Then I suppose you won't give me the privilege of having the chance to give you my understanding of the phrase by your refusal to give it to us in English? I have a couple of friends who claim a handle on Ancient Hebrew, do I need to call them to find out the English words, or can I count on you to do so this last time? Both of them teach Bible in Jewsih synagogues at present.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
PARABLES
- Thread starter Charles Meadows
- Start date
ScottEmerson
Active Member
No, but they are a detraction from the relative facts of John 11, but if you examine the uncertain affinity factor concerning what you propose, you will begin to see a hint of the reality of why Jesus wept. That which you have nearly completely ignored, and that according to the main subject matter of the context, AGAIN.
</font>[/QUOTE]You brought up the issue that wept doesn't mean what John and I say it does, and presented a Greek lexicon as proof. I showed you the totality of what that lexicon said, which showed that you were in error.You continue to spout off this theory of uncertain affinity, yet I showed how uncertain affinity in no way detracts from us being able to know specifically what the words mean.
It is my belief that words are what define the context of a work. If we are to understand God's words, we have to realize that words mean things. The apostle used a specific word for a specific reason, and to understand the context of John 11, we must understand the words that John uses to write his work.
But it is nice to see that you are unable to answer something that destroys your argument. There are those of us who would consider that progress.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Not adequate, your answer is not precise.
</font>[/QUOTE]EXACTLY! Your understanding of John 11 is not adequate, your understanding is not precise.
T
Travelsong
Guest
You pose as a realist then propose some one deny the reality of God preserving His Word?
Seems rather contradictory to say the least, from a ?"realist"?
Either we have the Word of God, or we don't. Now which is it, travelsong? I know we do! In the AV 1611 KJB.
You say God communicates through His Word, but you try to convince us we can't have the Word of God for him to communicate to us because we have His Word in a human language, uh, have you ever stepped back and considered what you are actually saying? Talking about utter confusion! </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not going to bother with all the mischaracterizations on your part. Suffice it to say you don't know what you are talking about. Others here can read what I am saying and come to the correct conclusion, but you are being willfully ignorant.
Let's present a fairly believeable scenario. If today, all governments everywhere decided to rid the world of our Bibles and their source texts- they walked into our homes and churches, libraries and museums and confiscated every one, and then burned them all so that there was not one single Bible left in the world, would God's Word still be perfectly preserved? It's a simple question my friend, and one if you answer honestly, will destroy the KJVO position.
Charles Meadows
New Member
QS,
The Hebrew stuff was not the main point!!
The likely translation I would think would be, "and the warrior killed the king's servant". The point I'm trying to make is that the imperfect tense here can be either past or future (the "wa" means "and" and suggests a passive meaning using a construction called waw conversive) and both nouns for king and servant are segholates which do not have a separate construct state so they look the same. Which one is the possessive (servant of king or king of servant) we cannot say for sure. The word order will often give a hint.
Yes I do know Hebrew (not just the lexicon stuff) and yes I also have Rabbi friends. This does not make me any better Christian than you of course!! My point is this:
How can the perfect word of God be limited to human language - especially when there are so many languages - none of which line up perfectly? As I said, language is limited and God is not.
Lots of us here are bantering back and forth about "words". If everyone spokeone language and we all lived in Eden we would likely all agree 100%. But we don't - if God wanted us to have more he'd have given it! I just think we put a little too much emphasis on our own "traditions" - literalism, pretribulational rapture, young-earth creationism - they are all good; but they are all man's interpretation of God's word. We hold to some of these a little more dearly than we do to Christ's command to love one another!!
The Hebrew stuff was not the main point!!
The likely translation I would think would be, "and the warrior killed the king's servant". The point I'm trying to make is that the imperfect tense here can be either past or future (the "wa" means "and" and suggests a passive meaning using a construction called waw conversive) and both nouns for king and servant are segholates which do not have a separate construct state so they look the same. Which one is the possessive (servant of king or king of servant) we cannot say for sure. The word order will often give a hint.
Yes I do know Hebrew (not just the lexicon stuff) and yes I also have Rabbi friends. This does not make me any better Christian than you of course!! My point is this:
How can the perfect word of God be limited to human language - especially when there are so many languages - none of which line up perfectly? As I said, language is limited and God is not.
Lots of us here are bantering back and forth about "words". If everyone spokeone language and we all lived in Eden we would likely all agree 100%. But we don't - if God wanted us to have more he'd have given it! I just think we put a little too much emphasis on our own "traditions" - literalism, pretribulational rapture, young-earth creationism - they are all good; but they are all man's interpretation of God's word. We hold to some of these a little more dearly than we do to Christ's command to love one another!!
