"But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7."
Holy Bibles, Batman!!
Did we even take the same class??
That's the very essence of the whole three hour drivel fest. Indoctrination at its finest.
If the Listening With A Purpose questions give any indication, here is the very first one:
1. What are the 5 steps the serpent used to deceive Eve?
post #220:
"The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it."
Session #8 is the session that introduces the *unforgivable* sin. (not the original sin)
It's defined in part as Sin against the Holy Ghost/Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit and results in being Born Again of the Seed of Satan. (according to the 1971 syllabus)
The first teaching I ever heard on the "original sin" was contained in the Christian Family and Sex class.
edited yet again: When Wierwille taught the original sin in CF&S, he said he had no scripture references and we were supposed to just "trust" him..... (Cuz ya know, he was such a fine, upstanding and trust worthy guy. ....don't cha know?)
For the same reason you prosecute the user of a gun and not the manufacturer.
But it's not a gun or bullet that Steve said was intended to stop people from thinking. It was words. If they come to us from a repeator tower, is the repeator tower responsible for them? If there's a gun to fit in here, it's shoot the messenger, not the message.
Utterly meaningless. By which I mean, it doesn't address the issue in the slightest.
Sure it does. But it's looking at it from a different perspective than you're willing to accept or think possible. Therefore, it means nothing to you.
But as significantly, no one is saying Wierwille plagiarized EVERYTHING, and the decision of what terminology to use under what circumstances was still his, regardless of the source of his material.
I think we all repackage ideas in our own ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either.
The fact is that they have yet to experience the circumstances under which they would break.
Let me know if you need help with the analogy.
The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?
"I think we all repackage ideas in our ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either."
Correct me if I'm wrong. From this unfortunate statement I surmise you minimize the blatant (and, yes, I do mean blatant.) plagiarism of VPW. I can only assume you have not given due diligence to examining the extent of his plagiarism or are, alternatively, excusing it.
Wierewille lifted entire chapters, almost word for word. In some cases, he lifted the entire work and claimed it as his own, despite lying by saying he hauled all his references to the dump and relied on God teaching him. (How's that for understanding his intent?).
If you do not yet fully understand the impact of his actions in this regard, I suggest you dig a good bit deeper into some of the sources on this site or ask for help. (suggested reading: HERE)
"The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?"
Correct me if I'm wrong. From this unfortunate statement I surmise you minimize the blatant (and, yes, I do mean blatant.) plagiarism of VPW.
No, there was absolutely no intent to minimize it. I was addressing that which is not identified or referred to as plagiarism.
If you do not yet fully understand the impact of his actions in this regard, I suggest you dig a good bit deeper into some of the sources on this site or ask for help.
I've probably read more than you think here. Not everything, by any stretch of the imagination. But certainly enough to be well aware of the documentation of more than a problem or two.
"The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?"
How does that show relevance?
Now, back to topic.
Because the statement of intent appeared to me to be pointed more at the doctrine of inerrancy than at Wierwille.
“Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”
My apologies to all for allowing myself to engage in a discussion that has driven this thread off topic.
No apology necessary, waysider, at least not to me! You haven't really gone off topic. The flow of thought on this thread has gone turbulent, but it hasn't ceased... that means it's still alive!
If I remember rightly, Eve's first step on the road to perdition was that she "responded by considering." Wierwille taught that we shouldn't even consider whether or not the things he was teaching were actually so. If anybody raised any questions to us, we shouldn't even think about them.
I would judge Wierwille's words as toxic in that case.
How did Wierwille's teaching line up with other scriptures (the integrity of God's Word, you know)?
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him." Proverbs 18:13
When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, the adversary did so by asking Jesus questions. Jesus responded by considering those questions... DEEPLY considering them. Otherwise, how would Jesus have known how to defeat them so aptly? And you'll notice that Jesus didn't merely deflect the adversary's questions. He really did answer them!
If I remember rightly, Eve's first step on the road to perdition was that she "responded by considering." Wierwille taught that we shouldn't even consider whether or not the things he was teaching were actually so. If anybody raised any questions to us, we shouldn't even think about them.
