Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

[ETA - the first use of ekklesia in the LXX is in Deut. 4:10, where it refers to the whole nation of Israel. Care to reconsider about whether the LXX supports your theory?]

Deut. 4:10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

If you will look at the context, all Israel actually assembled together as a local visible assembly at the foot of Mount Sinai. If it were merely speaking to Israel as a scattered unassembled nation there would be no sense in saying "gather me the people together" would there???? Hence, it is not used in Deut. 4:10 of an UNassembled people. Of course, by your "sound hermeneutics" wet can mean dry and therefore assemble together can mean unassembled and apart.

 

[Matt Black]

I said 'sound exegesis', not 'sound hermeneutics'; there is a difference between the two. Do try to keep up...

 

[Dr. Walter]

I said 'sound exegesis', not 'sound hermeneutics'; there is a difference between the two. Do try to keep up...

Ok, but does that turn your eisgesis into exegesis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Black
[ETA - the first use of ekklesia in the LXX is in Deut. 4:10, where it refers to the whole nation of Israel. Care to reconsider about whether the LXX supports your theory?]

Deut. 4:10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

If you will look at the context, all Israel actually assembled together as a local visible assembly at the foot of Mount Sinai. If it were merely speaking to Israel as a scattered unassembled nation there would be no sense in saying "gather me the people together" would there???? Hence, it is not used in Deut. 4:10 of an UNassembled people. Of course, by your "sound exegesis" wet can mean dry and therefore assemble together can mean unassembled and apart.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW it seems by viewing the Gospel of John that the apostles did indeed speak regularily to Jesus and each other in Aramaic and thus all greek quotes of jesus are translations into greek from remembered Aramaic. John 1:42

And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

 

[Matt Black]

Well, here is a pretty nuanced study from a largely Baptist perspective for you to consider.

On further study, there is an earlier use of qahal=ekklesia in the LXX: Gen 28:1-4 "....and I will make you into an ekklesia of peoples..."

[cp with TS]

 

[Dr. Walter]

BTW it seems by viewing the Gospel of John that the apostles did indeed speak regularily to Jesus and each other in Aramaic and thus all greek quotes of jesus are translations into greek from remembered Aramaic. John 1:42

The issue is not what they may or may not have spoken but the issue is what the Holy Spirit has provided for us as inspired scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

The issue of what was spoken is very important on the matter of understanding such inspired Scripture

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The issue is not what they may or may not have spoken but the issue is what the Holy Spirit has provided for us as inspired scripture.

Its very much at issue. Because If Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he called Peter rock and upon this rock I will build my church is a different understanding then saying "you are pebble and upon this boulder I will build my church. It the original were in Aramaic it would read like English. "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. See how important it is to get the sense of the original spoken language? And this debate of quhol with Matt is clear that Matt has made a good point of its use and the LXX translation of it.

 

[DHK]

Its very much at issue. Because If Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he called Peter rock and upon this rock I will build my church is a different understanding then saying "you are pebble and upon this boulder I will build my church. It the original were in Aramaic it would read like English. "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. See how important it is to get the sense of the original spoken language? And this debate of quhol with Matt is clear that Matt has made a good point of its use and the LXX translation of it.

All of that is speculation, and therefore does not matter. The NT was written and inspired in Greek. God has spoken to us through the Greek language. He has chosen that language to inspire and preserve his word. That is the only language in this case that we need to be concerned with.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All of that is speculation, and therefore does not matter. The NT was written and inspired in Greek. God has spoken to us through the Greek language. He has chosen that language to inspire and preserve his word. That is the only language in this case that we need to be concerned with.

My point is that its not speculation when we see John one it is clear. So then remust go back to aramaic understanding.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, here is a pretty nuanced study from a largely Baptist perspective for you to consider.

On further study, there is an earlier use of qahal=ekklesia in the LXX: Gen 28:1-4 "....and I will make you into an ekklesia of peoples..."

[cp with TS]

I have no idea what version you are quoting from but my LXX uses the term "sunagogas" not ekklesia. (The Septuigent Version of the Old Testament, with an English Translation and with various readings and critical notes; Zondervan Pub. 1970 edition.) No other various reading is given in the critical notes to support "ekklesia" here.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, I'll concede that point: v3 says "ὁ δὲ θεός μου εὐλογήσαι σε καὶ αὐξήσαι σε καὶ πληθύναι σε καὶ ἔσῃ εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν", but, if anything, this further muddies the waters because synagogue is used in the LXX typically to translate the more local usage of qahal, and yet here it is applied with a universalist meaning; go figure!

