The Binder

[Van]

Pistis is the transliteration of the Greek term translated in the KJV as "faith" Pistis is formed from two roots, "Piq" meaning bind, and "tis" having the same function as "er" in English. So fundamentally, the Greek term means "binder" or that which binds.

Now lets look at how the Bible defines the term contextually. Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The word translated "substance" comes from the Greek hupostatis, which means "under" "stand" having nothing to do with comprehension, but rather with what undergirds what we stand for. So "faith" is what undergirds our hope for the realization of the promises of God. The next word of interest, "evidence" comes from the Greek elegchos, which means that which brings to light what is not easily seen. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16, the AV translates it "reproof" indicating scripture is profitable because it brings to light our sins.

In summary, Faith (Pistis) refers our heart-felt conviction that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah sent from God, and this conviction binds us such that our subsequent attitudes, hopes and deeds are tied to the reality of Jesus as our Savior.

As Paul liked to say, referring to Habakkuk, the righteous man lives by faith. Do we live like someone indebted to the one who saved us, a bondservant of Christ, or like some ungrateful twit?

Jesus referred to some as "oh you of little faith" having to do with the strength of the bond, rather than its size. Quality rather than quantity. James spoke of "dead" faith which did not result in subsequent attitudes, hopes and deeds tied to the reality of Jesus as our Savior.

A biological seed reproduces the original, faith which binds us to all Christ taught, reproduces Christ-like thoughts and actions.

 

[canadyjd]

Edit:

My apologies. I almost forgot that I’ve promised myself never to comment on your posts.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Lip service faith as espoused by Easy Believism is therefore dead faith unlikely to be credited as heart-felt and deeply rooted.

 

[Van]

If our faith is not deeply rooted, little adhesion to Christ allows following Christ to slip away into compromise. An early test for many believers is when our commitment to Christ costs us something. From going to the ball game rather than to church, to being ostracized due to our public stand for truth.

Ike said leadership is getting others to do what you want because they want to do it. A lack of leadership is demonstrated by those who "mandate" their doctrine and engage in cancel culture compulsion.

Men of little faith lack a trust in God's provision, and seek not to wait on the Lord. They might suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Hebrews 11 provides a picture of many individuals who trusted God and His promises, even in the face oft the risk of great hardship.

 

[John of Japan]

Pistis is the transliteration of the Greek term translated in the KJV as "faith" Pistis is formed from two roots, "Piq" meaning bind, and "tis" having the same function as "er" in English. So fundamentally, the Greek term means "binder" or that which binds.

The etymological error, called the "root fallacy" in D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 26-32.

 

[Van]

Just because some words come to mean something other than the original meaning, does not mean that the original meaning does not apply in every case.

Here is a published definition of "faith"

Definition

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
   1. relating to God
      1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
   2. relating to Christ
      1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
   3. the religious beliefs of Christians
   4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
   1. the character of one who can be relied on

 

[Van]

In summary, Faith (Pistis) refers our heart-felt conviction that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah sent from God, and this conviction binds us such that our subsequent attitudes, hopes and deeds are tied to the reality of Jesus as our Savior.

 

[percho]

The etymological error, called the "root fallacy" in D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 26-32.

Are the following relative outside of God the Father and the Son of God, the Word made flesh.

for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor 5:21 YLT
For the righteousness of God in it is revealed from faith to faith, according as it hath been written, 'And the righteous one by faith shall live,' Rom 1:17 YLT

Do either of those concern what we think or believe about anything or does it all concern God? The Father and the Word made flesh, the Son of God?

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from (out of, I believe to be better understanding) death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,

In reality isn't that the, obedience of faith relative to God the Father and the Son of God? From faith to faith?

These are honest questions. I know no Greek nor Hebrew just what I believe the word of God shows to be.

 

[John of Japan]

My original post here was to point out that meaning (contra Van's belief) is determined by contemporary usage, not the etymology (origin of the word, also called historical linguistics); that approach is the "root fallacy" in Carson's teaching. Think "butterfly"--not butter and it doesn't fly.

Are the following relative outside of God the Father and the Son of God, the Word made flesh.

for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor 5:21 YLT
For the righteousness of God in it is revealed from faith to faith, according as it hath been written, 'And the righteous one by faith shall live,' Rom 1:17 YLT

Do either of those concern what we think or believe about anything or does it all concern God? The Father and the Word made flesh, the Son of God?