I love dealing with people who use honest tactics when debating, and I will continue to do so. Peace all.
Evidently you see what is posted here as debate, while I don't. Debate is combative, seeking victory in how it expresses its position and persuades others to accept it. I see the discussion here as seeking to identify and communicate what can be (and often are) difficult to identify and verbalize thoughts or positions on spiritual matters. There is no intent in my mind to "win," aside from simply presenting or exposing (i.e., communicating) another way to look at an issue. Perhaps you think my mind thinks in odd ways. Alright, allow me to remove the question in that. It does, and I've know it from my youth (from long before the ministry), and I used to be proud of it. It was difficult for me to eventually (rather late in life, years after my involvement in the ministry) accept that it was not an advantage. I've since recognized it for what it is, a handicap, especially when it comes to certain interactions with other people. Sure, it may allow me to see things from a different perspective than you, or anyone else here, might think possible or reasonable... or in your derogatory implication, honest. But what it also does, is it requires me to look at and consider an issue from a thousand different angles, because I have had to pay careful attention and focus on which of them (if any) you (and other "normal" people) might be viewing it from. No, I don't always get it right, that's for sure. But if allowed to (and there is interest), there's a multiplicity of ways that I can both ask questions, and openly and freely discuss a fair number things.
From a debater's perspective, maybe it appears that I "break the rules" of debate (whatever they are, I can't say.) But from the vantage point of discussion, and interest in (or the deeper examination and questioning of) why the other person might have or hold the position that they do, unconventional does not equate to or mean dishonest. So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist.
When two people disagree about their opinions or the facts underlying them, they engage in a debate in order to get to the truth (not to "win"). Those who do so honestly, we learn from. Those who do so dishonestly find ways to dodge, distract, evade, etc. I have learned to identify such people and avoid engaging them in fruitless discussions.
Debate is not a combative endeavour. It would be more accurate for you to say you perceive it to be combative. Perception and reality do not always agree.
"So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist."
You are correct in noting TWI is not the only place such boxes exist. However, this forum is concerned with TWI, in particular, not those other places.
Evidently you see what is posted here as debate, while I don't. Debate is combative, seeking victory in how it expresses its position and persuades others to accept it. I see the discussion here as seeking to identify and communicate what can be (and often are) difficult to identify and verbalize thoughts or positions on spiritual matters. There is no intent in my mind to "win," aside from simply presenting or exposing (i.e., communicating) another way to look at an issue. Perhaps you think my mind thinks in odd ways. Alright, allow me to remove the question in that. It does, and I've know it from my youth (from long before the ministry), and I used to be proud of it. It was difficult for me to eventually (rather late in life, years after my involvement in the ministry) accept that it was not an advantage. I've since recognized it for what it is, a handicap, especially when it comes to certain interactions with other people. Sure, it may allow me to see things from a different perspective than you, or anyone else here, might think possible or reasonable... or in your derogatory implication, honest. But what it also does, is it requires me to look at and consider an issue from a thousand different angles, because I have had to pay careful attention and focus on which of them (if any) you (and other "normal" people) might be viewing it from. No, I don't always get it right, that's for sure. But if allowed to (and there is interest), there's a multiplicity of ways that I can both ask questions, and openly and freely discuss a fair number things.
From a debater's perspective, maybe it appears that I "break the rules" of debate (whatever they are, I can't say.) But from the vantage point of discussion, and interest in (or the deeper examination and questioning of) why the other person might have or hold the position that they do, unconventional does not equate to or mean dishonest. So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist.
My wife, father-in-law, daughter and grand-daughter are all on the autism spectrum, which used to be called "Asperger's". I am coming to think that ALL people are on it to one degree or another. One of the seventh-graders in one of my classes was on the autism spectrum, and he taught me that there is no such thing as a genuine education that is not also a special education.
If you are on the spectrum, TLC, then I applaud you for taking on subjects that are especially difficult for my wife and others...
