1. an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody's intelligence ( insult )
2. an offensive term in a now disused classification system for somebody with an IQ of about 25 or under and a mental age of less than 3 years ( dated )
[14th century. Via French and Latin < Greek idiōtēs "private person, layperson" < idios (see idio-)]
yeah, yeah, so I could have just looked at a dictionary.... Who's the idios now.
What do i think?
I think it obviously did come from idios. Although, I think it has nothing to do with the teaching of PI. He threw it out there as a useless and irrelavent fact and implicitly accused anyone who "dared" to use their own brain while reading the Bible of being an idiot....not to mention being out of control like dogs on the game.
Actually, from what I recall it was just touted as 'ones own' and loosely implied by VP as to the 'origin' of idiot. It was never referred to by VP as a 'letting loose', that's another greek word.
The "letting loose" is the interpretation part of private interpretation. It was taught as "one's own letting loose."
I don't remember the referencing of "idiot" coming from idios as a loose implication of anything. What is a "loose implication" anyway? I remember it something like..."the Greek word for private is idios. It's where we get our word "idiot" from..." or something to that effect. The little etimological fact had nothing to do with the teaching of private interpretation, yet it was thrown in anyway. It was an implication, nothing loose about it, and not an implication of the origin of the word but of the type of person that would "let loose" and privately interpret. It was an implication of anyone that might come up with a different interpretation than what VPW had come up with.
"no prophecy of scripture is of one's private interpretation" =
"leave it to the church to do the interpreting for you... idiots!"
Interestingly this is how some Catholic theologians handle this section. The church (Peter and the apostles)is the origin of the scripture, there for the church (the Pope and his posse) should give the interpretation.
if that is how the rc's do it it can't be any worse that some of the idiodic rambblings i heard while in twi
Both approaches have the same intent. Controlling the meaning of the scriptures (and thus the followers). The RC approach about it open about it, the TWI approach is cloked in the notion that the student is actually thinking things through for themselves.
Aren't words to be interpreted in light of their Biblical usage? Meaning according to what the word meant THEN, not what it means today? vee pee was violating his own rules of interpretation with idios and he did verly clearly imply that idios meant we were idiots if we tried to interpret the Bible ourselves.
Epiluo is the word used for "letting loose" and that is also taught so incorrectly it's laughable. What's worse is I pointed it out to them and they continue to teach it wrongly. Oakspear came up with a great explanation for epiluo that TWI would be wise to consider teaching, but that would give the reader some kind of freedom to think and power over their own research and thoughts.... we can't have that now, can we?
Aren't words to be interpreted in light of their Biblical usage? Meaning according to what the word meant THEN, not what it means today? vee pee was violating his own rules of interpretation with idios and he did verly clearly imply that idios meant we were idiots if we tried to interpret the Bible ourselves.
Epiluo is the word used for "letting loose" and that is also taught so incorrectly it's laughable. What's worse is I pointed it out to them and they continue to teach it wrongly. Oakspear came up with a great explanation for epiluo that TWI would be wise to consider teaching, but that would give the reader some kind of freedom to think and power over their own research and thoughts.... we can't have that now, can we?
Not to mention that epilou is about how the prophecy was given and not about how it is received and understood.
Then the writer follows this up shortly afterward (2 Peter 2:1ff) with fearmongering against "false prophets" and anyone speaking "damnable heresies" (= other Christian movements which taught any ideas at odds with those of the writer and his church); much emphasis on judgement and destruction (vs. the emphasis of ideas by other Christian and gnostic movements). The letter appears to me more a reconfiguration, a recasting of Pauline themes - going out his way to add the statement about things in Paul's epistles "hard to be understood" (3:16), "things which the untaught and unestablished twist (= Marcionites, gnostics, other Christian movements)."as other scriptures, to their own destruction".
2nd Peter isn't categorized among "the Catholic epistles" for nought, a work seemingly contrived for touting the authority of one canon of scriptures against those of other competing movements at the time.
Recommended Posts
Hope R.
From Encarta...
idio-
prefix
Definition:
private, individual, proper, or distinctive
--idiolect
--idiomorphic
[< Greek idios "your own, private" < Indo-European, "self"]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
id·i·ot (plural id·i·ots)
noun
Definition:
1. an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody's intelligence ( insult )
2. an offensive term in a now disused classification system for somebody with an IQ of about 25 or under and a mental age of less than 3 years ( dated )
[14th century. Via French and Latin < Greek idiōtēs "private person, layperson" < idios (see idio-)]
Whaddya think???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
yeah, yeah, so I could have just looked at a dictionary.... Who's the idios now.
