IN fellowship, OUT OF fellowship, standing state, potahhtoe, potatoe, tomahhto, tomato.....all matters of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, just like dispensationalism. No textual or MSS evidence for either. If "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways", why would an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Father present doublespeak information to make an already raging case of confused rebelliousness somehow better? Dictor paul's warped private interpretation of grace, mercy, forgiveness, sin, fellowship and the entirely invented concepts of "standing and state" has exactly WHAT basis in scripture, or in da woid??? Please advise. Another Grimm's Brothers fairy tale notwithstanding, I look forward to documented Biblical, textual, and/or MSS evidence to validate your false premises regarding your previous error-filled post, and bedeviled exegesis.
Chaos and order are physical phenomena. I learned the concept in Physics 101.
the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives
You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible. Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible. So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????
Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature. You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post. Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?
the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives
You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible. Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible. So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????
Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature. You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post. Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?
the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives
You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible. Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible. So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????
Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature. You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post. Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?
You've missed my entire question! Still don't know if it's "serious" or not, or simply at a loss for any serious, Biblically documentable answer? All you've done so far is quote "Daraby", Bullinger, and Strong's concordance along with their numerous COMMENTARIES which apparently have been "adopted" by you and your impeccable, overly intelligent and spiritually insightful "pro-word only" linguistic, scholastic, academic expertise in all things that have absolutely nothing to do with dictor paul's warped religious cult. Whoops! You require no mention of dp in order to prove you are the sole source of all this previously undiscovered, non-plagiarized great "biblical work"! Okay.....pretend I never said his name! You're good at pretending, presuming, and plagiarizing. Don't want to sully your great reputation. Sooooo.......any attempt at a single, serious, non-bullshit answer? I humbly await your reply oh great one! TY.
The impression from the essay is a request for blind submission. There's this doctrine to follow, it's in The Bible, but no specifics about it. With out clear direction it sounds easy to screw up. I assume more instructions would then follow.
The impression from the essay is a request for blind submission. There's this doctrine to follow, it's in The Bible, but no specifics about it. With out clear direction it sounds easy to screw up. I assume more instructions would then follow.
Nope. No more instructions coming. If you don't get it, you just missed the boat. Sorry.
(formatting and links removed, so that the previous post doesn't remain invisible)
________________________________
On 7/8/2017 at 11:51 PM, WordWolf said:
...The oddest part is WHO spilled the beans on this one originally. That was CHR1S G33R of all people...
_________________________________
much like the illustration below, makes no difference who can or can't see the difference.
__________________________________________
On 7/8/2017 at 9:31 AM, TLC said:
lol...
neither does (nor can) a colorblind person see much of any difference between these:
Say or explain to them whatever you want, they will never "get" or see the difference that you do.
__________________________________________
Because, even as you've said here:
__________________________________________
On 7/8/2017 at 11:51 PM, WordWolf said:
...The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the
only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing...
__________________________________________
There remains the distinct possibility that there is a difference, regardless of who can or can't see or recognize it!
And this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or [similar] phrases that could (or might) mean the same thing.. but don't. Think agape and phileo are different? Or the same?
Axioms (upon which we base realities), like rods and cones in the eyes, can be different between us... yet they so easily determine, alter, or interfere with what we each see and think.
Fascinating. Now I can't hit "reply" on this thread on the last page, nor reply to a post there. So, I will improvise. I'm responding to the last post TLC made and it should be 2 posts before this one.
Among other things, I said: "..The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the
only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing... "
TLC replied: "There remains the distinct possibility that there is a difference, regardless of who can or can't see or recognize it!
And this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or [similar] phrases that could (or might) mean the same thing.. but don't. Think agape and phileo are different? Or the same? "
So, I reply here.... The thing is, if 2 words appear in Scripture, we compare the words. If they're demonstrated to be used differently (agape and phileo), then we say they mean 2 different things, and determine what each means and how, exactly, they differ. If they're demonstrated to be used interchangeably (krima and krisis), then we say they mean the same thing (and freak out the people who insist, despite the evidence, that 2 words in Koine Greek can't possibly mean the same thing despite there being synonyms in modern languages like, say, English and Spanish.)
Unless, of course, our doctrine's more inviolate than our search for the truth, and we're not allowed to change our answers as we learn more. BTW, if the answer is "Bullinger said it, that settles, it, I believe it", then remember he was a Trinitarian all his life as well.
