Nehemiah 8: 1-8. If it says they "gave the sense" like it does in v. 8, that means they said other words besides those in scripture.
One opinion on "gave the sense" was that they translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, since Hebrew was no longer their first language. Don't know how plausible that is.
One opinion on "gave the sense" was that they translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, since Hebrew was no longer their first language. Don't know how plausible that is.
Since this followed a period where they were taken prisoner for over a
generation, this is VERY plausible. That was the timeframe where the
language of the people went from Hebrew to Syriac, and the split
between Israelites (those kidnapped and returned) and Samaritans
(those who never left) dated from.
So, when they recovered the scrolls of Scripture, one priest
(priests and Levites exercised their Hebrew so the usage didn't
die out) would read the scroll aloud in Hebrew, while another
would provide a fair translation into Syriac. This was the first
instances of a Targum (translation from the Old Testament to
another language.)
I've heard this explanation from at least 3 different sources,
at least 2 of which never heard of twi,
and all 3 of which were completely independent of each other.
And if you want to call looking up definitions of words and understanding the culture "biblical research" have at it. I call it looking up definitions of words and understanding the culture.
The schooling so to speak in the scriptures. And there are scriptures out there you haven't read yet.even today scripture is being written.
To understand and get the wisdom from them is from the Lord.
KJV: Ps 119:27
27Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
KJV: Pr 1:1The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. 5A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. 8My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 9For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
who is the father and mother he is talking about?
KJV: Pr 14:8
8The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
What's that about the wisdom of this world in Corinthians?
Yeah...learn what you can but be ready to understand the wisdom of God.
Because it is God that opens the eyes of understanding.
But, the word was orthotomounta. PFAL says so! :blink:
And PFAL is absolutely right.
oρθοτομοuντα is the present tense, active voice, participle form (used as an adjective with the accusative case, singular person, masculine gender) of the lemma "oρθοτομoω"
I usually prefer listing the lemme, as they are what you'll find listed in the dictionaries.
I'm sure he discussed the conjugation of the word in the PFAL, as well. ((rolls eyes))
I've always likened Biblical research to Moses inquiring into the phenomenon if the burning bush, or the digging through the temple debris and finding a scroll, or Jesus finding the place where it was written...
Waiting for an exact Biblical precedence for anything we do can have it’s problems. I once met one very religious sourpuss who claimed that smiling and laughter were sin because there was no place recorded where Jesus laughed or smiled. I’m serious, and so was he!
Without getting scatological here, I wondered if that guy I met ever thought through how many other common human functions have no Biblical documentation?
Is there a Biblical precedence for banging one’s head into a wall?
*******
dmiller, I think it was you who asked, I’m unaware of any more authors who’s works were placed in the bookstore. Even Kenyon and Bullinger’s material came with a gentle warning to be careful of some small errors, and they usually treaded lightly on the big errors PFAL rescued us from. The others may have focused heavily on trinity, life immediately after death, SIT dying with the apostles, God promoting suffering, God twisting arms and free will, etc., etc.
*******
rhino, if I were to alter the wikipedia definition of a troll would you THEN believe me?
But seriously, I do seek attention but not for me. I seek to get attention focused on written PFAL. When the topic is yanked away from that and onto me I object. You may want to check the context of what I said about starting the longest thread here before you label it bragging.
*******
I remember in the early 70’s how leadership would answer that question about study, because it came up then too. We are to work diligently, watching the time because it’s short (hint, hint), IN EVERYTHING WE DO, including reading and handling of the scriptures. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY in our reading and handling the of scriptures.
*******
In my fast reading of things here I didn’t see anyone addressing the TIMING of Dr’s throwing away of his books, and what type of books they were. What I have seen is an assumption that the timing and type are such that Dr would have contradicted himself. Of course, I refrain from such.
*******
WW, sub-vocalization can be microscopic with no visible movement of the lips, or even an awareness of such. The whole point of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course is to thwart such sub-vocalizations and only involve the eyes, by scanning faster than the sub-vocalization can keep up. I took that course and thought the claimed comprehension rates were bs, but I can’t say for sure. It may have been my failing to practice enough.
*******
What the Hey and Raf, this unfit researcher thing is getting out of hand.
The context of my comments to that effect are always to the effect of me offering one of the reasons WHY I don’t participate on Raf’s AE thread, and why I feel if’s right and proper for me to ignore (non-electronically) Raf’s results.