What do i think?
I think it obviously did come from idios. Although, I think it has nothing to do with the teaching of PI. He threw it out there as a useless and irrelavent fact and implicitly accused anyone who "dared" to use their own brain while reading the Bible of being an idiot....not to mention being out of control like dogs on the game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Actually, from what I recall it was just touted as 'ones own' and loosely implied by VP as to the 'origin' of idiot. It was never referred to by VP as a 'letting loose', that's another greek word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
The "letting loose" is the interpretation part of private interpretation. It was taught as "one's own letting loose."
I don't remember the referencing of "idiot" coming from idios as a loose implication of anything. What is a "loose implication" anyway? I remember it something like..."the Greek word for private is idios. It's where we get our word "idiot" from..." or something to that effect. The little etimological fact had nothing to do with the teaching of private interpretation, yet it was thrown in anyway. It was an implication, nothing loose about it, and not an implication of the origin of the word but of the type of person that would "let loose" and privately interpret. It was an implication of anyone that might come up with a different interpretation than what VPW had come up with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
If I may "let loose" on this verse...
"no prophecy of scripture is of one's private interpretation" =
"leave it to the church to do the interpreting for you... idiots!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Danny, you're surely going to hell for that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The "Johnny-come-lateliness" nature of these Petrine "epistles" may provide one great reason for comfort.
It's okay apocrypha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Interestingly this is how some Catholic theologians handle this section. The church (Peter and the apostles)is the origin of the scripture, there for the church (the Pope and his posse) should give the interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
if that is how the rc's do it it can't be any worse that some of the idiodic rambblings i heard while in twi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Both approaches have the same intent. Controlling the meaning of the scriptures (and thus the followers). The RC approach about it open about it, the TWI approach is cloked in the notion that the student is actually thinking things through for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Aren't words to be interpreted in light of their Biblical usage? Meaning according to what the word meant THEN, not what it means today? vee pee was violating his own rules of interpretation with idios and he did verly clearly imply that idios meant we were idiots if we tried to interpret the Bible ourselves.
Epiluo is the word used for "letting loose" and that is also taught so incorrectly it's laughable. What's worse is I pointed it out to them and they continue to teach it wrongly. Oakspear came up with a great explanation for epiluo that TWI would be wise to consider teaching, but that would give the reader some kind of freedom to think and power over their own research and thoughts.... we can't have that now, can we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Not to mention that epilou is about how the prophecy was given and not about how it is received and understood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I second Hope's post - and idios is still used in modern Greek (Hubby is ESL - his first language is Greek).
Yes, it's VPW saying you are an idiot if you P.I.
Of course, then you're being told to follow a man* - so, how smart is THAT?
(man as is MOG - don't twist this that I'm being sexist or something, k?)
By the way - Did a word-by-word word study on that verse once - Basically, it says something like this:
"You, by no way, means or form, are capable by one iota of your own self, able to fully comprehend that which God has given you in written form."
You get the jest of it, I'm sure - I can dig out the old, dog-eared, extensively written in Bible, if I have to...
Edited by ChasUFarleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Then the writer follows this up shortly afterward (2 Peter 2:1ff) with fearmongering against "false prophets" and anyone speaking "damnable heresies" (= other Christian movements which taught any ideas at odds with those of the writer and his church); much emphasis on judgement and destruction (vs. the emphasis of ideas by other Christian and gnostic movements). The letter appears to me more a reconfiguration, a recasting of Pauline themes - going out his way to add the statement about things in Paul's epistles "hard to be understood" (3:16), "things which the untaught and unestablished twist (= Marcionites, gnostics, other Christian movements)."as other scriptures, to their own destruction".
2nd Peter isn't categorized among "the Catholic epistles" for nought, a work seemingly contrived for touting the authority of one canon of scriptures against those of other competing movements at the time.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well, ive seen it with my own eyes, so i just hafta say
that not all RCs approach scripture alike
RC history has quite a few rowdies, both men and women,
who approached scripture much different than is commonly thought of them
and some have contributed amazing insight to the overall body of christian thought
especially some of those irish catholics...some real irreverent types in that lot
idiots, really
nice one, chaz
maybe we really are off the hook of textual perfection, after all
Edited by sirguessalotLink 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.