Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

No, I don't have Weust as his books were included in the number of Greek study books I gave away when I began to view Aramaic is the original language of Scripture.

I remember liking him, though.

As far as Granville Sharp, I have seen many interpretations of this rule including Blunt whose principal argument was a tacit syllogism about similarities of the article in both Greek and English.

There are exceptions in Greek grammar, which is one of the few rules of Greek grammar without exceptions.

 

We've been speaking about Biblical interpretation and that word just "came out."

I meant to say criticisms and I should have same "some" and not "many."

This is a bad habit I have. I seem to use "many" quite often.

As a matter of fact I was called on this recently when I told a Democrat that "many" Democrats will vote for Bush.

Again, I should have said "some Democrats will vote for Bush."

I didn't say I actually agreed with Gregory Blunt (a pseudonym, by the way), I just said there were some criticisms and he was one of those critics.

 

===


Sorry!


When you affirmed in the context of discussing Granville Sharp that there were exceptions to Greek grammar, the implication being to that rule, I supposed when I qualified it as applicable to single nouns that you could provide just one exception to evidence your claim that there are exceptions to it.

I assumed that you wouldn't affirm there were exceptions unless you could show one.

Then when you affirmed that there were "many interpretations" [rather --now some criticisms] I supposed you could provide some of these from recognized NT expertise, not some " Blunt "-one who uses false names to express opinions, and bases grammatical views on syllogisms instead of NT usage. This is, I admit, a practice I've never encountered in my experience with many tools of exegetics.

So, I misunderstood you. This is because I've developed a habit of assuming that when someone affirms something about Biblical interpretation, especially in a context of academe as here we are, that what is affirmed is done so on evidence that can be produced.

I'm just too critical, I guess.

Sorry!

 

Yeah, Bill, but did you know that you could tell from Sigmund Freud's middle name that he was Jewish? Woooooo...a Jew and a Hellenist...woooooo...ok for Josephus but not for Freud...woooooo...wow, Bill, I'm lost in Eleusis. It's all a mystery to me, a vast wuestland, trackless and forlorn.

 

===




More posts should be limited just to these faces, then required evidence would be much less.

 

No, you're not too critical. A critical analysis of the Bible and what others say about it, pro or con, is good.

I have read and studied over the years various theologians who have been critical of Granville Sharp.

But, proving that at this point is not easy as I don't have the resources anymore.

As we have discussed in the past, there are many ways to interpret the Scripture and certainly more than one way to determine the meaning of Koine Greek words.

I used to have a book, I don't remember the name of the authors, that took many of the Koine Greek words and showed how they didn't mean what is commonly advocated.

The two gentlemen were Greek scholars from some theological institution in Ohio, I believe.

It seems to me the title was something to do with "Greek Variants" or "Biblical Word Variants," or something like that.

I know you are working on a dissertation and take your studies very, very seriously. I know you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, your thesis statement, problem, whatever.

Proof is very important to you not only as a student working on a dissertation but also as a Biblical scholar.

It's nice you have a huge reference library but not everyone on here has access to such resources.

Many of us who make statements do so based on what we have learned, studied, and been taught by those outside of academia who are skilled and/or trained in specific areas.

Most of us are not walking reference volumes.

As an example, I just finished a course titled "Community and Population Health." One of the chapters dealt with "quackery" in health care.

The word "quakery" comes from the Dutch "kwaksalver" and means "boastful, and not necessarily reliable, peddler of salves."

Now, in five, ten, or so years, if I were to post on this or another forum this information, I would not have the reference, primary or otherwise.

Would that make my information invalid? Should that cast aspersions on my scholarship just because someone said "Prove it" and I couldn't?

 

Oh well, you could always move to The Island of the Fay.

 

Orsen

I base my opinion on the three and a half years work I did in child protective services, where my agency placed children in same-sex households, my professional and social experience with same sex couples, including a "divorce" or two, the years I practiced Child Law in the delinquency arena, and the development of the case law on the subject where courts have taken evidence.

The reason I said "seem to" is because my evidence is anecdotal, not scientific.

 

===



Jimmy:

FIRST, I'm wondering if you are not wandering from the precise issue? I would greatly appreciate it if you would address the specific subject until it is settled.

We were discussing exactly from Wuest, Granville Sharp, a grammaticism , not the meaning of individual Koine Greek words--that is lexics not grammar.

The specific grammaticism, (Wallace's qualification of GS), is whether in the NT the construction:

Article- singular noun-conjuction (kai) singular noun always refers to one person or group.

By implication you said it did not. In the above post you remain unmovable in that opinion.

When I ask for "just ONE place" where it does not, you refer me instead to "some" Greek gentlemen from "somewhere" who wrote "some" book about "something"!!! Neither can you connect these to your affirmation at all!

You over generalize and change subjects to avoid the specific claims you make on specific subjects : If there are "many ways" to interpret the meaning of the construction:-- article, singular noun, conjunction, singular noun--, then give me just ONE example from the NT where it does not mean just one person or group.

If you cannot provide just ONE example, I appeal to you in the name of intellectual honesty, that you retract your affirmation and admit that you were wrong!