My wife, father-in-law, daughter and grand-daughter are all on the autism spectrum, which used to be called "Asperger's". I am coming to think that ALL people are on it to one degree or another. One of the seventh-graders in one of my classes was on the autism spectrum, and he taught me that there is no such thing as a genuine education that is not also a special education.
If you are on the spectrum, TLC, then I applaud you for taking on subjects that are especially difficult for my wife and others...
Love,
Steve
Well, that may be, Steve, but I've never been officially diagnosed as such. (Though, neither have I been tested for it... lol. Being the class leader and clown in early grade school, they probably would have recommended medicating me if they had such a thing back in the day.) Not that it matters or means much, but always tested on the far end of the IQ spectrum.
A couple of things have been influencing my recent thinking: first, a semester's worth of Hebrew, and second, contemplation of what words actually ARE, based on the hermeneutics class I took January 11-15, 2016.
Here are the two simple conclusions I am considering:
1. The Bible is not God's primary way of communicating with us. The primary way God communicates with us is through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.
2. Words, at least "words" the way WE think about them, are not the primary way that the Holy Spirit communicates with us. The primary way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is by means of "feelings" in our hearts. We articulate those feelings when we put them into words.
The Hebrew word translated "word" is dabar, which literally means "a thing spoken." The word translated "to speak" is the same word, dabar, except it has different vowel points which make it sound like "da-VAIR." The noun is pronounced "da-BAR."
A dabar is not limited to the sounds that come out of a person's mouth. The ideas of making, doing and being are much more closely associated with the act of speaking in Hebrew than they are in English (or Greek or German for that matter). So when the Old Testament talks about a "word" (dabar), it carries with it connotations of making, doing and being, as well as of saying.
The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts.
This is how the Tanakh can be "God-breathed" even though the human language into which it has been articulated necessarily contains contradictions and errors, because it is a HUMAN LANGUAGE.
This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language.
I think you intended to post that on a different topic.
No, Raf... it all fits together like a hand and a sock!
And if the Spirit of God is NOT speaking into our hearts in a human language, it doesn't really matter if a human language comes out of our mouths when we speak in tongues. Articulating debarim into human language only becomes important when interpreting a tongue or delivering prophecy (prophecy as per 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, not all the other crap floating around that people call prophecy).
When Paul wrote that we have the mind of Christ, it doesn't mean that we can tap into Jesus' stream of consciousness, it means that the Spirit has breathed into our hearts the heart-issues that Jesus deals with.
When Paul wrote that the law is written in our hearts, it doesn't mean you can find a copy of the ten commandments in your heart. It means the Spirit has breathed into our hearts the impulse to do righteousness.
The fundamental question of this thread was not to prove whether of not to Bible is "God-breathed" but rather to examine what it means for all scripture to be God-breathed. What does it mean for ANYTHING to be God-breathed? And I think the Spirit has been teaching me a few things.
1. The Bible is not God's primary way of communicating with us.
That may be true (taken in the right way or context.)
However, it may be more sure (also, if understood in the right way or context.)
If God works in our heart to "bring to remembrance" a particular verse or passage of scripture, how is it then thought or viewed that He communicated with us?
The primary way God communicates with us is through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.
Which means what, exactly?
The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts.
So in other words, a "linguistic artifact" is a thought?
Pretty fancy name. Sorta sounds like calling the garbage man a "sanitation engineer."
This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language.
Well, however you got there, I'm inclined to agree with that.
I've had to become extremely conscious of everything that is going on inside my body (including when I poop and when I only fart), and WHY it's happening.
That quote is from the first post on this thread. Everything we've been talking about on this thread has been based on awareness of actual physical breathing.
This morning I had an episode. I didn't know what it was, but as it was in process, I was describing to Elizabeth what was happening inside my mind.
I was very confused. The feeling was "I can't find things," because I couldn't.
After I recovered from the episode, three words came to my remembrance "carbon dioxide intoxication."
I had heard some medical person or another use those words once, when I was describing how I sometimes would feel confused when I woke up in the morning.
