Harmony or Hostility?

[Van]

“Ignorant blowhard”?
Perhaps one should wonder why such offensive epithets are allowed.

Yet another flagrant attempt to insult me rather than address the topic. How could anyone believe this behavior is Christian behavior.

Back to topic:

When one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.

In the mistranslation "from the foundation of the world" both "foundation and world" are mistranslated. The phrase should be rendered "since the down-casting of humanity." This translation choice is accurate, historical, and valid if not traditional.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yet another flagrant attempt to insult me rather than address the topic. How could anyone believe this behavior is Christian behavior. …

LOL. Now that’s rich. My post quoted your post containing name-calling aimed at another poster and you claim it is a “flagrant attempt to insult” you! Sounds like an admission that your own behavior was not Christian behavior.

 

[Van]

LOL. Now that’s rich. My post quoted your post containing name-calling aimed at another poster and you claim it is a “flagrant attempt to insult” you! Sounds like an admission that your own behavior was not Christian behavior.

Once again this poster is addressing me and not the topic. The Ignorant Blowhard had just posted SIX paragraphs, each starting with "YOU" in another flagrant attempt to insult me.

Back to topic:

When one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.

In the mistranslation "from the foundation of the world" both "foundation and world" are mistranslated. The phrase should be rendered "since the down-casting of humanity." This translation choice is accurate, historical, and valid if not traditional.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Once again this poster is addressing me and not the topic. The Ignorant Blowhard had just posted SIX paragraphs, each starting with "YOU" in another flagrant attempt to insult me. …

Just for the record, calling someone an “ignorant blowhard” is addressing them and not the topic. And now another post doubling down, repeating the insult, and even capitalizing the offense. Ah, a capital offense!

 

[Van]

Just for the record, calling someone an “ignorant blowhard” is addressing them and not the topic. And now another post doubling down, repeating the insult, and even capitalizing the offense. Ah, a capital offense!

Just for the record, people who know nothing of biblical doctrine should not be allowed to post off topic posts. Then the ignorant blowhards would not be allowed to post off topic troll posts.
Back to topic:

When one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.

In the mistranslation "from the foundation of the world" both "foundation and world" are mistranslated. The phrase should be rendered "since the down-casting of humanity." This translation choice is accurate, historical, and valid if not traditional.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
When one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.

In the mistranslation "from the foundation of the world" both "foundation and world" are mistranslated. The phrase should be rendered "since the down-casting of humanity." This translation choice is accurate, historical, and valid if not traditional.

Perhaps some posts could be better worded in addressing the problem with that one.

It is wrongheaded to assume that all possible usages of a word (its full range of meanings) are valid choices for a given context. When dealing with a foreign language, one’s own may not be a good guide in making the decision.

Only someone very familiar with the language, as well as with the time and culture of the passage, will be able to make a good decision. In the case of the Bible, it may take experts from a variety of fields to provide enough information to determine the correct translation.

This doesn’t mean one cannot challenge the experts to find out what process they went through to determine their translation of a particular passage. However, that is not the same as being qualified to replace the results of the experts with inexpert results.

 

[Silverhair]

I gave you sound advice.

You are, at best, an amateur Greek student and yet you start numerous threads suggesting Christians disregard 2000 years of traditional understanding of scripture that is supported by countless Greek Scholars that have devoted decades of their lives in intense study of Biblical Greek.

You appear to have only one motivation in your attempt to comprehend Biblical Greek. You are looking for some way to undermine the passages of scripture that support Calvinism.

Please Van, stop this madness. Just accept what scripture says and you will be much happier.

peace to you

But what I have noticed is that none of you have addressed what @Van said but you just attack him. From what I have seen on this board that is a common approach of those that hold to the Calvinist view. Ad hominem attacks but not much in actual dealing with the subject of the OP.

From just a quick read @Van seems to have drawn reasonable conclusions from the text, if you disagree then give your reasons for doing so rather than just the standard Calvinist response. If you want to be taken seriously then start acting that way.

