|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I maintained and still do that the Septuagint translators were correct in rendering the word ‘virgin’ since that translation clearly shows the prophet’s intention that this was the qualification required for the mother of the Messiah.
But this is back to front.
You're saying that the translators were "correct" because the word they chose happened to correspond (you claim, you've offered no evidence of this) to how the prophecy was fulfilled, instead of saying they were correct because it was actually a good translation. Do you believe the Septuagint translators were infallible too? quote:
Infallibility is a side issue. The question is that this is a genuine predictive prophecy.
Unless you think the LXX translators were infallible (and can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the word they used meant "virgin") then their translation is no basis for deciding whether Isaiah meant "virgin" when he wrote 'almâ.
Arguing thus also requires you to believe that to be predictive, prophecy must be fully commutative, i.e. you could in effect replace the prophecy with its fulfilment in the text, or vice versa, and not see the difference. I have repeatedly challenged you on this and you haven't answered. To my mind the fact that the prophecy did not predict every single aspect of the future event does not in and of itself mean there was no predictive element.
[ 30. December 2017, 17:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ah, but you see Eutychus, by questioning whether the word translated 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 actually means that, you are 'questioning the Bible' because the 'plain-meaning of the text' is 'virgin' according to Jamat - who sides with the 70 translators of the Septuagint at this point.
I'd be interested to find out whether Jamat agrees with the Septuagint renderings at all points. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd favour the Masoretic text at various points, where they best accorded with his theology of course.
Jamat's doctrine of scriptural inspiration demands predictive prophecy and 100% infallibility, otherwise God is 'lying' ...
It's a peculiar argument and these days I'd say a peculiar way to approach scripture but it has its own internal logic.
Jamat seems to think that it's axiomatic.
Either that or he has some other argument that he's not sharing with us for some reason.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I maintained and still do that the Septuagint translators were correct in rendering the word ‘virgin’ . . . .
The Septuagint translators did not render the Hebrew word almah as “virgin." "Virgin" is an English word, derived from Latin, and the Septuagint translators were translating into Greek, not into an English that didn’t exist yet.
Yes, it’s a pedantic point, but sometimes pedantic points matter. The Septuagint translators translated almah into the Greek parthenos, which can mean “virgin," but which also can mean “young woman." The Septuagint calls Dinah a parthenos after she was raped. (Genesis 34:3–4) Interestingly, the KJV, which translates parthenos as "virgin" in Isaiah 7 translates parthenos as “damsel" in Genesis 34:3–4.
All of which is to say that the Septuagint translators may well have been justified in translating almah, which means "young unmarried woman” as parthenos, which can carry the same meaning. What may not be justified is insisting that either word is properly translated into English as “virgin."
[ 30. December 2017, 19:36: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post with Nick Tamen]
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ah, but you see Eutychus, by questioning whether the word translated 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 actually means that, you are 'questioning the Bible' because the 'plain-meaning of the text' is 'virgin' according to Jamat - who sides with the 70 translators of the Septuagint at this point.
I far from sure they are siding with him no matter what he might make out.
From what I can tell (having once again done Jamat's homework for him), the LXX uses the same word to translate Isaiah 7:14, parthenos, as it does to refer to Dinah in Genesis 34:3 - after Schechem has raped her (Source, via Wikipedia).
So I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to incontrovertibly mean "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, even in the LXX, unless this is decided on in this instance after the fact - not by the LXX translators but by Jamat and those holding similar views - "because it has to".
Once again, unless Jamat can spell out his argument, instead of simply referring vaguely to some "authority"*, be it Fruchtenbaum or the LXX, he hasn't convinced me.
==
*All the more so in that appealing to any authority other than Scripture itself to justify one's interpretation of Scripture kind of defeats the premise that Scripture itself is the ultimate authority...
[ 30. December 2017, 19:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: Arguing thus also requires you to believe that to be predictive, prophecy must be fully commutative, i.e. you could in effect replace the prophecy with its fulfilment in the text, or vice versa, and not see the difference. I have repeatedly challenged you on this and you haven't answered
I honestly cannot see this as a necessary corollary in view of the fact that none of the messianic prophecies are recognisable except in hindsight. The Rabbis did not accept Jesus because they were expecting a king. The disciples on the Emmaus road didn’t get it even after the resurrection until Jesus spelled it out.
Regarding alma..parthenos..virgin/maiden. I do grasp that translation is a ‘best equivalent’ process. The discussion on my part arose from the denial of the predictive nature of prophecy on the other thread.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding alma..parthenos..virgin/maiden. I do grasp that translation is a ‘best equivalent’ process. The discussion on my part arose from the denial of the predictive nature of prophecy on the other thread.
And what you have yet to answer, despite repeated requests, is how the predictive nature of Isaiah's prophecy is in any way diminished if the “best equivalent” to Isaiah's use of almah is “young unmarried woman” or “maiden” rather than “virgin.”
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
What Nick Tamen said.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel:How is God inspiring scripture inconsistent with additions and redaction?
If you theorise that a text has more than one author, it can be for several reasons.
You might have several signatures laying claim.
You might have references within the text that suggest a level of knowledge or education that the attributed author lacks. So for instance, the Earl of Oxford could have written Shakespeare as he had the connections and insider knowledge Shakespeare as a middle class chap lacked.
You might have anachronisms in the text as is claimed by some for the book of Daniel, or stylistic changes. (Daniel is written in 3 languages?)
My thought is surely you need better evidence than the fact that the text as redacted, fits better with your current theology or world view.
The difficulty with scripture is the God factor. If in fact there are 3 Isaiah’s and 2 Daniels, then the almighty has not told us this and signally failed to communicate with clarity.
However, if there are single authors of Isaiah and Daniel, as claimed by the Jewish scholars, then God has demonstrated, via prophecy, that he IS God, by knowing the end from the beginning. If not, then the prophecies are fraudulent since they were pronounced after events they purport to predict eg the rise of Alexander, the Rise of Cyrus the Great. If these prophecies came to pass then we may trust that future ones such as the ‘stone made without hands’ becoming a kingdom to fill the whole earth, also will come to pass in God’s time.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My thought is surely you need better evidence than the fact that the text as redacted, fits better with your current theology or world view.
This argument applies to you, too.
I don't really have any a priori problems in believing in the possibility of predictive prophecy, or indeed of the single authorship of Isaiah or Daniel; I really don't. But when I find your arguments are based on such shaky foundations (e.g. the 'almâ fiasco of which we appear to have just witnessed the final end) it leads me to re-examine these sorts of question.
quote:
The difficulty with scripture is the God factor. If in fact there are 3 Isaiah’s and 2 Daniels, then the almighty has not told us this and signally failed to communicate with clarity.
Where do you think he has clearly told us that there was only ONE author of Isaiah or ONE author of Daniel, and why should this need to be clearly conveyed in any case? Was it a signal failure on God's part not to tell us who wrote Hebrews, or Job? Isn't the whole point of 'inspiration' the belief that God had a hand in Scripture irrespective of its human authors?
quote:
he IS God, by knowing the end from the beginning.
I believe God knows the end from the beginning (although I'm not sure about the detail of what that means). However, I do not put my trust in God on the basis that he is singularly good at predictive prophecy (which is how your standpoint frequently comes across to me). I put my trust in God because I believe he is good.
[ 30. December 2017, 21:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But scripture isn't clear, Jamat. It says that of itself. The Petrine reference to the Pauline corpus being 'hard to understand' for instance.
Once again, you are placing your expectations of scripture onto scripture. 'Scripture has to behave in this, that or the other way otherwise the whole thing is cast into doubt and our faith and salvation jeopardised ...'
As Eutychus says, God hasn't told us who wrote Hebrews and Job. There are loads of things in there that we can only speculate about. Does that in any way undermine it's efficacy?
No, of course not.
People like nice neat formularies, be it the five TULIP petals or the Mickey Mouse join-the-dots templates of Dispensationalism.
But the whole thing is wider and more glorious than that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey G, E. This is me, sitting at the top of the mountain. Not fiercely on the fence. When are you coming on up? I'm lonesome.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Nick Tamen: what you have yet to answer, despite repeated requests, is how the predictive nature of Isaiah's prophecy is in any way diminished if the “best equivalent” to Isaiah's use of almah is “young unmarried woman” or “maiden” rather than “virgin.”
To me, that was not the point. Going from context,those terms are equivalent.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: But scripture isn't clear, Jamat. It says that of itself. The Petrine reference to the Pauline corpus being 'hard to understand' for instance.
Once again, you are placing your expectations of scripture onto scripture. 'Scripture has to behave in this, that or the other way otherwise the whole thing is cast into doubt and our faith and salvation jeopardised
Finish the quote.
‘Paul wrote some things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable, wrest to their destruction.’
IOW Peter is not suggesting a lack of clarity, only a lack of willingness to understand.
I do not understand what you mean by ‘placing scripture over scripture’. I do demand that writings purported to be inspired by God not be fraudulent.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: I put my trust in God because I believe he is good
I agree of course. You assertion is not on the basis of scriptural integrity though is it? But on the basis that your theology and world view requires him to be good. You are actually, like Martin 60 really, finding a rule of life and politics from the social preaching of the Jesus of the gospels,leaving out the bad parts.
If he is good on that basis, why is there such evil manifest and allowed, such inequalities and such lack of intervention to correct? Is your ‘good’ God powerless?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey Nick, you too. The view is vertiginous but great.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hey G, E. This is me, sitting at the top of the mountain. Not fiercely on the fence. When are you coming on up? I'm lonesome.
I'm put off coming straight on up by your unwavering conviction that you've reached the top. I prefer to take my own route as my own conscience allows and at my own speed.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Alright, I've decided Jamat is a master of the Gish gallop: quote:
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.
Most recent evidence:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: what you have yet to answer, despite repeated requests, is how the predictive nature of Isaiah's prophecy is in any way diminished if the “best equivalent” to Isaiah's use of almah is “young unmarried woman” or “maiden” rather than “virgin.”
To me, that was not the point. Going from context,those terms are equivalent.
No answer to the question; a re-assertion that terms which have been demonstrated not to be equivalent aren't; imprecision as to which terms are being referred to and indeed in which language(s); an invitation to restart the entire debate - having just about admitted a few hours ago that the translations had little or nothing to say about the key question of predictive prophecy. It is a specious and time-wasting argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: [...]
Once again, you are placing your expectations of scripture onto scripture.[...]
[...]
I do not understand what you mean by ‘placing scripture over scripture’.
This is misrepresentation which would, again, take ages to clear up. Gamaliel said 'your expectations of scripture onto scripture', not 'placing scripture over scripture'.
I'm tiring of trying to unpick Gish galloping. quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eutychus: I put my trust in God because I believe he is good
I agree of course. You assertion is not on the basis of scriptural integrity though is it? But on the basis that your theology and world view requires him to be good.
I'm not sure what you mean by scriptural integrity.
I'm especially not sure what you mean by that when it would appear you are willing to knowingly uphold mistranslations of scripture to buttress what you call 'scriptural integrity'.
It appears to mean making prophecy look 100% predictive by doctoring the translations to fit and then claiming, as you did, that only that translation is accurate, and splitting bible verses mid-sentence consigning one half to the present age and the other half to an age to come simply to fit your theological and eschatological map.
Naturally I bring my theology and worldview to the text, just as you do, but I try to let what the text actually says shape my worldview and my theology too, rather than bury it under my theological framework to the point of altering the meanings of words.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You have misinterpreted the Petrine quote.
It doesn't say that the Pauline corpus is crystal clear and that unlearned and unstable people then chose not to understand it.
It says that some of the things Paul wrote are 'difficult to understand', which unlearned and unstable people (hmmm, does that remind you of anyone?) then twist and distort ...
You still haven't answered why a scriptural text would be 'fraudalent' if it can be assumed or demonstrated that it had more authors that is stated within the text itself.
How does that make it 'fraudalent'?
Scripture contains unattributed texts too, such as Hebrews. Does that make Hebrews fraudulent?
As well as 'Gish Galloping' - thanks for defining the methodology for us Eutychus - you also misquote scripture - as in the Petrine example - and you have misquoted me - as Eutychus has pointed out.
You were obviously 'Gish Galloping' so fast that you whizzed past what I actually said without reading it properly ...
If you want us to treat your arguments seriously you'll have to do better than this.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
but it is neither infallible or incapable of having been redacted.
So to clarify you are saying:
'God is fallible in his pronouncements in the Bible and might tell lies about authorship but this does not reduce the truth value or credibility of his scripture.'
If this is your God I suggest you trade him in for a better model.
Isn't this just a variant on the Problem of Evil?
Jamat, your view seems to be that modern scholarship describes a Bible that is sub-optimal, and that if God was incapable of producing a better Bible then he isn't all-powerful, and if he chose not to create a better Bible then he isn't all-good.
Setting aside the question of whether your concept of the Bible is actually any better - isn't this just Epicurus' argument about how there can't be a God if there's evil in the world? And the answer to both questions is likely to be the same.
To take an extreme example (and no, I'm not saying this is what happened): suppose God actually told Moses that the priestly line would be reckoned through Myriam, but Moses thought 'Pfft, I'm not being bossed around by a bunch of women', and wrote down 'Aaron' instead. That would be a sin, sure, but God doesn't generally prevent us from sinning - but as Christians we don't believe this compromises his goodness or omnipotence.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Finish the quote.
‘Paul wrote some things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable, wrest to their destruction.’
IOW Peter is not suggesting a lack of clarity, only a lack of willingness to understand.
Does it have to be either one or the other? Could it not be BOTH?
Peter, as I see it is BOTH declaring that Paul's writings are difficult to understand AND that therefore they are easily misunderstood by unlearned and unstable readers.
Peter's point seems to be aimed at encouraging his readers to become more 'learned' and more 'stable' IN ORDER to better understand Paul's writing. This we can then extrapolate to include the whole of the Christian cannon of scripture. I think this, (being scripture), is good advice. Would you agree?
So the point that was originally made that not all scripture is fundamentally self evident to everyone is apparently supported by the Apostolic authority of Peter in scripture itself.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: No answer to the question
OK, it makes no difference.
quote:
mistranslations of scripture
Your opinion and that is fine.
quote:
I’m not sure what you mean by scriptural integrity
I mean that I think scripture works as a whole, that it’s a time -neutral salvation narrative than stands up to scrutiny, that there is consistency if you look for it, that it is God’s book. quote:
Gish Gallop
As I recall, he never lost an argument..not a comparison I would make.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And Paul said that his view wasn't clear either.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I sometimes wonder what's worse, Jamat Gish Galloping past in a Texan Ten Gallon Hat that's found its way over to New Zealand, or Martin, with a drop taken, pontificating from the Top of Mount Parnassus* and inviting the rest of us to join him ...
*Mount Incoherence?
On a serious note, though, I certainly agree that the scriptures contain and convey a timeless salvation narrative and that it is 'the Book of God.'
I don't know why that requires there to have been only one Isaiah, say.
How would it be compromised or fraudulent if there were two or three authors?
Do we deny the importance of Homeric literature if there wasn't one Homer but several poets working with the material over a lengthy period?
Do we deny the importance of Y Gododdin as the oldest extant piece of Welsh verse if it can be demonstrated that it wasn't all written by Aneurin but simply attributed to him?
Ok, those aren't inspired texts, but I really don't see how issues of attribution undermine the Gospel or the efficacy of scripture.
We don't tear out the Book of Job or the Epistle to the Hebrews because they don't tell us who wrote them.
It really is a specious argument.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I overlooked a key phrases of Jamat's ...
'That there is consistent if you look for it ...'
Yes, if you look for it within the framework of an interpretive grid that you have inherited from someone else - in this case Schofield and other mid-19th century figures.
A lot of what passes for 'consistency' among fundamentalists is anything but. It's all about squeezing things in to fit an unfeasibly neat framework imposed upon the text itself.
It's a red herring at best, a fool's errand at worst.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I overlooked a key phrases of Jamat's ...
'That there is consistent if you look for it ...'
Yes, if you look for it within the framework of an interpretive grid that you have inherited from someone else - in this case Schofield and other mid-19th century figures.
A lot of what passes for 'consistency' among fundamentalists is anything but. It's all about squeezing things in to fit an unfeasibly neat framework imposed upon the text itself.
It's a red herring at best, a fool's errand at worst.
It's far worse than that: it's idolatry. They make a deity out of a complete farrago.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's a bit harsh, Thunderbunk.
I think the term Bibliolatry can be bandied about too easily and applied too readily to certain types of Christian fundamentalist.
As wrong-headed as I think Dispensationalism and fundamentalism is, at least there's a 'there' there, which is more than can be said for the Spong and Cupitt end of the spectrum ...
But then again, I tend to regard both extreme theological liberalism and extreme fundamentalist literalism as equally deleterious.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eutychus: No answer to the question
OK, it makes no difference.
That's still not an answer to the question.
quote:
quote:
mistranslations of scripture
Your opinion and that is fine.
I think that for Isaiah 7:14 the case has been made here, well beyond mere opinion. Or at least, plenty of evidence has been adduced that you have not addressed at all.
quote:
I mean that I think scripture works as a whole, that it’s a time -neutral salvation narrative than stands up to scrutiny, that there is consistency if you look for it, that it is God’s book.
I'm not quite sure what "time-neutral" salvation means, but the rest I broadly agree with. I don't think Scripture requires a belief in inerrancy or infallibility to discern consistency or withstand scrutiny, though. quote:
quote:
Gish Gallop
As I recall, he never lost an argument..not a comparison I would make.
If the price of never losing an argument is to make one's thought processes so incoherent as to be impenetrable, it's too high a price for me. It appears to me to be the sign of a completely closed mind.
And in any case, I'm less concerned here with zero-sum outcomes of "winning" or "losing" an argument (how does one decide?) than with the ability to formulate an argument in one's own words.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Eutychus, I think Jamat meant all four words as one phrase "time-neutral salvation narrative". However, even if I did, I don't know what it means either.
And on whether Galloping Gish ever lost an argument, the real question isn't whether he thought he'd won the arguments. It's whether he persuaded anyone to change their mind apart from those who already agreed with him.
His followers doubtless thought, 'our Gish is doing a fantastic job. Nobody can get a word in edgeways. He's really showing them what's what'. But the real test of debating skills isn't whether you think you've manage to flatten your opponents. It's whether you actually win people over to your side - particularly the waverers in the middle.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
How would it be compromised or fraudulent if there were two or three authors?
A good question. The notion that scripture, [the Bible], must be compromised or fraudulent under such conditions is entirely due to fundamentalist preconceptions of how scripture, [the Bible] came into existence and what constitutes 'inspiration'.
Pseudepigraphy of ANY scriptural material is anathema to evangelical fundamentalism on the grounds that anything written under a pseudonym must therefore be 'lies' and God could therefore have no part in it, so the text would also be 'uninspired' and so cannot be defined as 'scripture'.
That line of reasoning stems from seeing the revelation of God to mankind as a purely forward facing sequence of events. i.e. God dictating word for word to the author, the author then faithfully writing down God's words, the church then reading and multiply copying the text, the text then being translated accurately, the church then accepting the resulting text(s) as canonical, the text(s) then being translated again into multiple languages, and all under the direct editorial authority and close inspection of God.
Only thus could such a theoretically infallibly, inerrant, divinely authoritative Bible be used to regulate the conduct and praxis of their 'bible believing' congregations.
What is most feared by fundamentalists is loss of control over the meaning and application of the scared text. Modern fundamentalist 'reformers' have taken up the mantle of 'legitimate interpreters of the Bible', just as the pre-reformation Roman Catholic church regarded itself as the only legitimate interpreter of scripture. Inconvenient 'truths' must be refuted, such as the mistranslation surrounding 'alma' or the proliferation of pseudepigraphical material leading up to selection of the Biblical texts three and a half centuries after the death of Christ, some of which may have been widely valued and accepted by the church into the canon of scripture.
So I would offer as a definition of 'inspired': Those writings accepted by The Church as being profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness and accepted by the church as the canon of scripture.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, RdrEmCofE, the ultimate irony of all of this is that each fundamentalist becomes his or her own Pope ...
I like what you said here:
'What is most feared by fundamentalists is loss of control over the meaning and application of the scared text. Modern fundamentalist 'reformers' have taken up the mantle of 'legitimate interpreters of the Bible', just as the pre-reformation Roman Catholic church regarded itself as the only legitimate interpreter of scripture.'
I submit that it is no accident that Jamat was brought up a Catholic pre-Vatican II.
What he seems to have done is replace one form of fundamentalism - a 'Church fundamentalism' if you like, with another, what purports to be a biblical fundamentalism.
It's all about fear. Fear of losing control.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hey G, E. This is me, sitting at the top of the mountain. Not fiercely on the fence. When are you coming on up? I'm lonesome.
I'm put off coming straight on up by your unwavering conviction that you've reached the top. I prefer to take my own route as my own conscience allows and at my own speed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif) I await your arrival with G (the confusion is in the messenger, not the message, surely?) and Nick and a sharp rock giving me proctalgia. I daren't move as it's a long way down.
As for the "time-neutral salvation narrative", that's the entire Bible read as randomly, flatly as you like; it's always the same metanarrative, every inerrant infallible part has as much weight and absolute truth as every other. All paths through it lead to the same place yesterday, today and forever.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Martin60, how do you know that we are heading towards the same spiky pinnacle as you?
We might be heading towards our own rocks ...
I must admit, I'm a bit like Eutychus in acknowledging a degree of irritation in the way you presume that we are following you to a place you've got to first ...
Perhaps that's pride on my part?
Yes, like you I'm heading out of a rather 2D and conservative approach to the scriptures - although I'd never have acknowledged or owned up to being a fundamentalist (although I was probably pretty close at times).
That doesn't necessarily mean that there's one final destination, the one you feel that you have reached.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the 'time-neutral salvation narrative' thing.
I don't like Jamat's somewhat clumsy terminology, but I think I can see what he's driving at and I don't have an issue in principle - although I'd certainly add caveats.
I'd be more inclined to say that the message of salvation found in scripture is 'time-transcendent' rather than 'time-neutral'.
I don't think it's possible for anything to be 'time-neutral.'
The scriptures were written at particular times and in particular places and for particular purposes.
There's nothing 'time-neutral' about them.
Just as there is nothing 'time-neutral' about the Incarnation.
But the point of both transcends time and raises us towards eternity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Honestly G, I don't assume it at all. I've got nowhere else to go and I don't believe in linear (liar!), in up, down, sideways. Only I could have taken the path to where I am. Your position and E's and Nick's seem very close, very grouped to the SOF centre. You guys are truly smarter, more experienced in richer Christian mental environments. I've gone from one deeply fundamentalist trench through no man's land to manning the opposite one. A hell of a fight, changing sides half way across. Still the same battlefield and tactics.
You guys are actually grounded in the middle it seems. Why should you take either side? How could you? Beyond me is Spongland!
I'll come and play footy with you rather than take pot shots.
I cannot understand you guys to be honest. You agree with every rational assault on invincible ignorance but still believe that some ... Jungian thing could be going on.
God bless yer.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Martin, I have reluctantly eschewed more UKLG quotes bringing you to mind (from The Field of Vision) in favour of a return to Jack:
"Further in, and higher up".
Don't think you've arrived, I think it would literally be perilous for you. Think more of us all working our way up the same mountain, you too, from different angles and by different routes, and all will be well.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: A lot of what passes for 'consistency' among fundamentalists is anything but. It's all about squeezing things in to fit an unfeasibly neat framework imposed upon the text itself.
You spread labels like marmalade. I deny being a fundamentalist.
Re theology, It is not about fitting scripture into an existing theory that someone dreamed up in 1830. It is about beginning with scripture and understanding what it teaches. Here is a challenge.
Have a quick look at Daniel 9:24-27 and explain what you think it means. Is it predictive of Christ? Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part? Who is the prince who is to come? Who are the ‘people’ of Daniel?
Eutychus: you have asserted that alma..Parthenos..maiden are equivalents but in summary denied that these interchangeable terms mean virgin.
However, in doing this you are pedantically insisting on possible alternatives..(not necessarily virgin). In doing this, you deny a strong argument from context and seem to question the LXX. Yet you insist you have made your case.
I was asked the question what difference it makes to the validity of the Isaiah 7 prophecy. I think it makes no difference because I think if the translators used maiden in the English, this would imply virginity. I have answered the question.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE] if there are single authors of Isaiah and Daniel, as claimed by the Jewish scholars.
Some Jewish scholars accept deutero and trito Isaiah
Fair comment. I found this from Sommer elsewhere from an interview. He seems to be quite a liberal thinking Jewish scholar.
“Further, most attempts to date biblical texts with any precision (and by this I mean within, say, a century) are, to my mind, so speculative as to be of almost no scholarly value; the most we can usually say is whether a text is exilic or pre-exilic, based on its linguistic profile. (I should note that in that last sentence I stake out a position that puts me at odds with most of my colleagues in the field, who tend to be more confident about our ability to date ancient texts.)”
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus: you have asserted that alma..Parthenos..maiden are equivalents but in summary denied that these interchangeable terms mean virgin.
That is because none of them do as far as I can see. They might be used of women who are virgins, but so far as I can tell the Greek or Hebrew words do not mean virgin, and neither does "maiden" in contemporary English. quote:
In doing this, you deny a strong argument from context and seem to question the LXX.
If the context were conclusive, the vast majority of translators would not opt for a term with a broader range of meaning. As to the LXX, it uses parthenos for Dinah after she has been raped. I learned that from the LXX (because I specifically went looking to see whether your implicit claim that the LXX parthenos was ever used only for girls who could have been virgins was true - it's not). I didn't put it there. Certainly no English translation of that verse in Genesis uses "virgin" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
I was asked the question what difference it makes to the validity of the Isaiah 7 prophecy. I think it makes no difference because I think if the translators used maiden in the English, this would imply virginity. I have answered the question.
Again, this makes it sound as if you are more interested in translators coming up with something that satisfies your theology than with what the original text actually says.
The question is not about using a word in English that would imply virginity sufficiently to satisfy your sensibilities.
The question is whether, if (as several of us have argued) the notion of virginity is not explicitly present in the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14, this would call into question the validity of Isaiah's prophecy in your eyes, and if so, why. Can you answer that?
[ 31. December 2017, 18:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You can deny being a fundamentalist until you are blue in the face, Jamat, but fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does and what is Dispensationalism if not a fundamentalist schema?
As for Daniel 9:24-27, it's an example of what - in the face of some controversy, I'm referring to as 'apocalyptic' literature over on another thread.
As is the nature of such literature, there will have been an immediate, contemporary application - and you'll be familiar with the way 'the abomination that causes desolation' is given an 'inter-testamental' application by many scholars.
Seems reasonable to me. It fits what we know occurred.
It's also quoted by Christ of course and given some kind of apparently future fulfilment or application. Destruction of the Temple?
Beyond that, I'm not prepared to speculate.
And I'm mightily suspicious of anyone who does.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: The question is whether, if (as several of us have argued) the notion of virginity is not explicitly present in the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14, this would call into question the validity of Isaiah's prophecy in your eyes, and if so, why. Can you answer that?
But you see, I think it is explicitly present and shown to be so in Luke 1 so it is, as you admit, in retrospect, a valid prophecy.
Anyhow, the bone has no meat left on it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You appear to be missing the point, Jamat.
For someone who claims not to be a fundamentalist you are doing a good impersonation of one.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can deny being a fundamentalist until you are blue in the face, Jamat, but fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does and what is Dispensationalism if not a fundamentalist schema?
As for Daniel 9:24-27, it's an example of what - in the face of some controversy, I'm referring to as 'apocalyptic' literature over on another thread.
As is the nature of such literature, there will have been an immediate, contemporary application - and you'll be familiar with the way 'the abomination that causes desolation' is given an 'inter-testamental' application by many scholars.
Seems reasonable to me. It fits what we know occurred.
It's also quoted by Christ of course and given some kind of apparently future fulfilment or application. Destruction of the Temple?
Beyond that, I'm not prepared to speculate.
And I'm mightily suspicious of anyone who does.
Gamaliel, fundamentalist is a very pejorative term. It implies a kind of rigid containment of faith as a set of axioms which is foreign to a living faith like mine. I think you are probably well meaning but rather blinkered in the way you categorise and label as if the labels imposed accurately enable you to judge the motives at work in a faith stance I think you misunderstand.
Regarding Daniel 9, you obviously do not want to go there. I have read the other thread so am aware your genre label of ‘apocalyptic’ is in question. If scripture like Dan 9:24-27 iss to be avoided..not interpreted..whatever then what is the point of it being there? Is it not inspired? Can it be profitable for teaching and instruction in righteousness? If so how?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus: you have asserted that alma..Parthenos..maiden are equivalents but in summary denied that these interchangeable terms mean virgin.
However, in doing this you are pedantically insisting on possible alternatives..(not necessarily virgin). In doing this, you deny a strong argument from context and seem to question the LXX. Yet you insist you have made your case.
I was asked the question what difference it makes to the validity of the Isaiah 7 prophecy. I think it makes no difference because I think if the translators used maiden in the English, this would imply virginity. I have answered the question.
Eutychus has made his case, and you seem to have just admitted so by saying that had the translators used “maiden” it would “imply virginity.” There would be no implication of virginity if the word “maiden” actually meant "virgin." But it doesn't. It means “young, unmarried woman.” Virginity may be culturally assumed for such young women—an association which may or may not be accurate in any specific case. Because of the cultural assumption, virginity may be implied by the word maiden, but it’s not what the word means. And that’s what Eutychus , I and others have been arguing.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You are right. I don't want to go there. Why? Because I've seen where it leads. Obscurantism. Other-worldliness. Crankiness.
Nowhere have I ever said that your faith is anything other than lively and sincere.
I have no doubt of the reality of your faith. None whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I still think that you are a fundamentalist. Why? Because you act like one. Your interpretation of scripture and adherence to untenable positions such as Dispensationalism all attest to that.
That doesn't mean your faith isn't real. It simply means that you have a rather literalist take on things in a way I would consider unhelpful.
Back to Daniel 9. Why is there? Because the Book of Daniel was considered canonical and it can teach us an awful lot.
And yes, of course it is useful for teaching and instruction and training in righteousness. Given time, I could come up with some edifying applications of those verses in Daniel 9. I'm sure we all could.
What I don't do is use it to concoct some kind of blow-by-blow account of how things might pan out at the Eschaton.
Why not? Because I don't think that's the purpose of the passage, nor do I think there is anything to be gained by attempting to do so. It's not what it's for. It's a waste of time on so many levels.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Rather than your faith stance being one I misunderstand, I suggest that it is one I understand only too well having seen Dispensationalism in practice in Brethren assemblies and in some forms among some Pentecostals here in the UK.
That doesn't mean I doubt the reality of the faith such people hold. I simply consider aspects of it to be misapplied.
It's untenable and leads to obscure speculations that get us nowhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm quite happy to start a new Kerygmania thread on Daniel 9, Jamat, demonstrating that there are various ways to understand, interpret and apply it.
A futurist interpretation is not the only one available.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: it is one I understand only too well having seen Dispensationalism in practice in Brethren assemblies and in some forms among some Pentecostals here in the UK.
You make 2 fundamental errors. You generalise from you own journey and project onto that of others. ..’Oh I know exactly what is implied here or there..as I once was in a church where all this ‘group think ‘ occurred etc’. You are unwilling or unable to revisit your assumptions because of your history. You do not recognise the distortions of memory it seems to me.
You also have no idea that you are dealing with not compartmentalised ideas, but a living journey and that does not involve imposing a schematic on the Bible. If someone could actually demonstrate to me that what I currently think was actually unfaithful to the Bible I would not hold to it. What I believe about it has to be defensible. But you employ generalised dismissals on the basis of stereotypical labelling. There is an unwillingness to engage in specifics apart from hand waving.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Eutychus: you have asserted that alma..Parthenos..maiden are equivalents but in summary denied that these interchangeable terms mean virgin.
However, in doing this you are pedantically insisting on possible alternatives..(not necessarily virgin). In doing this, you deny a strong argument from context and seem to question the LXX. Yet you insist you have made your case.
I was asked the question what difference it makes to the validity of the Isaiah 7 prophecy. I think it makes no difference because I think if the translators used maiden in the English, this would imply virginity. I have answered the question.
Eutychus has made his case, and you seem to have just admitted so by saying that had the translators used “maiden” it would “imply virginity.” There would be no implication of virginity if the word “maiden” actually meant "virgin." But it doesn't. It means “young, unmarried woman.” Virginity may be culturally assumed for such young women—an association which may or may not be accurate in any specific case. Because of the cultural assumption, virginity may be implied by the word maiden, but it’s not what the word means. And that’s what Eutychus , I and others have been arguing.
Thanks. Pretty well everything has been said that can be do you not think? My end position may not be checkmate but it is clear that a maiden bore a child. She was a virgin at the time and a prophet signalled the event a few hundred years in advance.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You're the one who is hand-crafted round here, Jamat.
I know fundamentalism when I see it and it's your middle name.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