I dodge them the way I’d dodge a speeding truck coming down the road at me. It’s dangerous to deeply consider things contrary to what I already know to be true, and I’m SATISFIED with my prior efforts with which I arrived at my surety. I see Jesus dodging questions at times, like with Pilate. I see Jesus distracting attention from devilish traps of his adversaries with statements like “who’s image is on this coin” and asking if John the Baptist was a prophet of God.
From what I’ve seen of Raf’s fitness to research and reason I’m sure his methods are fine and are well suited to his profession. If I saw a newspaper article bearing his name, it would command more respect from me than most.
*******
dmiller, you wrote: “Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.”
The problem with your statement here is that there are two "ITs" for two different times, with a gradual change over between them.
“It worked well at one time” because there were lots of leadership-type people (not necessary Corps) on the field with a recent fresh exposure to the books.
As time passed these leaders felt they had a good enough handle on the written material, cassette audio tapes and players became cheaply available shifting a lot of attention to tapes, the TVTs started building as no one heard Dr’s hints to get back into the books. Things got less stable.
Then the older leaders started dying, so they could no longer cover us drifting younger leaders with their believing and counsel. In the early 80’s Dr stepped up his calls for us to get back to the books and do a complete theological makeover, all the way up to his death, but they were all ignored.
THEN time proved that the TVTs did not work well and within one year of Dr’s death all hell broke loose.
*******
Normally, this time of year in San Diego is the rainy season, but this year it’s just like summer, so customers have been calling to have their windows washed. Until the expected monsoons hit, I may have to abbreviate some of my responses here.
These past two days I’ve hardly been able to do anything but skim read the thread and missing lots (being an Evelyn Wood flunkie) so if anyone has a pressing challenge they’d like to see my response to they’ll have to find some way to draw my attention to it, like large fonts or a PM.
Also, I’m waiting for the noise and the random target shooting to wind down here before I get into the 22 “thus saith the Lord” statements.
Has anyone thought through if we should ask management about the possibilities of a separate PFAL forum to segregate all the sub-topics that have begun to proliferate?
dmiller, I think it was you who asked, I’m unaware of any more authors who’s works were placed in the bookstore. Even Kenyon and Bullinger’s material came with a gentle warning to be careful of some small errors, and they usually treaded lightly on the big errors PFAL rescued us from.
[based on the things that were used in pfal and what was left out,
the "big errors" must be "the names of the authors" because everything
ELSE was fair game for inclusion.]
The others may have focused heavily on trinity, life immediately after death, SIT dying with the apostles, God promoting suffering, God twisting arms and free will, etc., etc.
[i appreciate the sudden honesty in usage of the phrase
"MAY HAVE",
since that's pure speculation.]
rhino, if I were to alter the wikipedia definition of a troll would you THEN believe me?
[No, but having your own version of reality would hardly be
new with changing the wikipedia definition.]
But seriously, I do seek attention but not for me. I seek to get attention focused on written PFAL.
[No-the Mikean doctrine supposedly based on pfal, but NOT on the actual
text. But, hey, we all knew that already.]
When the topic is yanked away from that and onto me I object.
[When the topic is yanked away from obsequious applauding of Mike's
doctrine and onto its obvious flaws, he objects.]
You may want to check the context of what I said about starting the longest thread here before you label it bragging.
I remember in the early 70’s how leadership would answer that question about study, because it came up then too. We are to work diligently, watching the time because it’s short, IN EVERYTHING WE DO, including reading and handling of the scriptures. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY in our reading and handling the of scriptures.
[And yet, vpw, in addressing this verse, focused ENTIRELY
on reading and handling of Scriptures in his chapter on the same.
When you read "what is written", the impression you get from that
chapter is that it means EXCLUSIVELY "study".]
*******
In my fast reading of things here I didn’t see anyone addressing the TIMING of Dr’s throwing away of his books, and what type of books they were. What I have seen is an assumption that the timing and type are such that Dr would have contradicted himself. Of course, I refrain from such.
[Of course, you assume that there's a possibility that there
might be a different timeframe that magically explained it all,
as opposed to not keeping his lies consistent.
As to timing, there's no "instant" step that EXPIRES,
which makes this gambit a baseless speculation.
"...I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided
to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The
Word-its integrity, its meaning, its works."
"...I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook."
