The idiom of permission makes the active passive, not the passive active.
“She flung the plate to the floor causing it to break.”
Literally, “The plate broke,” or, “she allowed it to break.” THIS is the idiom of permission.
Bullinger wrote, “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
Therefore, “God created the heavens and the earth” is accurately understood as, ”God permitted the creation of the heavens and the earth.” The accuracy of understanding comes with knowing that active verbs were used idiomatically.
That figures of speech are common in every language is mundanely obvious to me. I am asking: is this a common idiom or a theological one?
But how does one know to switch from the literal to the figurative? Only when Yahweh’s actions need smoothing?
Literal: “Yahweh caused him to stumble.”
Idiom of Permission: “Yahweh permitted his stumbling.”
But here?
Literal: ”Yahweh delivered them...”
Idiom of Permission: “Yahweh allowed them to be delivered…”
Does the idiom apply to ALL of Yahweh’s actions?
Sorry, it sounded to me like you were asking how one knows when a figure of speech means something it literally does not say. That's a legitimate question about figures of speech in ANY language, so I answered accordingly. I'm not an expert on Hebrew- neither as a language nor as a historical study. I'm aware similar examples exist in studying other languages, and translating between them and English.
The easiest examples I can think of are between Spanish and English. In English, we can say, directly, "I like this movie", or "I love to dance," and there's equivalent phrases in Spanish. However, translated word for word, the Spanish would be "This movie is pleasing to me", or "To dance is enchanting to me." They're translated "I like this movie" or "I love to dance" anyway, as idea-for-idea translations, not word-for-word ones. (Just like people translate Bibles idea for idea or word for word.)
I think it's clear this idiom doesn't apply to ALL of Yahweh's actions- but familiarity with the language or usage would clear that up if there really was confusion-just like with any other language.
That's a much more interesting question. However, you'll need someone who's put in serious study time into HEBREW specifically for that question. I'm more familiar with studies of modern language, and even have a better chance of answering questions about Koine Greek (but I'd recommend someone who's worked on translations there more formally for a better degree of answer.)
In my humble opinion, the so-called Idiom of Permission as an explanation for Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament does not survive Occam's Razor, which is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one."
The Old Testament writers told us who Yahweh was. His character changed over time. Different writers gave him different attributes, depending on the point they were making for the story they were telling. When God needed to be limited, he was. When he needed to be omni-everything, he was. When an explanation was needed for why Israel did not prevail in a military conflict, God had a problem seeing through lead overcoming chariots of iron.
The Idiom of Permission provides a way to explain away that which was never intended to be dismissed in the first place. God sent the Flood. He didn't allow it to be sent. Genesis is clear. He did it. The angel of death in Egypt (which, it must be said, never happened)? That was Yahweh too. Exodus is explicit.
But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanation to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit!
What happened? This is not hard. The people worshipping God changed. Their values changed. Their God (who cannot change) changed with them. Suddenly he never would have done any such thing. But he said he did? Hmmm. It was a figure of speech! Get it?
Anyway, that's my nickel. I know, it's supposed to be two cents. But inflation's a bitch.
But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanationRATIONALIZE to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit!
Of course, I reply NOT to contradict Raf's insight, instead to highlight it. From the linked definition:
intransitive verbTo explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness.
intransitive verbTo dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse.
To me the idiom of permission is similar to some of the practices I see changing in reporting the news. They used to highly publicize all three names of any offender including doing foia requests for booking shots.
More recently they have refrained from publishing the serial killers names prominently in shooting incidents so as not to give them the attention or press they seek.
My understanding of the IOP is basically God is inspiring the same kind of thing so that the entire subject of the OT is not Satan, his angels, and his influenced subjects.
Bringing up Occam reminds me of an old story. A guy walks into a bathroom stall and reads “God is dead”. Nietsche. Underneath the guy crossed it out and wrote “Nietsche is dead”. God.
Is it ironic that the closest thing now to Occam is dirt and daisies?
Jokes aside, I think the simplest expression of my thought is:
The idiom of permission was not the intent of the original writers. It only became necessary when the character of Yahweh developed into someone who would never do what earlier scriptures clearly said he did.
