|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 30, 2021 16:04:04 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis.
That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English.
There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing.
In short, here's what's going on:
Q: What is the Bible about?
A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false").
No, that's not at all what the Bible is about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2021 17:45:09 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis. That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English. There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing. In short, here's what's going on: Q: What is the Bible about? A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false"). No, that's not at all what the Bible is about. To play the devil's advocate. Isn't the bible open to interpretation? I mean that's the main argument whenever anything in the bible clashes with reality. So how do you know that your interpretation is better than fuzzy's? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 30, 2021 22:12:50 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis. That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English. There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing. In short, here's what's going on: Q: What is the Bible about? A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false"). No, that's not at all what the Bible is about. To play the devil's advocate. Isn't the bible open to interpretation? I mean that's the main argument whenever anything in the bible clashes with reality. So how do you know that your interpretation is better than fuzzy's? Sure, it's open to interpretation, but that doesn't make every interpretation valid. So then the question is, as you ask, how do I know that my interpretation is better than the OP? Well, I'd love to have that conversation if he wants to. But it doesn't look like he wants to. Because he has ignored my points and merely repeated his premise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2021 8:52:54 GMT
...Because he has ignored my points and merely repeated his premise. Yes, that definitely sounds like fuzzy. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 6, 2021 8:35:20 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis. That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English. There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing. In short, here's what's going on: Q: What is the Bible about? A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false"). No, that's not at all what the Bible is about. I never said the Bible is only about the earth being a globe. As for the Greek, I am very well acquainted with Greek and the one who is coaching me in Koine Greek is a Greek naturalized in Greece. He is a scholar in Koine Greek and not every Greek knows Koine Greek. My point stands as the two Greek words oikoumene and kosmos are both interchangeable words that, depending on the context, means globe. The globular context is God's dominion over the earth and inhabitants thereof. In Latin, the Greek word oikoumene translates to orbis (often written as orbis terrarum or orbis terrae) or orbe, orbi, orbem. Moreover, oikoumene is translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. All the best sources confirm this. The earliest Church father to mention the earth as a globe was 1st century Clement of Rome, and his statement about antipodes reflected his deeper knowledge about Greek words like oikoumene an kosmos. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 6, 2021 8:49:55 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis. That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English. There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing. In short, here's what's going on: Q: What is the Bible about? A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false"). No, that's not at all what the Bible is about. To play the devil's advocate. Isn't the bible open to interpretation? I mean that's the main argument whenever anything in the bible clashes with reality. So how do you know that your interpretation is better than fuzzy's? Answer: he doesn't. He doesn't know Hebrew, Greek or Latin or early Christian exegesis. I have studied all these things which is how I know the that the Holy Bible teaches globe earth. This was understood by the Christian Church as far back as the 1st century. There is no evidence that the Church ever taught flat earth. And its important not to confuse the rejection of antipodes for flat earth. St.Augustine, for example, knew Scripture taught globe earth but found it hard to accept the antipodes. Yet his mentor, St.Ambrose, who studied the Scriptures his whole life, understood the marriage between the globe and antipodes just fine. 1st century Clement of Rome read globe earth with antipodes from Scripture. He knew what kosmos and oikoumene meant. St.Jerome translated both the Hebrew tebel and Greek oikoumene to orbis terrarum. William Tyndale translated tebel to "round world." So from the 1st century up on to the 16th century the Church consistently taught that Scripture teaches globe earth. And when you study the original languages you know there is no way they'd get that wrong. That goes for the Hebrew chuwg, the Greek gyros, and the Latin gyrus. There was nothing tricky going on with these words so understanding them has never been a problem for either ancient or modern scholars. Not all the Bible is subject to interpretation. Most of it is not. Though there are prophecies and a few other things in Scripture which through the centuries have not been fully grasped. God is the Author of common sense. Once you apply that to analysis you're on your way to understanding Scriptrure. The problem today is not enough people apply common sense and are more interested in fruitless debates like "How many angels can you make dance at the head of a pin?" You can never understand anything if you don't want to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 14:56:24 GMT