SECOND, I'm wondering if you are not overly excusing yourself on this occasion.

You yourself can research this question. You do not need a huge library. Simply, pick up an English NT. Find constructions as defined above. Then use that working knowledge of Greek you yourself say you learned at GSST to see if in fact those translated examples of the Greek are in the original that exact construction. There is no reason why you cannot attempt to substantiate your claim on your own instead of creating excuses!

My "huge library" , often valuable, I confess, is not the cause of my present understanding of Granville Sharp. Whatever understanding I have is mainly due to about six hours of personal research. Someone [using Wallace} said I interpreted Eph 4:11 wrongly, so I checked it out. It took me hours!! I was wrong!! And, I FESSED UP!!

IMO yours is not the best methodology-- It is to claim something and then say:

"Oh, I can't prove it because I gave all my books away,"

Or , "Not all of us have a big library"

Or "I learned that too long ago to now verify"

Or "who's a walking reference volume."

Or, "scholars need not give proof."

These are just excuses!

What I find interesting is that on this very forum if someone makes claims about Rich's dissertation, or Kerry's voting record, or the utility of DETC degrees we expect proof--not excuses!! Excuses are inacceptable.

Nor, is it correct to suggest that NT grammar is any less verifiable than these other issues. It certainly is verifiable!

Theology is more important than these, and IMO, claims should not be made about Biblical interpretation unless those claims can be evidenced. If they cannot be , IMO, it not scholary to make claims then look for excuses instead of evidence.


Yesterday in church the preacher said, "Only groups , never individuals, are called 'sanctified in the NT." That is a mistake. I pointed out to the pastor that 'hagios' is applied to an individual in Titus . If that preacher cares anything about truth, he will follow that lead. If he doesn't he will make excuses.

Sometime back I pointed out to another pastor who said John 4:2 means that Christ baptized His disciples, that disciples cannot be the object of an understood verb because the noun is nominative. If he cares about truth , then he will research that just as I did on Granville Sharp. We all make mistakes. A scholar will admit his when he is unable to evidence his position.

If you cannot evidence what you previously learned , how well is that learned? Isn't learning , learning how to learn? Learning is not just getting supposed "facts" is it? Learning is acquiring the skills to research. Learning must be subject to verification or it is not really learned.

I enjoy talking about such things with you Jimmy. But , Jimmy, I'm beginning to think that you wish to have the absolute freedom to say anything about the Bible at all but not be expected to offer any proof.

If this is a misjudgement on my part , then show me wrong by producing just one NT text where the structure : article, singular noun, conjunction (kai) singular noun does not refer to the same individual. If you cannot, then I suggest you change your view.

...

I apologize for contributing to a change of topic. I will answer any other other post about this grammar issue in another thread--sorry,

 

The question is what is the source of law? Is man the source of law, or is there a system of natural law, devised by God? Granted the constitution states that the authority comes from the consent of the governed, but then again could the founders have forseen the weak interest in civil life today or the weak spiritual state of the citizenry? What the founders believed and what the consent of the governed demand in 2004 might be two different things.

Early legal thought in the colonies and the new United States accepted the notion of natural law that was established by a Supreme Being. William Blackstone, a renowned English Jurist, wrote a widely read and accepted book that was the basis for legal education during the Colonial period during the first hundred years of the United States. The book, Commentaries on the Law of England Continually asserts that man is a creation subject to the natural law of the Creator. The founders documents, all indicate that they believed in a Supreme Being. The Declaration of Independence, a legal document articulating the reasons for seperation from the Crown, directly acknowledges the Creator, as does the personal and other public documents of the founders.

The alternative view, that man is the source of law is the result of Evolutionary philosohpy working its way into law school. Scientific metodology came into vogue in law schools during the last 100 years. The premise that the law conforms to culture, instead of culture conforming to man was established and advance in the Harrvard Law School, by Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Christoper Columbus Langdell. Langdell viewed the law liabrary as a laboratory with law being developed soley through cases.

The latter view is prevalent today, espoused in law schools and reinforced from the bench. Using this theory, law is constantly evolving and taken to extreme may not be dependable to resolve conflicts. If there never is a absolute, then man becomes law in his own mind and the ability for the government to govern is severely limited, as in the current crisis in San Francisco. I type of anarchy ensues.

How is this applied to the Gay/Homosexual/Sodomite marriage situation? If one views the world from a perspective of natural law then you are likely against. If your world view supports the idea that man is the source of law, then you are either don't care or support marriage between those of the same sex.

 

Wilhelm,

I never said I agreed with the critics of Granville Sharp. I said there was disagreement with his rule.

Also, GSST takes the exact same position you do on the Koine Greek language (words, word meaning, definitions, Granville Sharp, etc.).

(Parenthetically, you asked me once to prove Bethany and GSST are good schools. This is absurd. I can't anymore than I can prove Delta State University, Augsta State University, ESR, or CCHS are good schools and they are all RA/NA.)

I am not a Greek scholar and don't like the language because, as I said, I hold to the Aramaic origins of the NT.