I googled "carbon dioxide intoxication" and as I read the symptoms and the causes, I recognized exactly what had happened to me.
Since then, the Lord has showed me more stuff than I can articulate yet.
All for now, more later...
Love,
Steve
By the way, TLC... dabar is a Hebrew word meaning "that which is spoken" or "word". The reason I used dabar is because the Hebrew carries with it connotations of "being", "doing" and "making" that "word" does NOT carry in Greek, German or English. Dabarim is the plural of dabar, "words". The word "articulate" comes from the Greek word arthron for "joint". To articulate means to put the pieces of a thing together in such a way that they can move in relation to each other. To articulate a thought means to put the words together in such a way that the thought can flow.
I didn't use those words to impress anybody. I was trying to condense as much information as possible into my notes so I wouldn't forget what I meant later on. The track that my train of thought runs on is shorter than it used to be
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
76
60
27
35
Popular Days
Nov 25
19
Jan 31
16
Jan 26
14
Jan 21
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 76 posts
Steve Lortz 60 posts
waysider 27 posts
TLC 35 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2015
19 posts
Jan 31 2016
16 posts
Jan 26 2016
14 posts
Jan 21 2016
14 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I buried Paul. Sincerely, The Walrus
Steve Lortz
There is a thing we've been taught to do at Anderson University (all the way from freshman introductory Bible courses to grad school exegetical papers) called the hermeneutic or the exegetical circle.
Steve Lortz
I don't understand why you have a hang-up about the authorship of Luke-Acts. There are parts of the NT whose authorship is very much open to question, especially Paul's pastoral epistles, and serious
waysider
TLC/post #222:
"But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7."
Holy Bibles, Batman!!
Did we even take the same class??
That's the very essence of the whole three hour drivel fest. Indoctrination at its finest.
If the Listening With A Purpose questions give any indication, here is the very first one:
1. What are the 5 steps the serpent used to deceive Eve?
post #220:
"The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it."
Session #8 is the session that introduces the *unforgivable* sin. (not the original sin)
It's defined in part as Sin against the Holy Ghost/Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit and results in being Born Again of the Seed of Satan. (according to the 1971 syllabus)
The first teaching I ever heard on the "original sin" was contained in the Christian Family and Sex class.
edited yet again: When Wierwille taught the original sin in CF&S, he said he had no scripture references and we were supposed to just "trust" him..... (Cuz ya know, he was such a fine, upstanding and trust worthy guy. ....don't cha know?)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My apologies to all for allowing myself to engage in a discussion that has driven this thread off topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
But it's not a gun or bullet that Steve said was intended to stop people from thinking. It was words. If they come to us from a repeator tower, is the repeator tower responsible for them? If there's a gun to fit in here, it's shoot the messenger, not the message.
Sure it does. But it's looking at it from a different perspective than you're willing to accept or think possible. Therefore, it means nothing to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Consider, for example, the lives of men like Martin Luther or John Wesley."
Relevance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I think we all repackage ideas in our own ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either.
The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?
edit change:
"our ways" should read "our own ways"
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I think we all repackage ideas in our ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either."
Correct me if I'm wrong. From this unfortunate statement I surmise you minimize the blatant (and, yes, I do mean blatant.) plagiarism of VPW. I can only assume you have not given due diligence to examining the extent of his plagiarism or are, alternatively, excusing it.
Wierewille lifted entire chapters, almost word for word. In some cases, he lifted the entire work and claimed it as his own, despite lying by saying he hauled all his references to the dump and relied on God teaching him. (How's that for understanding his intent?).
If you do not yet fully understand the impact of his actions in this regard, I suggest you dig a good bit deeper into some of the sources on this site or ask for help. (suggested reading: HERE)
"The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?"
How does that show relevance?
Now, back to topic.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, there was absolutely no intent to minimize it. I was addressing that which is not identified or referred to as plagiarism.
I've probably read more than you think here. Not everything, by any stretch of the imagination. But certainly enough to be well aware of the documentation of more than a problem or two.