Those are ONGOING processes. He began using the Bible as his handbook
and textbook (figure of speech: nearly exclusive source for information.)
He QUIT READING AROUND THE WORD.
If he RESUMED reading around The Word, then there might be a pretext
to such a claim. As it is now, it is baseless speculation designed to prop up
an unsupported theological claim.]
*******
WW, sub-vocalization can be microscopic with no visible movement of the lips, or even an awareness of such.
[Dictionary.com says subvocalize means
"to articulate or engage in articulation by moving the lips or other speech organs
without making audible sounds, as in reading to oneself."
Merriam-Webster Online says subvocalization means
"the act or process of inaudibly articulating speech with the speech organs"]
The whole point of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course is to thwart such sub-vocalizations and only involve the eyes, by scanning faster than the sub-vocalization can keep up.
[Dictionary.com says 'scan' means
"to examine closely"
and Merriam-Webster Online says 'scan' means
'to examine by point-by-point observation or checking;
to investigate thoroughly by checking point by point and often repeatedly;
to examine especially systematically with a sensing device, usually to obtain information']
I took that course and thought the claimed comprehension rates were bs, but I can’t say for sure. It may have been my failing to practice enough.
*******
What the Hey and Raf, this unfit researcher thing is getting out of hand.
The context of my comments to that effect are always to the effect of me offering one of the reasons WHY I don’t participate on Raf’s AE thread, and why I feel if’s right and proper for me to ignore (non-electronically) Raf’s results.
[by claiming its results are non-valid, the results of non-valid processes-
and yet the process is in plain sight, which means the CLAIM is invalid,
and the proces is valid.]
I dodge them the way I’d dodge a speeding truck coming down the road at me. It’s dangerous to deeply consider things contrary to what I already know to be true, and I’m SATISFIED with my prior efforts with which I arrived at my surety.
[if the previous method of arrival was sound, and OUR method-
which was FROM pfal-was unsound, the contrast would harm no one
and underscore the soundness of the first.
Since the first was a declaration by fiat, and the second was an intellectual
dialogue and process, thinking on the second puts the deficiencies of the
first in sharp relief. Thus, it was like being satisfied with milk past its
expiration date when someone is offering fresh milk,
because you'd been satisfied with your milk BEFORE.]
I see Jesus dodging questions at times, like with Pilate. I see Jesus distracting attention from devilish traps of his adversaries with statements like “who’s image is on this coin” and asking if John the Baptist was a prophet of God.
[You see these things as related.
That is no guarantee they ARE.
You've also seen Jesus-more than once-reading from the Orange Book.
Most people would be rather skeptical of this.]
From what I’ve seen of Raf’s fitness to research and reason I’m sure his methods are fine and are well suited to his profession. If I saw a newspaper article bearing his name, it would command more respect from me than most.
*******
dmiller, you wrote: “Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.”
The problem with your statement here is that there are two "ITs" for two different times, with a gradual change over between them.
“It worked well at one time” because there were lots of leadership-type people (not necessary Corps) on the field with a recent fresh exposure to the books.
[No-he THOUGHT it worked well at one time. He had the OPINION it worked.
Later, more evidence came in, and he examined things more closely-
scanning where once he skimmed. :)
Then it was PROVED (put to proof and found wanting) to be error.]
As time passed these leaders felt they had a good enough handle on the written material, cassette audio tapes and players became cheaply available shifting a lot of attention to tapes, the TVTs started building as no one heard Dr’s hints to get back into the books. Things got less stable.
[irrelevant to dmiller's statement.]
Then the older leaders started dying, so they could no longer cover us drifting younger leaders with their believing and counsel. In the early 80’s Dr stepped up his calls for us to get back to the books and do a complete theological makeover, all the way up to his death, but they were all ignored.
[irrelevant to dmiller's statement/.]
THEN time proved that the TVTs did not work well and within one year of Dr’s death all hell broke loose.
[Actually, some people reported it failing to work back in the 70s, a decade before
your timeframe. Thus, it is invalid.]
These past two days I’ve hardly been able to do anything but skim read the thread and missing lots (being an Evelyn Wood flunkie) so if anyone has a pressing challenge they’d like to see my response to they’ll have to find some way to draw my attention to it, like large fonts or a PM.
Also, I’m waiting for the noise and the random target shooting to wind down here before I get into the 22 “thus saith the Lord” statements.
["I'm waiting until everyone stops refuting all my statements."]
