that the senses referred to in Hebrews 5:14 had to be referencing the "spiritual" senses, and not our "5 senses". He claimed that the "5 senses" could not be relied on for ANY truth... only the "spiritual" senses. He based this on Wierwille's teaching that there are two realms, the spirit realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm supercede the laws of the senses realm.
That got me to thinking: Does the Bible really teach that there are two different realms, a natural realm and a supernatural realm? Are there really "spiritual" laws that supercede the laws of nature? Can the things the Bible says be explained without resorting to a "two realm" model of reality?
I started out by tracking aistheterion, the word translated "senses" in Hebrews 5:14, not just its uses in the Bible, but its uses in philosophy during the first century as well.
After ten years of tinkering around, I think I can demonstrate that Paul did not subscribe to a "two realm" model, based on I Corinthians 8:4-7a. The literal translation is very simple, not much different from how it's translated in KJV. BUT, there's a difference in the sense translation... a WORLD of difference. Most of the three hours will be consumed in presenting, and answering questions about, what exactly the Stoics meant when they put the prepositions "out of" and "into" in conjunction.
By the way, I Corinthians 8:6 illustrates the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, all things and ourselves.
I present on November 14th. I'll post more about the "one realm" model after that.
Love,
Steve
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.