Sharp, Scholarship, and Schools: A Theology Post

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bill Grover, Mar 1, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    From the Gay Marriage thread:

    Jimmy, (I'll call you by your name)



    If someone engages me in a discussion of the Greek nuances of Mt 5:32 in connection with a thread on marriage and divorce and says he knows all about lower and higher criticism and redactionism, and has studied Greek syntax, (for the second time) and lists cadre after cadre of scholarly references on the Greek , and talks about lexics too and then, goes on to say further, that he has read MANY criticisms of a particular Greek grammatical rule, which I mention in connection with a scholar he mentions, and then in the same post says that there are exceptions to Greek grammar, implicitly seemingly to mean to that very rule too, my justified anticipation is both that that one has interest in and experience with the subject which he , himself, chose to discuss with me and is now lavishly expounding on.

    I think on the basis of such verbiage it also could be inferred that that one is assuming a persona of some scholarship, as well , for any interested to see.

    So, when I ask , on the basis of that verbiage, if that one can provide just one exception as an evidence of what he seems to be saying [such exceptions may indeed exist] , instead of a simple "No I cannot because I really don't know what I'm talking about," what I get instead is asides and avoidances, which even themselves seem in internal conflict, like:


    "I could care less about Greek!

    [so] I studied Greek syntax at GSST

    [if you know so much] :

    Do you know what Westcott says about Theos/ ho Theos?**

    Do you know what Rotterham says about Hell?

    You can't prove Bethany of Dothan is not a good school

    You cannot prove GSST is not a good school

    You beat me at Greek, so what, I know aramaic, ha, ha

    and, besides, the NT was wriiten in aramaic.

    and etc. ."

    You say it cannot be shown that Bethany of Dothan and GSST are not schools ? I suppose it depends on our criteria.

    Do good schools hire qualified profs?

    Do grads with masters from good schools get into docs in RA schools?

    And, in connection with this thread:

    Do good schools prepare their scholars to answer questions about their claims with asides and avoidances?



    ** What do you think Westcott says about theos/ho theos?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2004
  2. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Bill,

    For one, thank you for diverting this post from the massive "gay marriage post."

    Second, for Jimmy, I'm really NOT impressed with your arguments. I will let Bill continue to weigh in politely here. For me, what DO you believe?

    If you do post, please argue from the Aramaic text why your position is correctly understood. Exegete it. Just do it. Otherwise, your exegetical degrees pretty much mean nothing.

    Please read Daniel Wallace's discussion of the Greek primacy of the NT in his Biblical Greek Syntax book. If I remember right, it's in the introduction.


    Chris
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Exegete what? That in John 1:1 the word "miltha" means an "utterance/command" and that "miltha" is a personification for Jesus being the "Word of God in the flesh" and that "miltha" refers to the written Word of God? (Aramaic Interlinear, Assyrian Dictionary, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Lexicon to the Syriac NT, Compendious Syriac Grammar, Lamsa, Bazzi, Errico).

    What do I believe:

    1. God is creator and father of all.

    2. Jesus Christ is His Son, our Lord and Saviour

    3. The Scriptures are sufficient for faith and practice

    I don't believe in superstition or mythology.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Christopher,

    I am not going to carry this on like I have with Bill, although I have enjoyed it.

    I am not going to respond to anymore posts about stupid Koine Greek, etc. My areas of expertise are in pastoral and Christian counseling and if anyone want to discuss that, I will be happy to.

    Also, I left out a reference in my last post regarding the word miltha and this is The Most Rev. Dr. Aprem.

    He held master's from United Theological College and Union Theological Seminary. He began Th.D. studies at Princeton completing them at Serampore University.

    He was lsited in the International Who's Who of Intellectuals.

    Now, my friend, yo have a master’s in Semitic languages. Aramaic is a Semitic language.

    Therefore, in addition to pthaha, zqapa, and rvaha, what are the other vowels of the language?

    What are the rules for qysgata abd ryjajga?

    What are the exceptions to these rules?

    What is a maplatha and how many are there?

    What are the two demonstrative pronouns?

    When kul qualifies a noun in the definite state, does it take a pronominal suffix?

    What are the difference between plural points and points of distinction? (Never mind, this is away too easy.).

    Singular numbers are called khdanaya. What are plural numbers called?

    What does this mean?: Awa, Shuiq lhen, La geir, yea’ien mana avdien?