Jokes aside, I think the simplest expression of my thought is:
The idiom of permission was not the intent of the original writers. It only became necessary when the character of Yahweh developed into someone who would never do what earlier scriptures clearly said he did.
And yet this sounds remarkably like a position in an argument.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The “intent of the original writers” huh? So in dropping the idea of an imaginary God you have replaced it with God like mind reading capabilities that you possess? Hmmmm.
Or could it just be older writers are writing about rougher times?
And could it also be that 100 percent of us here bought into VPWs snake oil and could be labeled “idiots of permission”???
But we are getting farther from the thread topic, which is ok IF enough time has passed AND the person who started the thread is ok with its evolution.
It was a serious question. To which I sought a serious answer.
This thread has now declined into frivolity and swiping at each other. Ho hum. I wish there was a way to sever off the nutty stuff so that just the relevant info is left.
Outside of Waydom and mini-me Waydom (splinter groups), has anybody ever heard of the "idiom of permission"? If yes - in the sense promoted by VPW? Bullinger has an article on it which VPW has picked up on (plagiarized from someone else's work), of course, but apart from that?
Anybody out there who has a degree in English Lit or is a grammar teacher who can shed any light?
I got into a discussion with my church's "vicar theologian" (a highly educated man, with real research papers to his name) - suggested something could be this "idiom of permission" - he gave me that pained, patient "what planet are you from?" look that Wayfers become all too familiar with when speaking with "church" people.
So just wondering...
I have never heard of anyone else using this "idiom of permission" explanation outside of TWI and its offshoots. And my comments on its usage were on topic. I'll either move off topic posts to another thread or otherwise remove them.
The Revised English Version of the Bible (REV, not to be confused with the Revised English Bible, REB) was developed by Spirit and Truth Fellowship International.
John Schoenheit pretty much runs the show, with accountability (this is not intended to in any way discredit the hard work they put into it). There's even a Wierwille on the team.
1. Who is that author? What are his credentials? Where did he study? What are his sources? We genuinely have NO IDEA. Amazon tells us nothing.
He does have a website. Doesn't she'd much light. He's a Trinitarian, so that rules out a Wierwille clone. Still could have had some intersection with TWI. But not enough to render a verdict either way [technically, that's a not guilty, but I'd go with a hung jury].
2. This is one guy. You said referenceS. Plural. But can you find another one that's clearly not TWI influenced? I couldn't. I tried, and came up with the same guy.
Others clearly have TWI fingerprints.
I mean, it's a Bullinger doctrine. Surely TWI didn't originate it.
"He turned a blind eye," is a common idiom in English that seems related to, yet distinctly separate from (pros?), the theological "idiom of permission."
I've been scouring the webs for an academic paper from a Hebrew scholar on Hebrew idioms. I found one that addresses many ancient Hebrew idioms, including several examples in 2 Samuel. It's an inexhaustible and excruciatingly technical dissertation, but no mention of the "idiom of permission." The author may have called it by another name or else alluded to it in another way, but I failed to bookmark the paper and will now have to re-search it. When I re-find it, I'll post the link.
I've seen several theological treatises and comments on message boards, but the song is same and the suspects are usual - Bullinger is often cited.
So far, I believe the idiom to be purely theological in nature and purpose, like the Trinity, or Unitarianism, or heaven and hell, or hyperdispensationalism. And, of course, this is just fine.
other things come into play with script of any origin, figures of speech are just part of the narrative, not the whole thing that is being communicated
just looking at any person writing or talking there is a lot we register to understand without having to break everything down to parts of speech, a lot of automatic understanding is already present
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
19
16
19
Popular Days
Mar 15
14
Mar 19
11
Nov 8
10
Mar 14
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
WordWolf 19 posts
Ham 16 posts
Twinky 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 15 2012
14 posts
Mar 19 2012
11 posts
Nov 8 2023
10 posts
Mar 14 2012
9 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem ri
Raf
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no gua
WordWolf
That's pretty much the same principle we see in effect when Gideon's discussed. He overthrew Baal's altar, and when people protested, he complained that BAAL should protest, since BAAL is the one who
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Apples and oranges.