 

[Dr. Walter]

The issue of what was spoken is very important on the matter of understanding such inspired Scripture

The Aramic "kepha" is capable of application to either a small rock or a larger rock. Hence, the meaning of the term does not prove anything. John simply relates the Aramaic "kepha" without any specification but Matthew does not refer the reader to the Aramaic "kepha" because Jesus made an intentional play on the words "petros" versus "petra" that the Aramaic cannot convey. Most in that day were capable of conversing in two or three dialects (Latin, Greek, Aramaic) while Hebrew was the language of the temple and synoguoge.

Bottom line is you cannot use what is NOT PROVIDED to overturn the inspired language that is provided.

1. Two different terms - Petros versus Petra

2. Two different genders - Masculine gender verses feminine gender

3. Two different persons - Second person singular pronoun modifes Petros, third person singular demonstrative pronoun modifies Petra

4. Nearest antecedent for third person singular "this" in verse 18 is third person singular "it" in verse 17 which in turn modifies his confession in verse 16

You cannot take IMAGINATION and overturn solid grammatical facts that are INSPIRED by God.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...I think you're addressing TS here, not me: TS was the one who brought up Peter's name; I've been talking about qahal-adta-ekklesia

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, I'll concede that point: v3 says "ὁ δὲ θεός μου εὐλογήσαι σε καὶ αὐξήσαι σε καὶ πληθύναι σε καὶ ἔσῃ εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν", but, if anything, this further muddies the waters because synagogue is used in the LXX typically to translate the more local usage of qahal, and yet here it is applied with a universalist meaning; go figure!

I appreciate your honesty. However, synoguoge shows how general the Hebrew term qahal is but how limited ekklesia is.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Er...I think you're addressing TS here, not me: TS was the one who brought up Peter's name; I've been talking about qahal-adta-ekklesia

Both of you were basically saying the same thing and so I just chose one of you (lucky you) to address you both.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Aramic "kepha" is capable of application to either a small rock or a larger rock. Hence, the meaning of the term does not prove anything. John simply relates the Aramaic "kepha" without any specification but Matthew does not refer the reader to the Aramaic "kepha" because Jesus made an intentional play on the words "petros" versus "petra" that the Aramaic cannot convey. Most in that day were capable of conversing in two or three dialects (Latin, Greek, Aramaic) while Hebrew was the language of the temple and synoguoge.

Bottom line is you cannot use what is NOT PROVIDED to overturn the inspired language that is provided.

1. Two different terms - Petros versus Petra

2. Two different genders - Masculine gender verses feminine gender

3. Two different persons - Second person singular pronoun modifes Petros, third person singular demonstrative pronoun modifies Petra

4. Nearest antecedent for third person singular "this" in verse 18 is third person singular "it" in verse 17 which in turn modifies his confession in verse 16

You cannot take IMAGINATION and overturn solid grammatical facts that are INSPIRED by God.

The problem with your view as I see it is that John 1: clears up this issue in which it shows Jesus addressed Peter as Cephas or Kepha in Aramaic. Thus it is concluded that Jesus isn't making a play on words in greek but the greek genative structure forces the writer to use Fem vs. Masc. when initially there was no distinctive in the term rock.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW I don't believe the language is inspired but the apostolic witness is. Because the next step in saying the language is inspired is to conclude that the bible should not be translated into any language other than Hebrew or Greek. Much as KJO people believe only the AV 1611 is the only inspired translation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The problem with your view as I see it is that John 1: clears up this issue in which it shows Jesus addressed Peter as Cephas or Kepha in Aramaic. Thus it is concluded that Jesus isn't making a play on words in greek but the greek genative structure forces the writer to use Fem vs. Masc. when initially there was no distinctive in the term rock.

So you interpret the specific and complex by the non-specific and general? If you position had any validity whatsoever, Matthew would have simply stuck with the second person singular "YOU are peter and upon YOU I will build my congregation...."

 

[Dr. Walter]

BTW I don't believe the language is inspired but the apostolic witness is. Because the next step in saying the language is inspired is to conclude that the bible should not be translated into any language other than Hebrew or Greek. Much as KJO people believe only the AV 1611 is the only inspired translation.

So you do not believe "all SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration" since "ALL" Scripture certainly did not originate from the Apostles or their witness!

BTW what "apostolic witness"? According to Peter "scripture" is "MORE SURE" than apostolic verbal witness (2 Pet. 1:17-19)! Scripture is given in written WORDS!