This brings us back to the original point. 2 phrases are used interchangeably, and neither phrase is ever used in a context where the other was not used to say exactly the same thing. Any reasonable person would say they mean the same thing- given the evidence at hand. But that's not enough, because it MIGHT be possible that we missed something and all the evidence so far is actually wrong? Funny how we're all allowed to draw conclusions UNTIL THEY DISAGREE WITH SOME AUTHORITY (Bullinger or wierwille or some other liked authority), and then suddenly the rules change and we can't say anything for sure. Seriously, that's blatant, illogical, and sad.
What any sensible person would say is- this is the sensible conclusion based on all we know, which is rather obvious and makes plenty of sense. And if, later, we find that somehow new evidence arrives and overrides everything we know now and makes more sense, THEN we CHANGE OUR MINDS in light of new information. Seriously, we don't ignore what's logical based on the idea that something MIGHT come along later and correct us.
I could be wrong, but it appears that something in rrobs last post on this page screwed the pooch (I'm guessing some open ended html code) and not only requires you to go to an earlier page to reply, but also required me to do a bit of improvising to make my post "visible."
__________________________
Now, back to the issue...
__________________________
I'm well aware of the fact that Matthew was (most likely) first written in Aramaic before being translated to Greek. However, the phrase "kingdom of God" (which also appear there) ought to make it a bit more difficult to pass both off as being "identical." Sure, you can gloss over it if you want. Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't?
No doubt there's plenty (perhaps the vast majority) of situations where it makes absolutely no difference. So, it might depend on your perspective, whether you think (or would ever care) that they have any difference whatsoever in meaning. If you know that a young family's father has promised to one day give them a puppy, and one day he comes home holding a puppy... do you care or give a blink anything more than the simple fact of the matter, that he fulfilled his promise? Yet, if YOU were one of the kids, and you knew much more intricate details of the promise, and happen to be greatly looking forward to papa bringing home a golden doodle puppy... is any ol' puppy going to do? Your brother might be tickled pink, 'cause what he cares most about is that it's a dog, and that's all he's been talking or thinking about for years. But what's your talk and focus going to be?
There's a plethora of prophecies that were given to Israel about a promised "earthly" kingdom, that as of yet, have not been fulfilled.
Maybe it depends on how you want to look at it, or maybe it depends on how (given what you do or don't know) you can look at it. Some people just can't see the 6 and the 8, while to other people they're as plain as the nose on your face.
Boy, I'll sure be glad when we make it off this page. This posting by multiple steps is tedious, especially if I want to reply with a quote.
"BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape."
Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.)
However, if you want a side-discussion about people who talk about the different words for "love" and their corresponding Greek words, there's been lots of discussion about that by experts. We discussed that in Communications class when I was in college, and other people discussed it in Psychology. If you're actually interested, here's a pair of links to start with:
"Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? "
The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. (Or the religious organization you consider to be authoritative and the last word on a subject.) In the case of "kingdom of heaven" vs "kingdom of God", the 2 things to consider more than any other are: 1) what is the literal meaning of the word/each word in the phrase, and
2) what is the demonstrated meaning of the word/phrase as used in the Bible?
Example: "ekklesia". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "those called out". However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "assembly". Sometimes the construction of the word doesn't give you what it means.
Example: "katabole". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "casting down." However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "foundation" (a foundation is cast down so it can support the building that is constructed next.)
To take 2 phrases that are used interchangeably and insist they mean 2 things that are NOT interchangeable is irresponsible, and imposing your opinion on the text. That's not an honest way to do research, or to find answers. To imagine there MIGHT be another meaning- when the Bible does not offer one- is a fun exercise, but devoid of authority. An active imagination is a nice thing, but not when doing textual study.
As I really just don't have the energy (nor concern) to wade any deeper into the weeds of it (...and that we'd probably end up simply having to disagree), I'll try to keep this as brief and as succinct as possible.
WW: Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas.
Your first sentence might seem reasonable and sufficient enough, if only everyone knew (and could agree on) what the Bible actually says . But, from what appears in your next sentence, we don't. Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?
WW: Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.)
Given my own experience and observations of TWI culture, there was (and largely still is) such a heavy emphasis and dependency on dissecting and "nitpicking" the words of a verse apart, and so relatively very little on how it might genuinely align with the rest of scripture (and life), it is typically impossible to find the truth, whether with a pick and shovel, a block and hammer, or through the lens of the most powerful microscope. If the Lord doesn't open it up and reveal it to you, then you just ain't going to know, no matter how hard you beat your head against it, and regardless of how dang smart or intelligent you are or aren't. It's simply the nature of scripture.