Has anyone thought through if we should ask management about the possibilities of a separate PFAL forum to segregate all the sub-topics that have begun to proliferate?
[We've all thought it through. We find it needless. Except for you, the threads
I'm asking about the word "rightly-dividing." Everything I've checked says "orthotomeo," but it's been so long I don't remember if I checked an interlinear. Just curious.
Interesting, one of the pages was a link to a Bullinger article:
The One Great Requirement Of The Word: "Rightly Dividing" It
By: E. W. Bullinger
The one great requirement of the Word is grounded on the fact that it is “the Word of truth.” And this fact is so stated as to imply that, unless the Word is thus rightly divided we shall not get “truth”; and that we shall get its truth only in proportion to the measure in which we divide it rightly.
The Requirement is thus stated in 2 Tim. ii. 15: “Give diligence to present thyself approved to God, a workman having no cause to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.”
The word in question here is ojrqotomou~nta (orthotomounta).16
As this word occurs in no Greek writer, or even elsewhere in the New Testament, we can get little or no help from outside, and are confined to Biblical usage.
It is used twice in the Septuagint for the Hebrew rv^y* (ya?shar), to be right, or straight. In Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5, the Hebrew is Piel (or causative), to make right (as in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. Prov. xv. 21. Isa. xl. 3; xlv. 2,13).
But it is the Greek word that we have to do with here, in 2 Tim. ii. 15; and we cannot get away from the fact that tevmnw (temno?) means to cut; or, from the fact that we cannot cut without dividing. To divide belongs to the very nature of the act of cutting. Even as applied to directing one’s way, it implies that we divide off one way from others-because we desire to follow the right way and avoid the wrong.
FWIW...Apparently Wierwille didn't get the idea to use the specific usage rather than the lemma of the word on his own.
Curious how he didn't cite the specific usage for all greek words and used the lemma in most cases (pneuma, hagios, doulos, yada yada). sort of sounds like a bit more cut-and-paste, doesn't it?
Mike's method is "pretend it always said that and NEVER look it up.
If someone claims otherwise, rather than gather evidence,
insult the person, and change the subject."
It's not one for Mike because MIKE has yet to successfully refute
ANYTHING. The rest of us having intelligent discourse HAVE,
in both directions.
Now, now: give the devil his due.
Seriously, if an error doesn't belong on the list, then take it off the list. Removals only increase the integrity of the items that remain. I don't care if Mike caught it (he never will), or if we stumble on it (this is, what, the second time that's happened?) or if we discount it by research (most discussed errors never made the list because they were discounted by research or decidedly subject to interpretation). This was a relatively simple one that slipped by because I looked at a lexicon and not an interlinear. C'est la guerre.
I don’t gloat over that issue at all. I could have just as easily found that in my interlinear as you did, but I didn’t see a need. I’m not interested in finding errors, because I don’t believe there are any. I'm not PRIMARILY interested in resloving errors, because I know some go slow and there's a lot more than AEs to focus on in a mastery project.
You’re right about discounting items on your AE list yourself and the credibility it adds to the remaining items. I’ve seen this willingness in you often enough, to reject the soft items and only hold on to the tough nuts to crack, to make the comment I did about trusting your newspaper articles’ validity over the norm (as I currently perceive it) for that profession.
***
The few times I did visit your thread I did show how one or two AE’s could be resolved, but you all rejected my approach. Because it was your thread, instead of insisting you change to my method, I politely left you to work your own thread the way you wanted to.
When I was there, though, we would disagree on how to look at things, much like this 3000 volume timing deal. I’d find a way to look that resolves while you all would find a way to confound.
I’ve always, since the day I took the class, assumed that the 3000 volume timing was 1942 or shortly thereafter when he switched from trusting academic teachers to trusting God’s direct intervention and revelation as his teacher BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE IT FIT. You look for a timing where it doesn’t fit.
Here’s an example of the same thing from that AE thread involving David’s sin. You interpreted Dr’s use of “technically” as referring to the Mosaic law, while I interpreted it as a casual everyday usage with a slightly rural slant, as in an Ohio-ism. In the country “technically” can mean the way it is done even though it’s not quite right.
If I say “All the cheerleaders belong to Captain of the football team” everyone knows what I mean. It doesn’t mean absolutely all, and it doesn’t mean legally, and it doesn’t mean it’s right, it just happens that way a lot due to human nature. The word “technical” wouldn’t usually be used in this example because football players don’t have the power to "bend" the law the way a king does.