The first verse, in context, is about being an ambassador for Christ (v. 21) "For the righteousness of God...." The word "For" is showing the reason we are to be ambassadors for Christ, namely that He died for us. So the first verse does not concern what we think or believe, but only that we should obey.

The second verse is about faith, so it does concern us. However, faith is not malleable. In other words, you either have it or you don't. There is no "deeper faith," there is simply trust in God.

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from (out of, I believe to be better understanding) death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,

In reality isn't that the, obedience of faith relative to God the Father and the Son of God? From faith to faith?

These are honest questions. I know no Greek nor Hebrew just what I believe the word of God shows to be.

This passage is from Hebrews 5:7-8, and I believe it refers to Christ's travail in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He almost died from hematidrosis. It has nothing to do with the faith or obedience of anyone but Jesus.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[Van]

Does ignorance of the word meaning for word meaning method of translation elude some? What the words meant when used, rather than how the meaning has changed since is key.

Faith was used in the NT to address the strength of the bond indicated by our walk with our claimed belief. Dead faith is not actually faith.

Those of "little faith" doubted the word of God. Thus a lack of conviction results in "little faith."

 

[John of Japan]

"The etymological fallacy is to assume that the origin of a word is its true meaning. No, the true meaning of a word is its current usage. (The etymological fallacy is sometimes called the "root fallacy," which says that the root [origin] of a word is its true meaning.)"

Careful scholarship and BB rules demand that you source your quotes. Not to do so is called plagiarism, even if you have quote marks around your uncited quote.

And now you will probably accuse me of something as you usually do when someone disagrees with you or seeks to correct you.

Wait for it, fellow BBers....

 

[Van]

Careful scholarship and BB rules demand that you source your quotes. Not to do so is called plagiarism, even if you have quote marks around your uncited quote.

And now you will probably accuse me of something as you usually do when someone disagrees with you or seeks to correct you.

Wait for it, fellow BBers....

Yet another off topic post aimed to change the subject away from the nonsense posted by JOJ. Did he show that the meaning of faith was not as the OP claimed, or did he provide any alternate meaning, or did he ignore I addressed the contextual meaning? Nope three times.

Is providing a citation in quotes plagiarism? Nope again. I made no effort to pass the citation off as something I created. The claim that I did however is a material false statement calculated to disparage me. Accepted rules for submissions to academic authorities do not apply to on-line posts.

Why these off topic posters are not called out for sabotage is beyond me.

 

[John of Japan]

Yet another off topic post aimed to change the subject away from the nonsense posted by JOJ. Did he show that the meaning of faith was not as the OP claimed, or did he provide any alternate meaning, or did he ignore I addressed the contextual meaning? Nope three times.

Well, BB denizens, I called it. Instead of fixing the problem--plagiarism--he decided to attack me as posting "nonsense." So he believes plagiarism is okay.

Is providing a citation in quotes plagiarism? Nope again. I made no effort to pass the citation off as something I created. The claim that I did however is a material false statement calculated to disparage me. Accepted rules for submissions to academic authorities do not apply to on-line posts.

Folks, I check research papers and their sources for a living. I quite often tell students that they must correctly source a statement. The authoritative source for how to do that is "Turabian," which is Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers (8th ed.). It has whole sections on plagiarism, but I'll just quote one section: "Your first duty as a researcher is to get the facts right. Your second duty is to tell readers where the facts came from. To that end, you must cite the soures of the facts, ideas, or words that you use in your paper" (p. 139).

Van refuses to source his quote. And it doesn't matter if he put it in quote marks or not, he must still cite the source, according to Turabian. And it truly does matter if the source is online or not, or if you put it in quotes without the source. In fact, Turabian gives in detail how to cite an online source in several places in the book.

Now, since he refuses to do the right an ethical thing by citing his source, and continues to say that stealing someone else's words is okay, I will cite his source for him: Word-Study Fallacies by Robert Cara, about a third of the way down the page. See how easy that was? As a professor, I sometimes do an online search if I suspect a student of plagiarism, and the source is always quite easy to find. Van could have easily cited his source.

Why these off topic posters are not called out for sabotage is beyond me.

Why Van is not called out for plagiarism is beyond me.

At the least, I will put Van back on "Ignore," and I advise others to do the same unless he repents of stealing from other writers--which is what plagiarism is. Unethical practices have no place on the BB.

 

[Van]

Ask yourselves, what percentage of citations meet academic standards?

The assertion they need to in my case, but in not the other cases tells a tale of sabotage.