If your understanding of the Greek results in your conclusion that the intention of the New Testament is to describe the world as a "globe," you've missed the boat big time. That is not AT ALL the intention of the New Testament. That's egregious eisegesis. That's like saying that Shakespeare wrote his plays to memorialize the English language of his day against future changes to English. There's a forest and there are trees. You're investigating scripture to find a particular tree about which the biblical authors cared little to nothing. In short, here's what's going on: Q: What is the Bible about? A [FEZILLA]: the world is a globe (a sub argument of "current scientific theories of origins are false"). No, that's not at all what the Bible is about. I never said the Bible is only about the earth being a globe. As for the Greek, I am very well acquainted with Greek and the one who is coaching me in Koine Greek is a Greek naturalized in Greece. He is a scholar in Koine Greek and not every Greek knows Koine Greek. My point stands as the two Greek words oikoumene and kosmos are both interchangeable words that, depending on the context, means globe. The globular context is God's dominion over the earth and inhabitants thereof. In Latin, the Greek word oikoumene translates to orbis (often written as orbis terrarum or orbis terrae) or orbe, orbi, orbem. Moreover, oikoumene is translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. All the best sources confirm this. The earliest Church father to mention the earth as a globe was 1st century Clement of Rome, and his statement about antipodes reflected his deeper knowledge about Greek words like oikoumene an kosmos. What's interesting is that it's perfectly logical to conceptualize "all that is" as a globe without requiring "all that is" be a physical sphere. kosmos refers to "all that is," not just the earth. So to presume that it validates the earth as a literal globe is to impose an self-interested interpretation onto it. As for oikoumene, the root is oikos, which specifically refers to humanity, and it's "roundness" would refer to "all humanity" (obviously?), not the physical structure of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 15:00:37 GMT
To play the devil's advocate. Isn't the bible open to interpretation? I mean that's the main argument whenever anything in the bible clashes with reality. So how do you know that your interpretation is better than fuzzy's? Answer: he doesn't. He doesn't know Hebrew, Greek or Latin or early Christian exegesis. Are you sure? Actually, more precisely, are you sure that I don't know as much Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, or "early Christian exegesis" (whatever that means...I mean, Origen is "early Christian exegesis"--do his allegorical interpretations "count"?) than you do? And yet John's Apocalypse says it has four corners. Everything that is written is subject to interpretation, although you are correct in your implication that there are "wrong interpretations." There can be more than one "right interpretation." Here's are a few tangential questions related to interpretation of scripture: 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:40:24 GMT
I have a question: Why is it that Elijah Baley, in spite of being a Jew, keeps quoting the New Testament to Daneel Olivaw to make his points?
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 20:14:57 GMT
I never said the Bible is only about the earth being a globe. As for the Greek, I am very well acquainted with Greek and the one who is coaching me in Koine Greek is a Greek naturalized in Greece. He is a scholar in Koine Greek and not every Greek knows Koine Greek. My point stands as the two Greek words oikoumene and kosmos are both interchangeable words that, depending on the context, means globe. The globular context is God's dominion over the earth and inhabitants thereof. In Latin, the Greek word oikoumene translates to orbis (often written as orbis terrarum or orbis terrae) or orbe, orbi, orbem. Moreover, oikoumene is translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. All the best sources confirm this. The earliest Church father to mention the earth as a globe was 1st century Clement of Rome, and his statement about antipodes reflected his deeper knowledge about Greek words like oikoumene an kosmos. What's interesting is that it's perfectly logical to conceptualize "all that is" as a globe without requiring "all that is" be a physical sphere. kosmos refers to "all that is," not just the earth. So to presume that it validates the earth as a literal globe is to impose an self-interested interpretation onto it. As for oikoumene, the root is oikos, which specifically refers to humanity, and it's "roundness" would refer to "all humanity" (obviously?), not the physical structure of the world. Oikoumene means the habitable (part of the) globe. And where there is oikoumene there are also antipodes. The two words are married to the Greek concept of the globe. Also, oikoumene was translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. In Latin the words tebel and oikoumene become orbis terrarum. Kosmos is interchangeable with oikoumeme. Kosmos can be applied depending upon the context its being applied to. Though, generally speaking, kosmos means and is applied to (1) universe/cosmos (2) world/earth/globe along with its inhabitants (3) people. Now I learn Greek from a Greek scholar from Greece. Your view on Greek shows your ignorance of the language. Here is a picture of kosmos from a Greek site.  |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 20:30:39 GMT