So, with my method of inquiry for PFAL difficulties (which is similar to your method for Biblical difficulties) I looked at “technically” in the way it fit.
Well, guess what? I recently found another place where Dr uses “technically” and I'm on the lookout for them ALL. I go slow on these things to be thorough. Thorough is the way we should go, but you’re in a relative hurry to find those tougher to crack nuts. I'm willing to live with AEs for years with no deterrance to my mastery project. If you found ALL the places where Dr used “technically” before you made your Mosaic law pronouncement I’d be much more impressed, but I'd STILL stick to my chosen project.
it's unfortunate that 2 Tim 2:15 is read and applyed as something to do with studying the scripture.
When i believe it has every thing to do with living what is alive in ourselves. Not something that is not ourselves either but that which is you and always has been our dreams come true.
to cut that living Word, the Word living in the flesh
are we flesh or are we just housed in it
to recognize it, finally to see it's life breathing the
same breath as you
this is the flaming sword of the spirit
too hot for many to handle yet
but little by little it is seen by some
and then boom ignition-the flame of the Word alive and real
thoughts come and go, we live by them,
then when wisdom is seen by you in yourself
you will know where it's coming from
not some outside source but that which has been within all along
you don't have to convince anyone because the heart has seen it
rooted and grounded in love, love is the balance to it all
a habitation of God through the Spirit
uniquely you and part of the whole that there is no end to
The few times I did visit your thread I did show how one or two AE’s could be resolved, but you all rejected my approach.
It wasn't an approach, Mike. It was mere denial.
Your first two paragraphs were gracious, though, I must admit. Thank you.
Here’s an example of the same thing from that AE thread involving David’s sin. You interpreted Dr’s use of “technically” as referring to the Mosaic law, while I interpreted it as a casual everyday usage with a slightly rural slant, as in an Ohio-ism. In the country “technically” can mean the way it is done even though it’s not quite right.
That is not my memory of what you said. Nonetheless, it's flat out false. "Technically" does not mean "I'm not quite right." It means "I AM quite right." It means if you look at the details, you'll see I'm right about this. Well, we look at the details and see he's wrong. He's right about that subject in no way, shape or form! The king did not have the right to help himself to married women, period.
If I say “All the cheerleaders belong to Captain of the football team” everyone knows what I mean. It doesn’t mean absolutely all, and it doesn’t mean legally, and it doesn’t mean it’s right, it just happens that way a lot due to human nature. The word “technical” wouldn’t usually be used in this example because football players don’t have the power to "bend" the law the way a king does.
It doesn't disturb you that the fundamental statement on which you base this comparison is false? All the cheerleaders do not belong to the Captain of the football team. At best (worst), maybe a couple of them.
I’m not interested in finding errors, because I don’t believe there are any.
And that's the sad part of all this, Mike. You're sticking to a thesis that can't be disproven, not because it can't really be disproven, but because you refuse to open your eyes to it.
My integrity demands that I admit it when I've identified an AE that really is merely apparent, not actual.
Where's your integrity, Mike? You've closed your eyes to it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since this followed a period where they were taken prisoner for over a
generation, this is VERY plausible. That was the timeframe where the
language of the people went from Hebrew to Syriac, and the split
between Israelites (those kidnapped and returned) and Samaritans
(those who never left) dated from.
So, when they recovered the scrolls of Scripture, one priest
(priests and Levites exercised their Hebrew so the usage didn't
die out) would read the scroll aloud in Hebrew, while another
would provide a fair translation into Syriac. This was the first
instances of a Targum (translation from the Old Testament to
another language.)
I've heard this explanation from at least 3 different sources,
at least 2 of which never heard of twi,
and all 3 of which were completely independent of each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you left out verse 40 johniam
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
plenty of places that say to read the scriptures. But it's the Lord that opens the eyes.
John 5:36-40 is talking about going to the Lord for eternal life
Remember he said to them believe on me and you will not taste death?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
And if you want to call looking up definitions of words and understanding the culture "biblical research" have at it. I call it looking up definitions of words and understanding the culture.
The schooling so to speak in the scriptures. And there are scriptures out there you haven't read yet.even today scripture is being written.
To understand and get the wisdom from them is from the Lord.
KJV: Ps 119:27
27Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
KJV: Pr 1:1The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. 5A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. 8My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 9For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
who is the father and mother he is talking about?