The idiom of permission makes the active passive, not the passive active.
“She flung the plate to the floor causing it to break.”
Literally, “The plate broke,” or, “she allowed it to break.” THIS is the idiom of permission.
Bullinger wrote, “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
Therefore, “God created the heavens and the earth” is accurately understood as, ”God permitted the creation of the heavens and the earth.” The accuracy of understanding comes with knowing that active verbs were used idiomatically.
That figures of speech are common in every language is mundanely obvious to me. I am asking: is this a common idiom or a theological one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Sorry, it sounded to me like you were asking how one knows when a figure of speech means something it literally does not say. That's a legitimate question about figures of speech in ANY language, so I answered accordingly. I'm not an expert on Hebrew- neither as a language nor as a historical study. I'm aware similar examples exist in studying other languages, and translating between them and English.
The easiest examples I can think of are between Spanish and English. In English, we can say, directly, "I like this movie", or "I love to dance," and there's equivalent phrases in Spanish. However, translated word for word, the Spanish would be "This movie is pleasing to me", or "To dance is enchanting to me." They're translated "I like this movie" or "I love to dance" anyway, as idea-for-idea translations, not word-for-word ones. (Just like people translate Bibles idea for idea or word for word.)
I think it's clear this idiom doesn't apply to ALL of Yahweh's actions- but familiarity with the language or usage would clear that up if there really was confusion-just like with any other language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"is this a common idiom or a theological one?"
That's a much more interesting question. However, you'll need someone who's put in serious study time into HEBREW specifically for that question. I'm more familiar with studies of modern language, and even have a better chance of answering questions about Koine Greek (but I'd recommend someone who's worked on translations there more formally for a better degree of answer.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In my humble opinion, the so-called Idiom of Permission as an explanation for Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament does not survive Occam's Razor, which is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one."
The Old Testament writers told us who Yahweh was. His character changed over time. Different writers gave him different attributes, depending on the point they were making for the story they were telling. When God needed to be limited, he was. When he needed to be omni-everything, he was. When an explanation was needed for why Israel did not prevail in a military conflict, God had a problem
seeing through leadovercoming chariots of iron.The Idiom of Permission provides a way to explain away that which was never intended to be dismissed in the first place. God sent the Flood. He didn't allow it to be sent. Genesis is clear. He did it. The angel of death in Egypt (which, it must be said, never happened)? That was Yahweh too. Exodus is explicit.
But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanation to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit!
What happened? This is not hard. The people worshipping God changed. Their values changed. Their God (who cannot change) changed with them. Suddenly he never would have done any such thing. But he said he did? Hmmm. It was a figure of speech! Get it?
Anyway, that's my nickel. I know, it's supposed to be two cents. But inflation's a bitch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course, I reply NOT to contradict Raf's insight, instead to highlight it. From the linked definition:
-
intransitive verb To explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness.
-
intransitive verb To dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse.
Edited by Rockyprovide an amplified version
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To me the idiom of permission is similar to some of the practices I see changing in reporting the news. They used to highly publicize all three names of any offender including doing foia requests for booking shots.
More recently they have refrained from publishing the serial killers names prominently in shooting incidents so as not to give them the attention or press they seek.
My understanding of the IOP is basically God is inspiring the same kind of thing so that the entire subject of the OT is not Satan, his angels, and his influenced subjects.
Bringing up Occam reminds me of an old story. A guy walks into a bathroom stall and reads “God is dead”. Nietsche. Underneath the guy crossed it out and wrote “Nietsche is dead”. God.
Is it ironic that the closest thing now to Occam is dirt and daisies?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Almost thou persuadest me to engage in argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Almosdt - but you don't have permission to do so!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jokes aside, I think the simplest expression of my thought is:
The idiom of permission was not the intent of the original writers. It only became necessary when the character of Yahweh developed into someone who would never do what earlier scriptures clearly said he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
clearly redemption is in the hand of Christ
what is called God, what is it really
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And yet this sounds remarkably like a position in an argument.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The “intent of the original writers” huh? So in dropping the idea of an imaginary God you have replaced it with God like mind reading capabilities that you possess? Hmmmm.