    What is the general interpretation of Eil, Eil, lmana Shwaqthan and how does this differ from Eli, Eli, lama shabaqthani?

    What’s the difference between talmida and talmiedu?

    Finally, what are the gutturals, linguals, palatals, dentals and labials of the Aramaic language?

    Thanks in advance for your scholarly contributions.

    Finis!

    Shlama,
     
  5. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    St Augustine, "Do not think me silly for using Greek words."

    [On the Profit of Believing, 5 ]


    Jimmy, "styuppid greke.":D
     
  6. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    J'accuse: Bill needs to shape up!

    Bill:

    You coulda been a contender. Perhaps some languages are not susceptible to exegesis, but only to random word lists and phrasebooks. I think it may express a kind of bigotry on your part to expect an actual discussion of an actual text from a translated version, you know, the way real Biblical scholars do with Hebrew, OT portions in Aramaic, or NT Greek.

    I suspect you are culturally insensitive in not accepting a secondhand report of a cleric from an ethnic group that uses a deracinated version of Aramaic. After all, you would blindly accept as infallible absolutely anything a Greek priest said about NT Greek or a sabra rabbi said about biblical Hebrew, you intolerant person, you. After all, since you reject KJV Onlyism, you obviously don't understand that only translations done centuries after the original texts are worthwhile, and that actual Biblical language is "stupid." Didn't Dr Gastrich (remember him?)explain anything to you at all?

    I just get more and more disappointed in you, Bill, and sure hope you shape up soon. Imagine wasting all that time doing a doctoral dissertation at a real university when you could be quoting elementary helps and 19th century eccentrics instead, and bolstering your mental credentials by constantly talking about schools from which you never graduated--or, for that matter, ones you did graduate from--instead of actually wrangling actual texts, you coherencemonger.

    You could achieve specialness with so little intellectual content--but noooo, you have to obsess about honesty and integrity and common sense, you miserable flat-earther. Lent is here, so get your rear in gear and start repenting, big time. After all, once you say you've repented, who could ask for anything more? Bill, I'll pray for you, but I doubt it'll help much.

    Janko
     
  7. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: J'accuse: Bill needs to shape up!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2004
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: J'accuse: Bill needs to shape up!

    Bill,

    Would you mind to tell us what you really think? ;)
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: J'accuse: Bill needs to shape up!

    A great many people think they are thinking when they are rearranging their prejudices.--William James
     
  10. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    You're right, Bill. I'm soooo ashamed.

    After all, informed scholarly opinion is just prejudice, and only whimsicality and special pleading are the two sides of the boulevard of truth. I'm so sad that I wasted all those years in schools from which I actually graduated learning critical thinking skills. I could have been creating the impression I graduated from the twit bin, too, or backtracking to claim I was a visa-martyr or poverty-martyr or beer-store-martyr, instead of freely admitting that after a year in the twit bin they were sick of me and I of them.

    And, yes, this has been back-translated by Gheorghe Sheepsa from English into Carpathian into English again. There is no original of this post.
     
  11. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: J'accuse: Bill needs to shape up!

    ===

    A great many people think they are thinking when they are only making simplistic appeals to authority.

    That's right. Thinking is agreeing with you:D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2004
  12. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Posted by Jimmy Clifton:
    Jimmy,

    Please respond to Bill's original post.

    Since you have said you are through with this discussion (with me) I don't want to wax to much on this response. I can tell you are pretty upset that I think your "Aramaic NT" beliefs are dinky.

    I didn't take every Semitic language that exists, and the semester that Aramaic was offered I think it was my comprehensive exam on the history of semitic languages that took primacy.

    What Christology do you hold to? Adoptionist? Docetic? Gnostic? Do you believe that Jesus was "God and man?" Just let me know and why, please. As you are doing pastoral counseling, I think you would agree, the Jesus you lead people to is going to need to be clear.

    Chris
     
  13. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2004
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    So, your degree is not in Semetic languages but a Semitic language?


    Chris,

    I have already said I am not going to engage in these types of discussions anymore.

    My expertise, areas of concentration and foci, for all my seminary degrees are in pastoral and Chrisitan counseling. If you want to discuss these areas, fine.

    I hold to a classical unitarian Christology. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, rose, and is in Heaven with God.

    I believe in universal salvation and the just retribution of sin.

    I believe in the power of prayer, the bestowing of blessings, and miracles.

    I have never pastored a "creedal" church. I have pastored congregations in the Friends, UCC, Congregational, and Independent Christian churches/churches of Christ.