KJV: Pr 14:8
8The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
What's that about the wisdom of this world in Corinthians?
Yeah...learn what you can but be ready to understand the wisdom of God.
Because it is God that opens the eyes of understanding.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And PFAL is absolutely right.
oρθοτομοuντα is the present tense, active voice, participle form (used as an adjective with the accusative case, singular person, masculine gender) of the lemma "oρθοτομoω"
I usually prefer listing the lemme, as they are what you'll find listed in the dictionaries.
I'm sure he discussed the conjugation of the word in the PFAL, as well. ((rolls eyes))
My oversight for not mentioning that.
My apologies if there was any confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've always likened Biblical research to Moses inquiring into the phenomenon if the burning bush, or the digging through the temple debris and finding a scroll, or Jesus finding the place where it was written...
Waiting for an exact Biblical precedence for anything we do can have it’s problems. I once met one very religious sourpuss who claimed that smiling and laughter were sin because there was no place recorded where Jesus laughed or smiled. I’m serious, and so was he!
Without getting scatological here, I wondered if that guy I met ever thought through how many other common human functions have no Biblical documentation?
Is there a Biblical precedence for banging one’s head into a wall?
*******
dmiller, I think it was you who asked, I’m unaware of any more authors who’s works were placed in the bookstore. Even Kenyon and Bullinger’s material came with a gentle warning to be careful of some small errors, and they usually treaded lightly on the big errors PFAL rescued us from. The others may have focused heavily on trinity, life immediately after death, SIT dying with the apostles, God promoting suffering, God twisting arms and free will, etc., etc.
*******
rhino, if I were to alter the wikipedia definition of a troll would you THEN believe me?
But seriously, I do seek attention but not for me. I seek to get attention focused on written PFAL. When the topic is yanked away from that and onto me I object. You may want to check the context of what I said about starting the longest thread here before you label it bragging.
*******
I remember in the early 70’s how leadership would answer that question about study, because it came up then too. We are to work diligently, watching the time because it’s short (hint, hint), IN EVERYTHING WE DO, including reading and handling of the scriptures. Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY in our reading and handling the of scriptures.
*******
In my fast reading of things here I didn’t see anyone addressing the TIMING of Dr’s throwing away of his books, and what type of books they were. What I have seen is an assumption that the timing and type are such that Dr would have contradicted himself. Of course, I refrain from such.
*******
WW, sub-vocalization can be microscopic with no visible movement of the lips, or even an awareness of such. The whole point of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course is to thwart such sub-vocalizations and only involve the eyes, by scanning faster than the sub-vocalization can keep up. I took that course and thought the claimed comprehension rates were bs, but I can’t say for sure. It may have been my failing to practice enough.
*******
What the Hey and Raf, this unfit researcher thing is getting out of hand.
The context of my comments to that effect are always to the effect of me offering one of the reasons WHY I don’t participate on Raf’s AE thread, and why I feel if’s right and proper for me to ignore (non-electronically) Raf’s results.
I dodge them the way I’d dodge a speeding truck coming down the road at me. It’s dangerous to deeply consider things contrary to what I already know to be true, and I’m SATISFIED with my prior efforts with which I arrived at my surety. I see Jesus dodging questions at times, like with Pilate. I see Jesus distracting attention from devilish traps of his adversaries with statements like “who’s image is on this coin” and asking if John the Baptist was a prophet of God.
From what I’ve seen of Raf’s fitness to research and reason I’m sure his methods are fine and are well suited to his profession. If I saw a newspaper article bearing his name, it would command more respect from me than most.
*******
dmiller, you wrote: “Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.”
The problem with your statement here is that there are two "ITs" for two different times, with a gradual change over between them.
“It worked well at one time” because there were lots of leadership-type people (not necessary Corps) on the field with a recent fresh exposure to the books.
As time passed these leaders felt they had a good enough handle on the written material, cassette audio tapes and players became cheaply available shifting a lot of attention to tapes, the TVTs started building as no one heard Dr’s hints to get back into the books. Things got less stable.
Then the older leaders started dying, so they could no longer cover us drifting younger leaders with their believing and counsel. In the early 80’s Dr stepped up his calls for us to get back to the books and do a complete theological makeover, all the way up to his death, but they were all ignored.
THEN time proved that the TVTs did not work well and within one year of Dr’s death all hell broke loose.