Or could it just be older writers are writing about rougher times?
And could it also be that 100 percent of us here bought into VPWs snake oil and could be labeled “idiots of permission”???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
See, "God-like mind reading capabilities" is what turns clear writing into "he didn't mean that, he was using the idiom of permission that I made up."
***
"God says what he means and means what he says!"
Fine. Here's what he says.
"He didn't mean that."
***
Sorry, I'm not the one doing the mindreading. Just the Biblereading
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
there's more than one way to cut the pie, the true ninja slicer can use two knives
why does the flaming sword protecting the tree of life turn Every way? not just one way
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It was a serious question. To which I sought a serious answer.
This thread has now declined into frivolity and swiping at each other. Ho hum. I wish there was a way to sever off the nutty stuff so that just the relevant info is left.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have never heard of anyone else using this "idiom of permission" explanation outside of TWI and its offshoots. And my comments on its usage were on topic. I'll either move off topic posts to another thread or otherwise remove them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No English lit degrees nor am a grammar teacher. Yes shocking I know lol.
Here are some notes on the Hebrew idiom of permission from the Revised English Version
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Rom/9/18#:~:text=To be clear then%2C we,that God caused the hardening.
No connection to TWI there ….
Yeah edit. My phone died I just saw this was a Schoenheit translation.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh my.
HUGE TWI connection there.
The Revised English Version of the Bible (REV, not to be confused with the Revised English Bible, REB) was developed by Spirit and Truth Fellowship International.
About | Spirit & Truth (spiritandtruthonline.org)
John Schoenheit pretty much runs the show, with accountability (this is not intended to in any way discredit the hard work they put into it). There's even a Wierwille on the team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah well it’s not that hard to find other references
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Idiom-Permission-Troy-Edwards/dp/B0BBQLC9TF?nodl=1&dplnkId=a9c3738c-2fbc-407c-aeab-f9e04bb70028
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I disagree.
1. Who is that author? What are his credentials? Where did he study? What are his sources? We genuinely have NO IDEA. Amazon tells us nothing.
He does have a website. Doesn't she'd much light. He's a Trinitarian, so that rules out a Wierwille clone. Still could have had some intersection with TWI. But not enough to render a verdict either way [technically, that's a not guilty, but I'd go with a hung jury].
2. This is one guy. You said referenceS. Plural. But can you find another one that's clearly not TWI influenced? I couldn't. I tried, and came up with the same guy.
Others clearly have TWI fingerprints.
I mean, it's a Bullinger doctrine. Surely TWI didn't originate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
"He turned a blind eye," is a common idiom in English that seems related to, yet distinctly separate from (pros?), the theological "idiom of permission."
I've been scouring the webs for an academic paper from a Hebrew scholar on Hebrew idioms. I found one that addresses many ancient Hebrew idioms, including several examples in 2 Samuel. It's an inexhaustible and excruciatingly technical dissertation, but no mention of the "idiom of permission." The author may have called it by another name or else alluded to it in another way, but I failed to bookmark the paper and will now have to re-search it. When I re-find it, I'll post the link.
I've seen several theological treatises and comments on message boards, but the song is same and the suspects are usual - Bullinger is often cited.
So far, I believe the idiom to be purely theological in nature and purpose, like the Trinity, or Unitarianism, or heaven and hell, or hyperdispensationalism. And, of course, this is just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
other things come into play with script of any origin, figures of speech are just part of the narrative, not the whole thing that is being communicated
just looking at any person writing or talking there is a lot we register to understand without having to break everything down to parts of speech, a lot of automatic understanding is already present
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree with Nathan. It looks like this traces back past Wierwille to Bullinger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I wonder if it goes way way back to Jesus. One of the biggest is "lead us not into temptation"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That would be an example of it, not an explanation of it.
It also assumes the verse does not mean precisely what it says.
Link 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.