And LOL, JOJ demonstrated my citation was easily sourced using modern technology. Then he had the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to claim that I claimed to have written it. I kid you not. This guy posts seem driven by animosity.

 

[Van]

So just what is it that causes our characteristics to bond to Christ's commands. Faith! Our deep seated conviction that Christ and His promises are true and worth whatever the cost to stick with HIm.

One of His commands is to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Thus to treat us and our friends one way, and others another way violates the Golden Rule of Christ.

Currently in the News the issue of "Equal Justice under the Law" has been raised. If a DA enforces laws selectively, is that equal justice? Nope

Now here is a link to a quote from JOJ.
Gail Riplinger

"But," her defenders might say, "She's a big help in opposing modern Bible versions." My answer is that she is not qualified to do that. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. She does not have any Bible degrees.
2. She does not have any formal linguistic training.
3. She claims to be a linguist because she once taught English to foreign students. Having spent 1000s of hours and 1000s of dollars to become a linguist, I don't accept someone as linguist with this incredibly meager background.
4. She has no training in Greek or Hebrew.

Did the quote in his own post have a citation? No of course not. Did the other claims have references for support? Nope.

 

[John of Japan]

Did the quote in his own post have a citation? No of course not. Did the other claims have references for support? Nope.

Well, duh. It was a hypothetical, not a real quote. You apparently missed the "might say" phrase. However, your quote was directly from someone else's essay, and was not sourced. Humble yourself, and admit you were wrong, and everyone will respect that.

As for the other statements, they are common knowledge, found several places on the Internet. Common knowledge does not need to be sourced. And I gave various other sources in that thread.

You must have looked long and hard to try to make me look wrong. Didn't work.

 

[Van]

Well, duh. It was a hypothetical, not a real quote. You apparently missed the "might say" phrase. As for the other statements, they are common knowledge, found several places on the Internet. Common knowledge does not need to be sourced.

You must have looked long and hard to try to make me look wrong. Didn't work.

LOL now quotes only need to be sourced if real. Where is the citation for that bit of nonsense.

JOJ selectively enforces his own rules. Make of that what you will...

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:

So just what is it that causes our characteristics to bond to Christ's commands. Faith! Our deep seated conviction that Christ and His promises are true and worth whatever the cost to stick with Him.

One of His commands is to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Thus to treat us and our friends one way, and others another way violates the Golden Rule of Christ.

Currently in the News the issue of "Equal Justice under the Law" has been raised. If a DA enforces laws selectively, is that equal justice? Nope Therefore selective enforcement of rules violates Christ's commands and demonstrates a lack of faith.

God bestows His blessings upon those with deep seated conviction that Christ is true and His promises are valid. Abraham springs to mind.

In his book, JFK wrote of Senators whose courage was demonstrated by choosing a course of action that would have a high price. One was Bob Taft who denounced the Nuremberg Trials as "ex post facto" which means retroactively imposing requirements.

Thus the binder causes Christians to be people of courage and integrity.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Van, John is correct.

 

[AustinC]

Well, BB denizens, I called it. Instead of fixing the problem--plagiarism--he decided to attack me as posting "nonsense." So he believes plagiarism is okay.


Folks, I check research papers and their sources for a living. I quite often tell students that they must correctly source a statement. The authoritative source for how to do that is "Turabian," which is Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers (8th ed.). It has whole sections on plagiarism, but I'll just quote one section: "Your first duty as a researcher is to get the facts right. Your second duty is to tell readers where the facts came from. To that end, you must cite the soures of the facts, ideas, or words that you use in your paper" (p. 139).

Van refuses to source his quote. And it doesn't matter if he put it in quote marks or not, he must still cite the source, according to Turabian. And it truly does matter if the source is online or not, or if you put it in quotes without the source. In fact, Turabian gives in detail how to cite an online source in several places in the book.

Now, since he refuses to do the right an ethical thing by citing his source, and continues to say that stealing someone else's words is okay, I will cite his source for him: Word-Study Fallacies by Robert Cara, about a third of the way down the page. See how easy that was? As a professor, I sometimes do an online search if I suspect a student of plagiarism, and the source is always quite easy to find. Van could have easily cited his source.


Why Van is not called out for plagiarism is beyond me.

At the least, I will put Van back on "Ignore," and I advise others to do the same unless he repents of stealing from other writers--which is what plagiarism is. Unethical practices have no place on the BB.

You must work for "Turnitin."