*******
Normally, this time of year in San Diego is the rainy season, but this year it’s just like summer, so customers have been calling to have their windows washed. Until the expected monsoons hit, I may have to abbreviate some of my responses here.
These past two days I’ve hardly been able to do anything but skim read the thread and missing lots (being an Evelyn Wood flunkie) so if anyone has a pressing challenge they’d like to see my response to they’ll have to find some way to draw my attention to it, like large fonts or a PM.
Also, I’m waiting for the noise and the random target shooting to wind down here before I get into the 22 “thus saith the Lord” statements.
Has anyone thought through if we should ask management about the possibilities of a separate PFAL forum to segregate all the sub-topics that have begun to proliferate?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
there's been lots of burning bushs right here mike
still some burning now
you haven't turned and looked once...
no not once.....
the heat is just too hot for you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's orthotomeo in the interlinear. Anyone still have one handy and can transliterate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Dardy-
2Ti 2:15 Strive diligently to present thyself approved to God, a workman that has not to be ashamed, cutting in a straight line the word of truth.
Youngs literal-
2Ti 2:15 be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;
G4704
σπουδάζω
spoudazō
Thayer Definition:
1) to hasten, make haste
2) to exert one’s self, endeavour, give diligence
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4710
Citing in TDNT: 7:559, 1069
that's all i got right now
more on it...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...A15+interlinear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
CM: You're looking at the wrong word.
I'm asking about the word "rightly-dividing." Everything I've checked says "orthotomeo," but it's been so long I don't remember if I checked an interlinear. Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's orthotomounta. "Actual" error disproven. Score one for Mike!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The Gordon Ricker-Berry from the Stephens Text....
II Timothy 2:15, King James Version.
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth."
The Stephens Text (ibid) (English lettering)
"Spoudason seauton dokimon parastesai tpstheps,
ergaten hanepaioxhunton,
orthotomounta tov logon tes aletheias."
So, the Stephens Text has "orthotomounta".
I do NOT have my Nestle's handy. (I need to buy a new copy.)
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, I hate giving Mike a reason to gloat, but I asked for it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No, score one for the "ACTUAL ERRORS" team.
Mike's method is "pretend it always said that and NEVER look it up.
If someone claims otherwise, rather than gather evidence,
insult the person, and change the subject."
It's not one for Mike because MIKE has yet to successfully refute
ANYTHING. The rest of us having intelligent discourse HAVE,
in both directions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Woo-Hoo! Yipee for Mike!!!
But the issue I raised earlier, I'm sure he discussed the conjugation of the word in the PFAL, as well. I'd still like to hear some feedback on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
o
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...q=orthotomounta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thanks, Clay for that Google query.
Interesting, one of the pages was a link to a Bullinger article:
The One Great Requirement Of The Word: "Rightly Dividing" It
By: E. W. Bullinger
The one great requirement of the Word is grounded on the fact that it is “the Word of truth.” And this fact is so stated as to imply that, unless the Word is thus rightly divided we shall not get “truth”; and that we shall get its truth only in proportion to the measure in which we divide it rightly.
The Requirement is thus stated in 2 Tim. ii. 15: “Give diligence to present thyself approved to God, a workman having no cause to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.”
The word in question here is ojrqotomou~nta (orthotomounta).16
As this word occurs in no Greek writer, or even elsewhere in the New Testament, we can get little or no help from outside, and are confined to Biblical usage.
It is used twice in the Septuagint for the Hebrew rv^y* (ya?shar), to be right, or straight. In Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5, the Hebrew is Piel (or causative), to make right (as in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. Prov. xv. 21. Isa. xl. 3; xlv. 2,13).
But it is the Greek word that we have to do with here, in 2 Tim. ii. 15; and we cannot get away from the fact that tevmnw (temno?) means to cut; or, from the fact that we cannot cut without dividing. To divide belongs to the very nature of the act of cutting. Even as applied to directing one’s way, it implies that we divide off one way from others-because we desire to follow the right way and avoid the wrong.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2649
FWIW...Apparently Wierwille didn't get the idea to use the specific usage rather than the lemma of the word on his own.
Curious how he didn't cite the specific usage for all greek words and used the lemma in most cases (pneuma, hagios, doulos, yada yada). sort of sounds like a bit more cut-and-paste, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now, now: give the devil his due.