I took one semester of Greek and one semester of Hebrew at GSST to refresh my memory and to have a basic knowledge of the language because I forgot most of what I learned 20 years ago when I adopted the Armaic primacy theory of the NT.

The semester of Greek at GSST focused on

Accidence (orthography, inflection)

Syntax (cases, negatives, clauses, moods, participles, infinitives, prepositiions, punctuation).

Vocabulary

As I said, the course is typical of any Greek course and falls in line with the generally accepted positions of most scholars as to word meanings, grammar, etc.

I like the views of Moffatt, Phillips, Rotterham, Goodspeed, and Schoenheit when it comes to the Koine Greek and other Biblical issues.

Rotterham, for instance, says the unrighteous go off to age-abiding correction rather than eternal punishment.

And no one can question Moffatt's scholarship.

But the bottom line for me is I could care less what the Greek says.

You like other scholars. You use the names Wescott-Hort quite often.

I read that Wescott "explained away the miracles of Jesus." Is this true? Do you know some of the other statements he made regarding Jesus?

Do you know what Wescott said about theos and ho theos?

You have the tools, resources, knowledge, and scholarship when it come to Greek.

You can "best" me anytime. Good for you, my friend. Good for those who support Greek primacy.

I have learned some things from you and I thank you! I sincerely mean that.

So I will concentrate on my continuing Syriac studies and wish you great shaina


Viva la Peshitta!

 

madcow,

Your comment about the ultimate sources of law is precisely on point, I believe. However, I think you can take it much further. This debate, about whether God gave the Law (in my case on Mt. Sinai) or the law is a product of, and therefore subject to the developing standards of, the society underlies the present War on Terror as well as the internal struggles between religious and non religious politicians and citizens in countries from Saudi Arabia and Iran through Israel to the United States.

The issue, IHMO, is one of Authority with a capital "A". Under that, is fear. On the part of the religious, fear that a non religious society will self destruct because it will lose its "center". On the part of the non religious (including me) fear that my freedom will be restricted in the name of blind superstition.

Neither side is very attractive.

Genuine democracy in the fullest sense is not consistant with the God centered view. Either the people govern themselves, or they do not. Think Iran.

On the OTHER hand, is it really possible to teach the kind of decency and morality our society needs in order to survive without any reference to Authority outside of ourselves? This was a big issue in the Roman Empire about the time Christianity was first spreading

Is there middle ground? I don't know. Abortion, stem cell research, many, many current, important issues hang upon this fundamental societal choice.

 

Gay Marriage

Nos, as ususal a very clear argument. You must be a lawyer.

Interesting article in yesterdays San Francisco Chronicle. I don't live in SF, but try to read quite a few Sunday papers on the Internet. Newpaper links change quite often, so here is the full article.


Courts could make parallels with old racial laws

Deciding on legality of same-sex unions raises similar issues
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 29, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

Link to Article

 

Just a note....copyrighted material was removed from the above post.

 

Perhaps we should consider what Dostoyevsky said: "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

 

I should probably get used to this sort of comment as I embark on a legal education!


This debate, about whether God gave the Law (in my case on Mt. Sinai) or the law is a product of, and therefore subject to the developing standards of, the society underlies the present War on Terror as well as the internal struggles between religious and non religious politicians and citizens in countries from Saudi Arabia and Iran through Israel to the United States.

The issue, IHMO, is one of Authority with a capital "A". Under that, is fear. On the part of the religious, fear that a non religious society will self destruct because it will lose its "center".

Do you believe that we as a nation are really free? IMHO, I see my freedom being eroded by those who espouse "man as the source of law." The government has restricted my freedom significantly, by forcing me to fund all kinds of entitlements under the vague constitutional mandate to "promote the general welfare." It seems to me, that those who espouse sociological jurisprudence, have taken that mandate and changed it to "provide for the general welfare." Consequently, we have entitlemetn health care, entitlement education, entitlement retirement, etc. etc. I believe that the citizenry would reject true and absolute freedom (of keeping tax dollars for example) and being totally responsible for oneself.

Granted, through man-centered law, we now allow all manner of behavior, formerly restricted, but is this truly freedom? While Howard Stern cites encroachment on his "freedom of speach," or MTV's right to produce and air lewd images at the superbowl is considered artistic freedom, where is the balance with anothers right to be free of this?

I don't see freedom in socio-jurisprudence either. I see my freedom being eroded by being forced to shoulder someone else's load or putting up with the taste and whims of anothers lifestyle.

Agreed.

 

What Jimmy (and Fyodor) fails to acknowledge is that there are other forces at work in this equation. "What is permitted," is what works in the real world. What we have learned is that Dostoyevsky's vision of the world was extremely limited. While he may have been a brilliant writer, he had no vision of the future.
Jack

 

This is not an area of special knowledge for me and so I feel the need to ask a question or two:
1) Are you able to cite sources that indicate that Greek law, Roman law, German law and Soviet law were all seen to have been born from the concept of "man as the source of law?"
2) Are you able to cite sources that indicate that the end of Greek and Roman civilization were "marked by the acceptance of Sodomite relationships?"
I'm no historian but I believe that you've jumped into the deep end of the pool without your waterwings.
Jack