T
Travelsong
Guest
Not even fairly believable, quite unbelievable at best. You would have to destroy all believers in the process, but then that would destroy your misconception alltogether.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, we both understand you must avoid the question in order to maintain your KJOV stance. For the sake of argument thoough, answer the question. let's suppose God allowed such a thing to happen. Would God's Word still be preserved? How and why?ScottEmerson
Active Member
You really don't know what uncertain affinity is. It's sad, really.Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Wrong,"lead free" is of uncertain affinity. The range acceptable to ASTM standards is 0-2% lead.
Have I ever said I don't love each and every one of you? NO! I just like to prod yall along in your utopian conceptions of "Educated Dumbology" Especially the likes of Cranston, Scott # 1 and Scott # 2, (they can fight it out to see which is 1 or 2)and who could leave tiny unnoticed?
May that fly up your snotpipe and out your audio gathering devices!
From "The Polished Troll"
No. I gave you the answer in my response. You're just too hung up to see the answer,besides, your hypothetical scenario is too unrealistic. Can't happen. Is that TOO REAL for oyu realists? Probably so, yall are still guessing what the Word of God is, get that: WORD OF GOD ?
No. Your response is of uncertain affinity. I gave you the definition and you argue with the dictionary, but that comes to no surprise, you argue against the Word of God.
So, by YOUR definition, is it married? or unmarried? joined, or unjoinable? connected, or unconnectable? determinable, or undeterminable? certain, or UNCERTAIN!?!
We DON'T. We have TRANSLATIONS of the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Right! Yall have multitudes of translations and still, uh, growing, (I hate to give anyone the impression of something as dead as the mv's to be growing, so please excuse my lack of a better word at this time, maybe I should have said mutating), but we have the Word of God in the Holy Bible, the AV 1611 KJB.
Have I ever said I don't love each and every one of you? NO! </font>[/QUOTE] Love isn't what you say. It's what you do and your attitude towards others.
You behave unlovingly. You demonstrate none of the evidences of biblical love toward those who disagree with you here.
You called me a liar... of course you didn't disprove what I wrote, you just didn't like what I wrote. You said that I contradicted myself then when challenged on it failed to respond. You have made wild, false charges against many others here as well.
Your treatment of others is un-Christlike and gives very poor testimony to you, your beliefs, and your ministry.
If I made false, intentionally antagonistic charges against you, what would be an acceptable excuse?
BTW, I don't mind being #2. Scott E can be #1. That we none of the 3 of us will be confused about who you are addressing.
Love is patient...May that fly up your snotpipe and out your audio gathering devices!
From "The Polished Troll"
Love is kind....
Love is not jealous...
Love does not brag and is not arrogant...
Does not act unbecomingly...
It does not seek its own...
Is not provoked...
Does not take into account a wrong suffered...
Does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth.
Under these conditions, I can honestly say that I love the folks here on the BB and even those that I disagree with... even those who intentionally try to be offensive to me.
I hope that I have not been personally offensive to anyone. We are all offended at each others views on this issue... that's the nature of debating beliefs. But even at that, I am presenting what I believe to be true to those who I believe to be in error... to their own harm, the harm of others, and the harm of the body of Christ.
I am sorry QS but you are not funny. You aren't adding anything valuable to the discussion of a very serious issue by being obnoxious.
Here is my commitment. If you begin to behave like a Christian (loving the brethren, et al.) then I would like to continue interacting with you occasionally. If your testimony is going to continue to belie your claims about preaching the gospel and loving other Christians then I will not give you an occasion to continue in these sins.
God bless you.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
No. Your response is of uncertain affinity. I gave you the definition and you argue with the dictionary, but that comes to no surprise, you argue against the Word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]You incorrectly showed the dictionary, and I showed you what the dictionary really said. I'm not the one arguing with the dictionary.
It means that we don't know the etymology of the word - but we do know what it means. That's exactly what the dictionary says.
T
Travelsong
Guest
No. I gave you the answer in my response. You're just too hung up to see the answer,besides, your hypothetical scenario is too unrealistic. Can't happen. Is that TOO REAL for oyu realists? Probably so, yall are still guessing what the Word of God is, get that: WORD OF GOD ?
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah but you see, you can't avoid this question no matter how hard you try. When this world and all it's works pass through fire and are replaced with a new Heavens and a new earth and the precious corporeal KJB you worship no longer exists, will God's Word still be perfectly preserved? If so how and why?