Seriously, if an error doesn't belong on the list, then take it off the list. Removals only increase the integrity of the items that remain. I don't care if Mike caught it (he never will), or if we stumble on it (this is, what, the second time that's happened?) or if we discount it by research (most discussed errors never made the list because they were discounted by research or decidedly subject to interpretation). This was a relatively simple one that slipped by because I looked at a lexicon and not an interlinear. C'est la guerre.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oh well.
La shantas to all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
I don’t gloat over that issue at all. I could have just as easily found that in my interlinear as you did, but I didn’t see a need. I’m not interested in finding errors, because I don’t believe there are any. I'm not PRIMARILY interested in resloving errors, because I know some go slow and there's a lot more than AEs to focus on in a mastery project.
You’re right about discounting items on your AE list yourself and the credibility it adds to the remaining items. I’ve seen this willingness in you often enough, to reject the soft items and only hold on to the tough nuts to crack, to make the comment I did about trusting your newspaper articles’ validity over the norm (as I currently perceive it) for that profession.
***
The few times I did visit your thread I did show how one or two AE’s could be resolved, but you all rejected my approach. Because it was your thread, instead of insisting you change to my method, I politely left you to work your own thread the way you wanted to.
When I was there, though, we would disagree on how to look at things, much like this 3000 volume timing deal. I’d find a way to look that resolves while you all would find a way to confound.
I’ve always, since the day I took the class, assumed that the 3000 volume timing was 1942 or shortly thereafter when he switched from trusting academic teachers to trusting God’s direct intervention and revelation as his teacher BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE IT FIT. You look for a timing where it doesn’t fit.
Here’s an example of the same thing from that AE thread involving David’s sin. You interpreted Dr’s use of “technically” as referring to the Mosaic law, while I interpreted it as a casual everyday usage with a slightly rural slant, as in an Ohio-ism. In the country “technically” can mean the way it is done even though it’s not quite right.
If I say “All the cheerleaders belong to Captain of the football team” everyone knows what I mean. It doesn’t mean absolutely all, and it doesn’t mean legally, and it doesn’t mean it’s right, it just happens that way a lot due to human nature. The word “technical” wouldn’t usually be used in this example because football players don’t have the power to "bend" the law the way a king does.
So, with my method of inquiry for PFAL difficulties (which is similar to your method for Biblical difficulties) I looked at “technically” in the way it fit.
Well, guess what? I recently found another place where Dr uses “technically” and I'm on the lookout for them ALL. I go slow on these things to be thorough. Thorough is the way we should go, but you’re in a relative hurry to find those tougher to crack nuts. I'm willing to live with AEs for years with no deterrance to my mastery project. If you found ALL the places where Dr used “technically” before you made your Mosaic law pronouncement I’d be much more impressed, but I'd STILL stick to my chosen project.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
it's unfortunate that 2 Tim 2:15 is read and applyed as something to do with studying the scripture.
When i believe it has every thing to do with living what is alive in ourselves. Not something that is not ourselves either but that which is you and always has been our dreams come true.
to cut that living Word, the Word living in the flesh
are we flesh or are we just housed in it
to recognize it, finally to see it's life breathing the
same breath as you
this is the flaming sword of the spirit
too hot for many to handle yet
but little by little it is seen by some
and then boom ignition-the flame of the Word alive and real
thoughts come and go, we live by them,
then when wisdom is seen by you in yourself
you will know where it's coming from
not some outside source but that which has been within all along
you don't have to convince anyone because the heart has seen it
rooted and grounded in love, love is the balance to it all
a habitation of God through the Spirit
uniquely you and part of the whole that there is no end to
this is the God of the Heart
this is the boundless Heart
limitless in understanding and wisdom
breaking out of the mold of the letter
into a living epistle of the heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your first two paragraphs were gracious, though, I must admit. Thank you.
That is not my memory of what you said. Nonetheless, it's flat out false. "Technically" does not mean "I'm not quite right." It means "I AM quite right." It means if you look at the details, you'll see I'm right about this. Well, we look at the details and see he's wrong. He's right about that subject in no way, shape or form! The king did not have the right to help himself to married women, period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And that's the sad part of all this, Mike. You're sticking to a thesis that can't be disproven, not because it can't really be disproven, but because you refuse to open your eyes to it.
My integrity demands that I admit it when I've identified an AE that really is merely apparent, not actual.
Where's your integrity, Mike? You've closed your eyes to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites