Again do you just like opining or do you have ANY actual facts to share.
If everyone COULD understand the Bible in it's proper context, Paul never would have admonished us to STUDY it.
ECT Dispensationalism Defined
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Again do you just like opining or do you have ANY actual facts to share.
If everyone COULD understand the Bible in it's proper context, Paul never would have admonished us to STUDY it.
Is this a statement of fact or sarcasm?
There are pros and cons to bringing up the Greek.
It is just another language. It has no 'special power' over other languages.
I can read, write, and speak Greek. My primary studies were Koine Greek.
But here's the deal.....
As with any language, just knowing the meaning of the individual words is not enough. You have to be able to grasp the meaning of the whole thought (phrase or sentence).
For example:
Scripture says Jesus is the lamb of God.
If you go by the strict meaning of the word "lamb", then Jesus would be a
You can know what every single 'word' in a sentence means, but that does explain the 'thought' of what is being said.
The 'thought' behind Jesus being the lamb of God has nothing at all to do with Jesus being a
Long story short, just knowing the meaning of an individual word isn't enough, no matter what language you use.
Cool. I am fully bilingual myself; having been raised that way. And I find that even my sense of time tends to shift when I shift from one language to the other. In one language/culture I find my sense of time is more "through time;" in my other, its more "in time."
In time is much more subjective, through time is more objective.
Anyway, what is your take on Romans 16:26's "scriptures of the prophets," given that "the Greek" is "prophetic writings."
Meaning, "in the Greek" the word prophetic is an adjective, and not a noun, as the KJV has it rendered - "the prophets."
Brock; who had been well versed in Koine Greek, for example, saw said adjective as meaning that the passage is referring to Paul's own writings.
Personally, that does not change its sense one way or the other for me, as I go by Paul's overall narrative anyway [Romans thru Philemon].
In what languages?
You were given both.
Steko gave you the meaning of the individual word.
Danoh gave you the thought behind the word (post #132).
You missed my point.
And context is not the same as overall scope or narrative.
Which is why you missed my point where others will not have missed it.
Not that I saw.
I'm pretty sure I gave Steko the meaning when he asked about the verses.
What it is about this site and people NOT reading?
You actually have to say something relevant for me to GET it, and as far as the context is concerned, THAT is essential in getting it. You quote Luke when the issue was Paul's letters?
I think you should just let Steko respond for himself because you're doing a terrible job at it.
That is because you subscribe to the idea that words have meanings one can look up in dictionaries and what not.
Fact is, outside of overall narrative and its resulting impact on word structure, words have no meaning of their own other than those meanings impacted on them by the particular narrative, etc.
Shared narrative results in shared sense of meaning.
To someone, say, Japanese, who does not speak or write English, even our every letter per word, let alone our every word, would look to them like what their every pen stroke looks like to us.
And you know, what I meant by the word "subscribe" via all this, for example.
This is a basic, First Grade Elementary School Reading 101 principle that remains throughout life, but for our unconscious violation of it, thus, our ending up sooner or later at "I'm sorry; I thought you'd meant..."
Relevant is relative to shared narrative.
In this, you will find Steko will know what I meant by Luke 12:42, as well as why I chose it and those other passages - in light of the Mystery first made known to and through the Apostle Paul.
This, even if he and I might differ on some of that narrative's intended sense - we're still basically "from the same nay-buh-hood."
Using your logic "God" would be a time period
(Col 1:25 KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Is "God" a time period in the above verse?
I think he was trying to tell us that he knows more about the Bible than some Greek guy who crosses his legs.
Where is 'my' logic expressed in those verses?
I wasn't anywhere around then.
A dispensation/stewardship was given to Paul from GOD....for us.
GOD is obviously not a time-period.
Strawman argument!
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think this is where people are supposed to use their brains. When we read "love of God", that can mean God's love for us or our love for God. Something coming from God or going to God. Odd how that works out, isn't it?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The actual mystery was the equality of the Gentiles and their fellowship with Israel.
The Jews figured they would get more than the penny at the end of the day.
Now the Dispy's think they're gettin' more.
:dizzy: :doh:
Words do have meanings, and they are based on HOW and WHERE they are used in any given context. They can also be looked up in the Greek to confirm what they actually mean not what someone says they mean.
That's your double talk for "they say what I want them to say", which is garbage. We have a vocabulary and a vernacular which is taken into account when it is translated into English, and as soon as you can show your credentials in this regard, I MAY pay attention to you.
A narrative is a story told for the purpose of conveying a message through people and their problems and situations.
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 128
The Bible is full of them, but going from one narrative to a different one to try and support your POV and then say NOTHING of import means absolutely nothing to me or anyone that knows what they are talking about.Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 128
Japanese is not the issue here, and they have Japanese Bibles. If you talking about 'functional equivalence', then NOBODY should be using the KJV, because it is NOT.
Why would I have ANY idea of what you say, when you don't say anything?
Verboseness is just that, putting a bunch of words together and trying to make it sound like you're saying something when you really aren't. WHO are YOU trying to fool?
Now I would suggest you actually make some pertinent responses to my posts, or I'll just add you to my list of those I ignore. It's sadly growing on this sight.
Perhaps you can't see?