Because the statement of intent appeared to me to be pointed more at the doctrine of inerrancy than at Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
“Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”
..................John Wesley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
No apology necessary, waysider, at least not to me! You haven't really gone off topic. The flow of thought on this thread has gone turbulent, but it hasn't ceased... that means it's still alive!
If I remember rightly, Eve's first step on the road to perdition was that she "responded by considering." Wierwille taught that we shouldn't even consider whether or not the things he was teaching were actually so. If anybody raised any questions to us, we shouldn't even think about them.
I would judge Wierwille's words as toxic in that case.
How did Wierwille's teaching line up with other scriptures (the integrity of God's Word, you know)?
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him." Proverbs 18:13
When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, the adversary did so by asking Jesus questions. Jesus responded by considering those questions... DEEPLY considering them. Otherwise, how would Jesus have known how to defeat them so aptly? And you'll notice that Jesus didn't merely deflect the adversary's questions. He really did answer them!
All for now...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thank you, Steve.
That is my recollection of that session, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I love dealing with people who use honest tactics when debating, and I will continue to do so. Peace all.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
That's one of the reasons I so value your input, Raf. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Evidently you see what is posted here as debate, while I don't. Debate is combative, seeking victory in how it expresses its position and persuades others to accept it. I see the discussion here as seeking to identify and communicate what can be (and often are) difficult to identify and verbalize thoughts or positions on spiritual matters. There is no intent in my mind to "win," aside from simply presenting or exposing (i.e., communicating) another way to look at an issue. Perhaps you think my mind thinks in odd ways. Alright, allow me to remove the question in that. It does, and I've know it from my youth (from long before the ministry), and I used to be proud of it. It was difficult for me to eventually (rather late in life, years after my involvement in the ministry) accept that it was not an advantage. I've since recognized it for what it is, a handicap, especially when it comes to certain interactions with other people. Sure, it may allow me to see things from a different perspective than you, or anyone else here, might think possible or reasonable... or in your derogatory implication, honest. But what it also does, is it requires me to look at and consider an issue from a thousand different angles, because I have had to pay careful attention and focus on which of them (if any) you (and other "normal" people) might be viewing it from. No, I don't always get it right, that's for sure. But if allowed to (and there is interest), there's a multiplicity of ways that I can both ask questions, and openly and freely discuss a fair number things.
From a debater's perspective, maybe it appears that I "break the rules" of debate (whatever they are, I can't say.) But from the vantage point of discussion, and interest in (or the deeper examination and questioning of) why the other person might have or hold the position that they do, unconventional does not equate to or mean dishonest. So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When two people disagree about their opinions or the facts underlying them, they engage in a debate in order to get to the truth (not to "win"). Those who do so honestly, we learn from. Those who do so dishonestly find ways to dodge, distract, evade, etc. I have learned to identify such people and avoid engaging them in fruitless discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Debate is combative"
Debate is not a combative endeavour. It would be more accurate for you to say you perceive it to be combative. Perception and reality do not always agree.
"So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist."
You are correct in noting TWI is not the only place such boxes exist. However, this forum is concerned with TWI, in particular, not those other places.
Can we return to topic now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
My wife, father-in-law, daughter and grand-daughter are all on the autism spectrum, which used to be called "Asperger's". I am coming to think that ALL people are on it to one degree or another. One of the seventh-graders in one of my classes was on the autism spectrum, and he taught me that there is no such thing as a genuine education that is not also a special education.
If you are on the spectrum, TLC, then I applaud you for taking on subjects that are especially difficult for my wife and others...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that may be, Steve, but I've never been officially diagnosed as such. (Though, neither have I been tested for it... lol. Being the class leader and clown in early grade school, they probably would have recommended medicating me if they had such a thing back in the day.) Not that it matters or means much, but always tested on the far end of the IQ spectrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A couple of things have been influencing my recent thinking: first, a semester's worth of Hebrew, and second, contemplation of what words actually ARE, based on the hermeneutics class I took January 11-15, 2016.