 

[canadyjd]

But what I have noticed is that none of you have addressed what @Van said but you just attack him. From what I have seen on this board that is a common approach of those that hold to the Calvinist view. Ad hominem attacks but not much in actual dealing with the subject of the OP.

From just a quick read @Van seems to have drawn reasonable conclusions from the text, if you disagree then give your reasons for doing so rather than just the standard Calvinist response. If you want to be taken seriously then start acting that way.

Then you haven’t been reading the responses to his threads. Several folks on this board are certainly very knowledgeable in biblical Greek and a couple actually teach it. Van has acknowledged he has no formal education in the biblical Greek and it shows in every thread he starts

They have spent countless time attempting to show Van why his analysis of the Greek isn’t appropriate according to the scholars view of Greek syntax.

Any such efforts are dismissed out of hand with personal attacks (duh!, taint so! false doctrine!! Accusations of being influenced by Calvinism! etc…)

And you parrot that attack by..

1. Claiming no one addresses his claims which is simply false

2. Claiming the “Calvinists” are attacking him.

Peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

Then you haven’t been reading the responses to his threads. Several folks on this board are certainly very knowledgeable in biblical Greek and a couple actually teach it. Van has acknowledged he has no formal education in the biblical Greek and it shows in every thread he starts

They have spent countless time attempting to show Van why his analysis of the Greek isn’t appropriate according to the scholars view of Greek syntax.

Any such efforts are dismissed out of hand with personal attacks (duh!, taint so! false doctrine!! Accusations of being influenced by Calvinism! etc…)

And you parrot that attack by..

1. Claiming no one addresses his claims which is simply false

2. Claiming the “Calvinists” are attacking him.

Peace to you

My bad did not notice there were so many comments but as to the attacks on @Van that seems to be quite a common thing on this board. You may not agree with what he has said, I do not agree with him all the time. But do you think the personal attacks are helpful, I don't.

I have notice that most of the Ad hominem attacks come from the Calvinist side of the argument. Not a very Christian attitude.

You and I disagree most times but we do keep it civil even in disagreement.

 

[canadyjd]

My bad did not notice there were so many comments but as to the attacks on @Van that seems to be quite a common thing on this board. You may not agree with what he has said, I do not agree with him all the time. But do you think the personal attacks are helpful, I don't.

I have notice that most of the Ad hominem attacks come from the Calvinist side of the argument. Not a very Christian attitude.

You and I disagree most times but we do keep it civil even in disagreement.

I agree any personal attacks are unproductive. It flows in all directions.

peace to you

 

[Van]

SNIP

It is wrongheaded to assume that all possible usages of a word (its full range of meanings) are valid choices for a given context.
SNIP

This doesn’t mean one cannot challenge the experts to find out what process they went through to determine their translation of a particular passage. However, that is not the same as being qualified to replace the results of the experts with inexpert results.

Thanks for presenting your views on the topic of individual independent bible study. I disagree, but you provided one way of looking at study.

1) I agree the full range of meanings are not valid, as the context points to which one of the meanings is probably intended. But that is the view I presented.

2) Every born anew believer is "qualified" to assess the differing interpretations of a biblical text, and determine through prayer, study, meditation and consulting others, which view seems best.

 

[Van]

Back to topic:

When one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.

In the mistranslation "from the foundation of the world" both "foundation and world" are mistranslated. The phrase should be rendered "since the down-casting of humanity." This translation choice is accurate, historical, and valid if not traditional.

Some have suggested "experts" do not agree the Greek word mistranslated "foundation" means down-cast or cast down. The experts who prepare the Lexicons disagree.

Some have suggested "experts" do not agree the Greek word mistranslated "world" means humanity. The experts who prepare the Lexicons disagree.

God did not give His Son to save the planet, as it will be destroyed, but He did give His Son to save humanity, everyone believing into Christ. Thus the context of John 3:16 dictates choosing "humanity" rather than "world."