Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | mark d seyler | 165925 | ||
Hi Atdcross, I would simply ask you to examine all the uses of the words in question in this passage throughout the New Testament, and see it the definitions as you have offered will actually work in those usages. I do not think that they will. The simplest example, not to speak anything against any of these scholars who have had much greater education than I have, but to define hate as "unjustifiable, malicious feelings" is to accuse God of wrongdoing for "hating" Esau. And that cannot be correct. I am not saying that Jesus spoke other than what he meant, I am saying that how we understand some of the words used is different than how they understood them then. My suggestion, to learn what these writers meant when they used a particular word, is to examine every occurrance in the Bible of that word. Determine what the meaning is within its context, find the common thread that connects them all, and you will be able to infer the meaning. I understand what you are saying about the oriental frame of reference, however, that does not as such determine the meanings of words, but rather how they are used. You can detest, abhor, "hate" as we think of it, someone, in feeling, thought, word, and deed. You can also disfavor, demote, subjugate, disapprove someone in feeling, thought, word, and deed. One is visceral, and one is willful. This is willful. If we are to say that, for instance, miseo is defined according to what you have said, even thought that definition does not work eveywhere it is used, that those instances actually mean something other than what the word means, we are left with the task of determining what it actually means. And who is to do that? You? Me? The guy down the street? If we approach scripture that way, we will all come up with something different, and we will remove the objective meaning from the Bible, and it will be no better for us than reading Dr. Seuss. Now, I like Dr. Seuss, but we already have him, and what we need is the Bible, telling US what IT means. If we simply come to the text prepared to receive whatever it offers, and carefully and thouroughly study it, it will reveal itself without conflict, without inconsistencies, and without having to redefine words to fit difficult passages. By the way, you may want to check out "The Language of Jesus", by Douglas Hamp. He presents a very strong case from Biblical, historical, and literary sources that the Jews spoke Hebrew as their primary language until 130 AD. This simply backs up what the Bible already says, that they spoke Hebrew, although this is changed in many Bibles to be Aramaic to match the modern belief. Oh well... Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166681 | ||
You’re correct I would be accusing God of wrongdoing but only if “hate” is used by Luke according to it’s usual and primary definition as defined by such scholars as Robertson. In any case, have you read the rest of Vine’s as I cited it? Also, see my citation of Evans and Liefeld. In Luke, Jesus did not mean that one is to literally hate their parents; he is saying something other than how the definition of the word is normally understood. Maybe I’m not making myself clear. In some respects, it seems to me that we are not really disagreeing with each other. I think the misunderstanding lies in my saying that the Greek word for “hate” is defined in a very strong way, whereas you’re saying, as defined, it can also mean something less strong. If my understanding is correct, in the former, I consider it the normal usage, it’s literal meaning; while, for the latter, I see it not as the definition of the word itself, but a “playing” with the word to emphasize a point. Maybe this is something akin to what Kalos refres to when he cites, “the culture gap gives you…idioms”. It any case, it may not be that we disagree but more rather that I am unable to properly explain myself having not been educated in a college or seminary. If you read “Israel’s Divine Healer” by Dr. Michael L. Brown, I’ll certainly read the book you have suggested. Let me know if it's a deal. |
||||||