Answer: he doesn't. He doesn't know Hebrew, Greek or Latin or early Christian exegesis. Are you sure? Actually, more precisely, are you sure that I don't know as much Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, or "early Christian exegesis" (whatever that means...I mean, Origen is "early Christian exegesis"--do his allegorical interpretations "count"?) than you do? Absolutely 150% certain you have no experience in ancient languages. Origin read globe earth from Scripture. He also confirmed that Clement of Rome taught globe earth. Clement of Rome was reading words like oikoumene and kosmos and from there it was not hard to arrive to the antipode conclusion. For where there is oikoumene there are also the antipodes. If you knew Greek you'd know that. You have to study long and hard to learn Greek. Its not easy to learn, especially Koine Greek. Even most Greeks living in Greece don't know Koine Greek! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 20:47:11 GMT
What's interesting is that it's perfectly logical to conceptualize "all that is" as a globe without requiring "all that is" be a physical sphere. kosmos refers to "all that is," not just the earth. So to presume that it validates the earth as a literal globe is to impose an self-interested interpretation onto it. As for oikoumene, the root is oikos, which specifically refers to humanity, and it's "roundness" would refer to "all humanity" (obviously?), not the physical structure of the world. Oikoumene means the habitable (part of the) globe. And where there is oikoumene there are also antipodes. The two words are married to the Greek concept of the globe. Also, oikoumene was translated from the Hebrew word tebel which means the habitable globe. In Latin the words tebel and oikoumene become orbis terrarum. Kosmos is interchangeable with oikoumeme. Kosmos can be applied depending upon the context its being applied to. Though, generally speaking, kosmos means and is applied to (1) universe/cosmos (2) world, earth, globe (3) people. Now I learn Greek from a Greek scholar from Greece. Your view on Greek shows your ignorance of the language. Here is a picture of kosmos from a Greek site. View AttachmentYou're just repeating yourself and appealing to some unknown authority. Then saying "my view on Greek shows my ignorance of the language." None of that proves your case. Neither does the picture (not link) you posted. But if you're correct, then you have bigger problems: Luke 2:1 - "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world [οἰκουμÎνην]" (NIV). So Augustus took a census...of the "globe"? That's flat out wrong, however you interpret it. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 20:48:05 GMT
Answer: he doesn't. He doesn't know Hebrew, Greek or Latin or early Christian exegesis. Are you sure? Actually, more precisely, are you sure that I don't know as much Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, or "early Christian exegesis" (whatever that means...I mean, Origen is "early Christian exegesis"--do his allegorical interpretations "count"?) than you do? And yet John's Apocalypse says it has four corners. Everything that is written is subject to interpretation, although you are correct in your implication that there are "wrong interpretations." There can be more than one "right interpretation." Here's are a few tangential questions related to interpretation of scripture: 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? Here again you show your ignorance in the languages. The NT WAS NOT written in English nor does it obey grammatical rules of English. The NT was written in Greek and was much later translated into English. Further, the NT was written in Greek from the Jewish perspective. St.John was a Jew. The four corners of the earth is a Jewish EXPRESSION that means the far reaches of the earth, or the four cardinal directions. Every Hebraist is gonna tell you that. Even today, if you go to Israel, they still use that expression today. It does not mean flat earth. St.John uses the words oikumene and kosmos which mean the habitable globe. Not one reputable Bible scholar, ancient or modern, agrees with you. There IS NOT more than one right interpretation! Are you sure you're not a charlatan? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 20:51:27 GMT
Are you sure? Actually, more precisely, are you sure that I don't know as much Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, or "early Christian exegesis" (whatever that means...I mean, Origen is "early Christian exegesis"--do his allegorical interpretations "count"?) than you do? Absolutely 150% certain you have no experience in ancient languages. Well, that's unfortunate for you. Because I'm no expert, but I do have "some experience." So you're wrong. You're missing my point. Do you accept Origen's allegorical interpretation as "valid"? Since you say there's only one correct interpretation? You are aware of Origen's allegorical interpretations? I'm assuming you do, since I do you apparently know so much more than me about ancient exegesis... |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 20:57:32 GMT
Are you sure? Actually, more precisely, are you sure that I don't know as much Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, or "early Christian exegesis" (whatever that means...I mean, Origen is "early Christian exegesis"--do his allegorical interpretations "count"?) than you do? And yet John's Apocalypse says it has four corners. Everything that is written is subject to interpretation, although you are correct in your implication that there are "wrong interpretations." There can be more than one "right interpretation." Here's are a few tangential questions related to interpretation of scripture: 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? Here again you show your ignorance in the languages. The NT WAS NOT written in English nor does it obey grammatical rules of English. The NT was written in Greek and was much later translated into English. Further, the NT was written in Greek from the Jewish perspective. St.John was a Jew. The four corners of the earth is a Jewish EXPRESSION that means the far reaches of the earth, or the four cardinal directions. Every Hebraist is gonna tell you that. Even today, if you go to Israel, they still use that expression today. It does not mean flat earth. St.John uses the words oikumene and kosmos which mean the habitable globe. Not one reputable Bible scholar, ancient or modern, agrees with you. There IS NOT more than one right interpretation! Are you sure you're not a charlatan? You're avoiding the question. You don't need to read it in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to understand there's more than one interpretation. Are you too chicken to answer the questions? 