WW: The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself.
I had hoped that the previous analogy would have communicated that two people can hear the exact same thing, yet because of what their interest is or was at the time, their take away from it varies. Your claim (or belief) is that because different words used by two different writers to describe the exact same event, the words must mean and communicate the exact same thing. But, I see that as a mistake. Hence, we disagree.
Why does the gospel of Matthew open with a declaration of him as the son of (king) David, the son of Abraham, and only record his genealogy from them, while the gospel of Luke traces it all the way back to Adam? Why make the distinction?
Well, enough here. If you can figure out where I'm coming from, and how or why I see it differently, fine. But if not, then so be it. I don't know that I can (or want to) say it much differently.
Given my own experience and observations of TWI culture, there was (and largely still is) such a heavy emphasis and dependency on dissecting and "nitpicking" the words of a verse apart, and so relatively very little on how it might genuinely align with the rest of scripture (and life), it is typically impossible to find the truth, whether with a pick and shovel, a block and hammer, or through the lens of the most powerful microscope. If the Lord doesn't open it up and reveal it to you, then you just ain't going to know, no matter how hard you beat your head against it, and regardless of how dang smart or intelligent you are or aren't. It's simply the nature of scripture. - TLC
I thinkI agree with you here (TLC).
TWI got far two detailed, likely, IMO, in order misdirect, contort and force unintended meaning, for their own purpose.
I also believe we agree that there's different perceptions, like your example with colorblindness. Some people can see what other's just simply can't.
But there are also tools to help with that. I regularly use a spectrometer to see wavelengths of light I otherwise could not.
But I think you are right about something in saying the Lord has to open it up and reveal it to you.
We have about 3 billion years of evolution built into us, or we are the result of all that past. We have multiple ways of seeing the world. (More than 5 senses, in Wayspeak) Not all of those things are easily articulated. (like you know, mixed emotion, or non-conscience systems). Sometimes, if we're not thinking so damn much, we can see other things that are not easily explained. So if you read a passage in The Bible, and don't apply all of Wierwilles "tools", other meaning might open up?
"Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?"
If there IS a polite way to say it, you sure didn't try very hard to find it. Even the "vpw was God's prophet/apostle/everything" people usually aren't this overtly rude to me, and they have a vested interest in keeping me quiet.
Interesting how you completely skipped that there's been lots of discussions about the differences between those and other related-but-different Greek words to say "you're wrong and you're stupid" for saying they're related-but-different words.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
18
11
40
Popular Days
Jul 4
38
Jul 8
18
Jul 9
10
Jul 5
10
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 9 posts
waysider 18 posts
Bolshevik 11 posts
rrobs 40 posts
Popular Days
Jul 4 2017
38 posts
Jul 8 2017
18 posts
Jul 9 2017
10 posts
Jul 5 2017
10 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
What are the five things you must know to receive anything from a troll ? 1. Know what’s available: bull$hit, lies, and deception 2. Know how to receive it: engage a troll in a discussion ab
chockfull
Dumb and Dumber was a quaint movie that most humans chose to ignore, but it seems to offer an appropriate analogy on this thread. Here in this clip, Jeff Daniels is fooled by Jim Carey, who to pu
Twinky
Y'know, I have NEVER heard any other organization talk about "standing" and "state". Haven't thought of it for years. Rarely have I heard talk of one's "walk." I attend two very good churches re
Posted Images
rrobs
It is my very own trailer. If you want to confirm, checkout copyscape.com.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Not talking about pushing or pulling people.
The Bible has the doctrine.
Chaos and order are physical phenomena. I learned the concept in Physics 101.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
IN fellowship, OUT OF fellowship, standing state, potahhtoe, potatoe, tomahhto, tomato.....all matters of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, just like dispensationalism. No textual or MSS evidence for either. If "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways", why would an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Father present doublespeak information to make an already raging case of confused rebelliousness somehow better? Dictor paul's warped private interpretation of grace, mercy, forgiveness, sin, fellowship and the entirely invented concepts of "standing and state" has exactly WHAT basis in scripture, or in da woid??? Please advise. Another Grimm's Brothers fairy tale notwithstanding, I look forward to documented Biblical, textual, and/or MSS evidence to validate your false premises regarding your previous error-filled post, and bedeviled exegesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives
You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible. Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible. So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????
Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature. You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post. Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
This might help: Analogy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
You've missed the whole point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
You've missed my entire question! Still don't know if it's "serious" or not, or simply at a loss for any serious, Biblically documentable answer? All you've done so far is quote "Daraby", Bullinger, and Strong's concordance along with their numerous COMMENTARIES which apparently have been "adopted" by you and your impeccable, overly intelligent and spiritually insightful "pro-word only" linguistic, scholastic, academic expertise in all things that have absolutely nothing to do with dictor paul's warped religious cult. Whoops! You require no mention of dp in order to prove you are the sole source of all this previously undiscovered, non-plagiarized great "biblical work"! Okay.....pretend I never said his name! You're good at pretending, presuming, and plagiarizing. Don't want to sully your great reputation. Sooooo.......any attempt at a single, serious, non-bullshit answer? I humbly await your reply oh great one! TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Nope. My understanding of analogy is not the problem. At least you've not shown for that to be the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm trying to tell you why your 6 paragraph essay is incoherent.
The reader can only guess what your point even is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Well, I made an analogy and it seemed to go over your head. Don't know what more I can do to help you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Well then, make your best guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You get infinite do-overs. Rewrite it. Break down your reasoning further. Don't begin with an analogy, but use it to support previous statements.
Just ideas. I think there IS more you can do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The impression from the essay is a request for blind submission. There's this doctrine to follow, it's in The Bible, but no specifics about it. With out clear direction it sounds easy to screw up. I assume more instructions would then follow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Nope. No more instructions coming. If you don't get it, you just missed the boat. Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
(formatting and links removed, so that the previous post doesn't remain invisible)
________________________________
On 7/8/2017 at 11:51 PM, WordWolf said:
...The oddest part is WHO spilled the beans on this one originally. That was CHR1S G33R of all people...
_________________________________
much like the illustration below, makes no difference who can or can't see the difference.
__________________________________________
repost
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone!! Excellent post! I couldn't have said it any better myself!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Fascinating. Now I can't hit "reply" on this thread on the last page, nor reply to a post there. So, I will improvise. I'm responding to the last post TLC made and it should be 2 posts before this one.
Among other things, I said: "..The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the
only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing... "
TLC replied: "There remains the distinct possibility that there is a difference, regardless of who can or can't see or recognize it!
And this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or [similar] phrases that could (or might) mean the same thing.. but don't. Think agape and phileo are different? Or the same? "
So, I reply here.... The thing is, if 2 words appear in Scripture, we compare the words. If they're demonstrated to be used differently (agape and phileo), then we say they mean 2 different things, and determine what each means and how, exactly, they differ. If they're demonstrated to be used interchangeably (krima and krisis), then we say they mean the same thing (and freak out the people who insist, despite the evidence, that 2 words in Koine Greek can't possibly mean the same thing despite there being synonyms in modern languages like, say, English and Spanish.)
Unless, of course, our doctrine's more inviolate than our search for the truth, and we're not allowed to change our answers as we learn more. BTW, if the answer is "Bullinger said it, that settles, it, I believe it", then remember he was a Trinitarian all his life as well.
This brings us back to the original point. 2 phrases are used interchangeably, and neither phrase is ever used in a context where the other was not used to say exactly the same thing. Any reasonable person would say they mean the same thing- given the evidence at hand. But that's not enough, because it MIGHT be possible that we missed something and all the evidence so far is actually wrong? Funny how we're all allowed to draw conclusions UNTIL THEY DISAGREE WITH SOME AUTHORITY (Bullinger or wierwille or some other liked authority), and then suddenly the rules change and we can't say anything for sure. Seriously, that's blatant, illogical, and sad.
What any sensible person would say is- this is the sensible conclusion based on all we know, which is rather obvious and makes plenty of sense. And if, later, we find that somehow new evidence arrives and overrides everything we know now and makes more sense, THEN we CHANGE OUR MINDS in light of new information. Seriously, we don't ignore what's logical based on the idea that something MIGHT come along later and correct us.
Edited by WordWolfFormatting problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I could be wrong, but it appears that something in rrobs last post on this page screwed the pooch (I'm guessing some open ended html code) and not only requires you to go to an earlier page to reply, but also required me to do a bit of improvising to make my post "visible."
__________________________
Now, back to the issue...