    I do not hold to the adoptionist view as I don't think it's Scriptural although I have read some see support for this in Matthew 3:17.

    Please don't insult me with asking me if I believe in the absurdity of docetism and as far as gnosticism I do enjoy reading the so-called Gnostic Scriptures.

    As far as your thinking my views on Aramaic are "dinky," that's fine with me. I am sure there are those who find some of your views "dinky" as well as almost everyone else in the world who has an opinion.

    I think there is some evidence (Coneybeare, Wellhausen, Papias, Burney, Fitzzmyer, Brown, et. al.,) to give reasonable doubt that Aramaic was the original language of some (Matthew) or all of Scripture.

    Not to mention Papias of Hieraplois suggests "Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could." (See Eusebius, HE 3.39.16)

    Now, you will find sources use "Hebrew" instead of "Aramaic." The point is "Greek" is questioned.

    I may concede, I said may, that Luke may have been originally penned in Greek. The evidence suggests he was a master of the language and was able to write the elegant Greek of 1:1-4 and the Septuagint Greek of 1:5-2:52; and he did address a Gentile audience.

    I don't chastise, criticise, or mock those who hold different views, although I know I come across that way at times. But I really respect others' points of views; I really do and I have always been and am still open to being proven wrong and learning.

    Take care, Chris, and excuse the tone of my last post to you. As I have said, often on these forums, face-to-face conversations are much more desirable as these forums are cold and meanings and intent are often misunderstood.

    It is also very easy to attack via this medium.

    Now, I have to get back to finishing a term paper.
     
  15. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    But isn't it just obvious, Bill, that all Palestinian Jews, including the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth, were monolingual dodos in a linguistically pure theme park? After all, if your average midwestern hick is monolingual and unable to tell when he is being swoggled with fancy furrin wurds, must not your average Palestinian hick in the reign of Tiberius have been monolingual as well, unable to understand or read Hebrew in the synagogue; unable to use commercial Greek in the great markets of Sepphoris or for communication with the ubiquitous Roman occupiers, military or bureaucratic; untouched by decades of Hellenism promoted by Sadducees and Roman officials and clients alike; unaware of the LXX, let alone Philo; and unexampled by one Paul making aliyah from Tarsus, who was quizzed by a Roman soldier in Jerusalem startled by Paul's command of Greek--because the soldier thought Paul was Egyptian, not because he thought Paul was Palestinian?

    Oh. I deny that I am posting this post. You only think you are reading it. And it's not actually in English. Or Carpathian. Or Reformed Egyptian. If you don't agree with every word in it I will hurl obscenities at you in a foreign language, except that once I deny that, I won't have done that either.

    Mairzy doats and doazy doats and liddle lamsa divy, a kiddly divy too, wouldn't Jew?
     
  16. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
  17. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    But I've rung this bell enough. If no one is going to answer , then I'll move on to another thread and another day. Let's drop it.

    Charis soi ,
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Dr. Loisy

    Dr. Alfred Firmin Loisy, in his books The Birth of the Christian Religion and Origins of the New Testament, said Matthew and Mark were written first in Aramaic. He said the Greek is "untrustworthy."

    Loisy was a French theologian and Biblical scientist.

    Dr. C. F. Burney, in The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, establishes conclusive evidence John was originally written in Aramaic.

    Burney was an Oxford professor. His title was Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture.

    Dr. C. C. Torrey, in his Composition and Date of Acts states Acts 1-15 were originally written in Aramaic.

    Maybe you should consult the following who either maintain or support these views:

    D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus.

    E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible.

    Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus.

    Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel.

    Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.

    Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.

    Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity.

    Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament.

    Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature.

    Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts.

    Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament.

    Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies.

    Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus.

    Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel.

    Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

    R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse.

    Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, and Our Translated Gospels.

    Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts .

    F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels.

    You should also study Moffatt, Phillips, Goodspeed, Davis, Potter (no, not Harry, Uncle Janko!).

    Again, you all have your scholars, I have mine. Now, let's see, what will be my next stage in my journey along the iconoclast road?

    Perhaps I will argue Latin was the original language of Scripture since it was spoken in Christ's day, naw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  19. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Oh, yeah, Ch*****. Didn't he change his name from von Hohenzollern because it sounded "too Jewish"?
     
  20. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    oops, forgot: "little lamsa"

    You are soooo funny:D
     

Share This Page