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? These are not translation questions. They're interpretation questions. You have appealed to Origen...is his allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan correct? Because if there's only one interpretation, then his intepretation is either right or wrong. So, which is it? (You are familiar with Origen, aren't you? Being the expert in ancient exegesis?). Man up. Don't dodge the questions. If you do, then we can only assume you are afraid to. These are not "difficult questions." |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 21:23:30 GMT
Absolutely 150% certain you have no experience in ancient languages. Well, that's unfortunate for you. Because I'm no expert, but I do have "some experience." So you're wrong. You're missing my point. Do you accept Origen's allegorical interpretation as "valid"? Since you say there's only one correct interpretation? You are aware of Origen's allegorical interpretations? I'm assuming you do, since I do you apparently know so much more than me about ancient exegesis... I accept nothing that isn't quoted and properly referenced. I have Origen's On First Principles. Jesus says Genesis 1--11 is literal true history, not allegory. Obviously you don't know how or when to quote the early church fathers either. Look, all this takes many years of experience. You lack that experience. You have an opinion but your opinion is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 21:25:41 GMT
Well, that's unfortunate for you. Because I'm no expert, but I do have "some experience." So you're wrong. You're missing my point. Do you accept Origen's allegorical interpretation as "valid"? Since you say there's only one correct interpretation? You are aware of Origen's allegorical interpretations? I'm assuming you do, since I do you apparently know so much more than me about ancient exegesis... I accept nothing that isn't quoted and properly referenced. I have Origen's On First Principles. Jesus says Genesis 1--11 is literal true history, not allegory. Obviously you don't know how or when to quote the early church fathers either. Look, all this takes many years of experience. You lack that experience. You have an opinion but your opinion is wrong. So, according to Origen, this is the interpretation of The Good Samaritan: "The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord's body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. ... The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior's second coming." (from his Homilies on Luke) Correct interpretation? Or not? There's only one interpretation, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 21:27:50 GMT
I accept nothing that isn't quoted and properly referenced. I have Origen's On First Principles. Jesus says Genesis 1--11 is literal true history, not allegory. Obviously you don't know how or when to quote the early church fathers either. Look, all this takes many years of experience. You lack that experience. You have an opinion but your opinion is wrong. 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? These are simple questions. Since there is "only one interpretation," what is the correct answer to these questions? Come on, FEZILLA, this shouldn't be too hard since "every expert" agrees there's is only one interpretation. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 22:28:06 GMT
I accept nothing that isn't quoted and properly referenced. I have Origen's On First Principles. Jesus says Genesis 1--11 is literal true history, not allegory. Obviously you don't know how or when to quote the early church fathers either. Look, all this takes many years of experience. You lack that experience. You have an opinion but your opinion is wrong. 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? These are simple questions. Since there is "only one interpretation," what is the correct answer to these questions? Come on, FEZILLA, this shouldn't be too hard since "every expert" agrees there's is only one interpretation. Right? Look, I don't play games. Go and write an entire commentary on the Bible and see how far you get with that. I'm not gonna entertain your foolishness. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 22:36:01 GMT
1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? These are simple questions. Since there is "only one interpretation," what is the correct answer to these questions? Come on, FEZILLA, this shouldn't be too hard since "every expert" agrees there's is only one interpretation. Right? Look, I don't play games. Go and write an entire commentary on the Bible and see how far you get with that. I'm not gonna entertain your foolishness. This is not a game. You made a claim that there was "only one interpretation." 1) Why was the "prodigal son" starving? Most interpreters in the west would say it was because he squandered his wealth. Is that correct? Is that "the" correct interpretation? 2) Why did Moses cover his face? Exodus 34 says that Aaron and the people were afraid because of the glory of God radiating from Moses's face, so Moses covered it. Is this "the" correct interpretation? 3) Was John the Baptist Elijah? In John 1:21, when specifically asked, John explicitly denies being Elijah. Is this "the" correct interpretation? This is not a game. Those are interpretations. And if there is only one interpretation, then these are either correct or incorrect interpretations. Which is it? |
|