__________________________
I'm well aware of the fact that Matthew was (most likely) first written in Aramaic before being translated to Greek. However, the phrase "kingdom of God" (which also appear there) ought to make it a bit more difficult to pass both off as being "identical." Sure, you can gloss over it if you want. Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't?
No doubt there's plenty (perhaps the vast majority) of situations where it makes absolutely no difference. So, it might depend on your perspective, whether you think (or would ever care) that they have any difference whatsoever in meaning. If you know that a young family's father has promised to one day give them a puppy, and one day he comes home holding a puppy... do you care or give a blink anything more than the simple fact of the matter, that he fulfilled his promise? Yet, if YOU were one of the kids, and you knew much more intricate details of the promise, and happen to be greatly looking forward to papa bringing home a golden doodle puppy... is any ol' puppy going to do? Your brother might be tickled pink, 'cause what he cares most about is that it's a dog, and that's all he's been talking or thinking about for years. But what's your talk and focus going to be?
There's a plethora of prophecies that were given to Israel about a promised "earthly" kingdom, that as of yet, have not been fulfilled.
Maybe it depends on how you want to look at it, or maybe it depends on how (given what you do or don't know) you can look at it. Some people just can't see the 6 and the 8, while to other people they're as plain as the nose on your face.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Boy, I'll sure be glad when we make it off this page. This posting by multiple steps is tedious, especially if I want to reply with a quote.
"BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape."
Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.)
However, if you want a side-discussion about people who talk about the different words for "love" and their corresponding Greek words, there's been lots of discussion about that by experts. We discussed that in Communications class when I was in college, and other people discussed it in Psychology. If you're actually interested, here's a pair of links to start with:
https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/love-styles.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel_theory_of_love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? "
The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. (Or the religious organization you consider to be authoritative and the last word on a subject.) In the case of "kingdom of heaven" vs "kingdom of God", the 2 things to consider more than any other are: 1) what is the literal meaning of the word/each word in the phrase, and
2) what is the demonstrated meaning of the word/phrase as used in the Bible?
Example: "ekklesia". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "those called out". However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "assembly". Sometimes the construction of the word doesn't give you what it means.
Example: "katabole". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "casting down." However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "foundation" (a foundation is cast down so it can support the building that is constructed next.)
To take 2 phrases that are used interchangeably and insist they mean 2 things that are NOT interchangeable is irresponsible, and imposing your opinion on the text. That's not an honest way to do research, or to find answers. To imagine there MIGHT be another meaning- when the Bible does not offer one- is a fun exercise, but devoid of authority. An active imagination is a nice thing, but not when doing textual study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As I really just don't have the energy (nor concern) to wade any deeper into the weeds of it (...and that we'd probably end up simply having to disagree), I'll try to keep this as brief and as succinct as possible.
Your first sentence might seem reasonable and sufficient enough, if only everyone knew (and could agree on) what the Bible actually says . But, from what appears in your next sentence, we don't. Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?
Given my own experience and observations of TWI culture, there was (and largely still is) such a heavy emphasis and dependency on dissecting and "nitpicking" the words of a verse apart, and so relatively very little on how it might genuinely align with the rest of scripture (and life), it is typically impossible to find the truth, whether with a pick and shovel, a block and hammer, or through the lens of the most powerful microscope. If the Lord doesn't open it up and reveal it to you, then you just ain't going to know, no matter how hard you beat your head against it, and regardless of how dang smart or intelligent you are or aren't. It's simply the nature of scripture.
I had hoped that the previous analogy would have communicated that two people can hear the exact same thing, yet because of what their interest is or was at the time, their take away from it varies. Your claim (or belief) is that because different words used by two different writers to describe the exact same event, the words must mean and communicate the exact same thing. But, I see that as a mistake. Hence, we disagree.
Why does the gospel of Matthew open with a declaration of him as the son of (king) David, the son of Abraham, and only record his genealogy from them, while the gospel of Luke traces it all the way back to Adam? Why make the distinction?
Well, enough here. If you can figure out where I'm coming from, and how or why I see it differently, fine. But if not, then so be it. I don't know that I can (or want to) say it much differently.
Edited by TLCsp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TLC:
"Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?"
If there IS a polite way to say it, you sure didn't try very hard to find it. Even the "vpw was God's prophet/apostle/everything" people usually aren't this overtly rude to me, and they have a vested interest in keeping me quiet.
Interesting how you completely skipped that there's been lots of discussions about the differences between those and other related-but-different Greek words to say "you're wrong and you're stupid" for saying they're related-but-different words.
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.