Here are the two simple conclusions I am considering:
1. The Bible is not God's primary way of communicating with us. The primary way God communicates with us is through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.
2. Words, at least "words" the way WE think about them, are not the primary way that the Holy Spirit communicates with us. The primary way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is by means of "feelings" in our hearts. We articulate those feelings when we put them into words.
The Hebrew word translated "word" is dabar, which literally means "a thing spoken." The word translated "to speak" is the same word, dabar, except it has different vowel points which make it sound like "da-VAIR." The noun is pronounced "da-BAR."
A dabar is not limited to the sounds that come out of a person's mouth. The ideas of making, doing and being are much more closely associated with the act of speaking in Hebrew than they are in English (or Greek or German for that matter). So when the Old Testament talks about a "word" (dabar), it carries with it connotations of making, doing and being, as well as of saying.
The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts.
This is how the Tanakh can be "God-breathed" even though the human language into which it has been articulated necessarily contains contradictions and errors, because it is a HUMAN LANGUAGE.
This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language.
All for now...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think you intended to post that on a different topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
No, Raf... it all fits together like a hand and a sock!
And if the Spirit of God is NOT speaking into our hearts in a human language, it doesn't really matter if a human language comes out of our mouths when we speak in tongues. Articulating debarim into human language only becomes important when interpreting a tongue or delivering prophecy (prophecy as per 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, not all the other crap floating around that people call prophecy).
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And there are all sorts of other implications...
When Paul wrote that we have the mind of Christ, it doesn't mean that we can tap into Jesus' stream of consciousness, it means that the Spirit has breathed into our hearts the heart-issues that Jesus deals with.
When Paul wrote that the law is written in our hearts, it doesn't mean you can find a copy of the ten commandments in your heart. It means the Spirit has breathed into our hearts the impulse to do righteousness.
The fundamental question of this thread was not to prove whether of not to Bible is "God-breathed" but rather to examine what it means for all scripture to be God-breathed. What does it mean for ANYTHING to be God-breathed? And I think the Spirit has been teaching me a few things.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That may be true (taken in the right way or context.)
However, it may be more sure (also, if understood in the right way or context.)
If God works in our heart to "bring to remembrance" a particular verse or passage of scripture, how is it then thought or viewed that He communicated with us?
Which means what, exactly?
So in other words, a "linguistic artifact" is a thought?
Pretty fancy name. Sorta sounds like calling the garbage man a "sanitation engineer."
Well, however you got there, I'm inclined to agree with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What's that? Fancy word for debris (aka, garbage)? LOL.
The vocab is over my head. I even went to google translate (figuring it must be a foreign one) and couldn't get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
That quote is from the first post on this thread. Everything we've been talking about on this thread has been based on awareness of actual physical breathing.
This morning I had an episode. I didn't know what it was, but as it was in process, I was describing to Elizabeth what was happening inside my mind.
I was very confused. The feeling was "I can't find things," because I couldn't.
After I recovered from the episode, three words came to my remembrance "carbon dioxide intoxication."
I had heard some medical person or another use those words once, when I was describing how I sometimes would feel confused when I woke up in the morning.
I googled "carbon dioxide intoxication" and as I read the symptoms and the causes, I recognized exactly what had happened to me.
Since then, the Lord has showed me more stuff than I can articulate yet.
All for now, more later...
Love,
Steve
By the way, TLC... dabar is a Hebrew word meaning "that which is spoken" or "word". The reason I used dabar is because the Hebrew carries with it connotations of "being", "doing" and "making" that "word" does NOT carry in Greek, German or English. Dabarim is the plural of dabar, "words". The word "articulate" comes from the Greek word arthron for "joint". To articulate means to put the pieces of a thing together in such a way that they can move in relation to each other. To articulate a thought means to put the words together in such a way that the thought can flow.
I didn't use those words to impress anybody. I was trying to condense as much information as possible into my notes so I wouldn't forget what I meant later on. The track that my train of thought runs on is shorter than it used to be
Edited by Steve LortzLink 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.