View Full Version : LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes
awareness
01-11-2015, 09:20 AM
I don't think that was his intention. Once you get away from dogma which is supported by some kind of authoritative structure, there are choices.
Linguistic-historical interpretation is always going to be more or less probable not absolute. So it will never be final in the way that dogma is. The catholic church has its creeds, Witness Lee made himself the one voice that could be heard in the Local Churches.
You have stated that it is all a matter of who you listen to. But, how does one decide that?
Anyway, it would be nice if we could get away from always having to depend on some expert to tell us what the Bible really means and get back to letting the words speak to us directly. Maybe what the experts tell us the Bible really means is less important than hearing God speak to us through it. Even though we don't have the original manuscripts or whatever, that still may be possible. Maybe we can get back to that.See new thread in Alternative Views.
awareness
01-11-2015, 09:30 AM
For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.My point exactly.
Really? According to what "calibration"? Or is it safe to say that the calibration is no more than your own subjective evaluation? Not that I have a problem with that. Just that if that is what it is i would like to be able to understand it as such. Oh you know exactly what I meant/mean. You're just being cantankerous for the fun of it.
Oh let's do talk about it. Witness Lee usually used 2 Timothy 3:16 not to show that the Bible was infallible but rather spiritual as he does here:
For example, I would like to point out again that 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” The Scriptures are the breath of God, or the breathing out of God, God's breathing out of Himself. The Bible, therefore, is God's breath, and God's breath is the Spirit of God, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which is also the word for breath. Thus, we may say that the Holy Spirit is the holy breath (cf. 20:22). God is Spirit, and the Spirit is the holy breath. To say that all Scripture is God-breathed is to say that the Bible is the breath, the breathing out, of the very God who is Spirit. God has breathed Himself out, and this breathing out of God is the Bible. This is what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying when it tells us that the Scriptures are God-breathed.What constituted "all scripture" back when Timothy was written?
Now, ironically, this interpretation is etymological and therefore, undercut by Tomes' thesis. Would Tomes' linguistic experts also undercut the standard inerrantist appropriation of the verse? I don't know. I am hopelessly lost on the matter according to Tomes' analysis. Far safer for me to stop reading the Bible and start reading the linguists so that hopefully someday I can begin to understand it correctly through them.That's the way I felt after reading this work by Tomes.
My point exactly.
No that was my point exactly. Yours was that he buried it.
Oh you know exactly what I meant/mean. You're just being cantankerous for the fun of it.
If you meant that it was nothing more than your opinion then I know exactly what you meant.
What constituted "all scripture" back when Timothy was written?
I suppose there were different opinions about that depending on who you talked to or what sect you were in...kind of like today only not quite as complex because there were less people and society was less complex.
According to the text, if a text wasn't God-inspired,useful for teaching, helping people, correcting them and showing them how to live, it wasn't scripture. Of course, it's always going to be a judgment call, which the church has demonstrated over and over throughout the course of its history.
awareness
01-11-2015, 12:22 PM
Goodness! Geez!
No that was my point exactly. Yours was that he buried it. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
If you meant that it was nothing more than your opinion then I know exactly what you meant.Okay be stubborn. What I meant was that I don't think Tomes runs with the top scholars of Christianity. And I was saying that Tomes is outdated because today top scholars are participating on social media. Do I really need to give you a list? Just how oblivious are you gonna pretend to be? The point is that Nigel needs to come on the forum and explain it all to us; like did he really intend to damage the certitude of Gods' words?
According to the text, if a text wasn't God-inspired,useful for teaching, helping people, correcting them and showing them how to live, it wasn't scripture. Of course, it's always going to be a judgment call, which the church has demonstrated over and over throughout the course of its history.Interesting, but since Timothy was written before the rest of the NT it couldn't have meant the NT we have today.
Goodness! Geez!
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
You don't see a difference? OK
Okay be stubborn. What I meant was that I don't think Tomes runs with the top scholars of Christianity. And I was saying that Tomes is outdated because today top scholars are participating on social media. Do I really need to give you a list? Just how oblivious are you gonna pretend to be? The point is that Nigel needs to come on the forum and explain it all to us; like did he really intend to damage the certitude of Gods' words?
"Top" according to you. Participating in social media is convenient. It's not necessarily the top of anything. It is where the crowd or the herd are. Hey, the "Lord's Recovery" is doing social media. They must be at the top too.
Interesting, but since Timothy was written before the rest of the NT it couldn't have meant the NT we have today.
Feel free to go on refuting a proposition I'm not making. No problem.
For me, Tomes didn't so much "bury" the Bible. He did state that Lee's method of etymological interpretation is invalid and made correct interpretation the province of linguistic experts, thus taking it out of the hands of amateurs like us. So, to me, it's more like Tomes placed the Bible out of my reach.Not sure that is the logical result of things. The idea that what the Bible basically says is my determination is to make it into something uncertain to everyone but me (from my perspective).
The ultimate example of that is Lee's dismissal of the words actually there because he had an overlay that said those words were not acceptable. But even if I reject Lee's overlays, if I lean strictly on my own understanding, I am still bringing an overlay. And it is one that is less outwardly declared and defined, but instead just makes it read like I think it should. And there are plenty of places where my version of what it says will not be truly what it says.
When you suggest that the Bible becomes out of your reach, what do you mean? Are you suggesting that it needs to be some kind of uncertain mass of words that you get to manipulate based on your personal biases and thoughts? That the only way it is accessible to you is that it be in a formless shape with no fixed meaning?
To me, if a somewhat large group of scholars from various backgrounds join to provide the best wisdom on the original languages as spoken and written at the time of the writing, then I have more certainty that what I read in whatever is my native tongue is more likely to bring the original writing to me. If left to my own devices, I may like what I create better than what the scholars would provides, but I have much less certainty that it is a faithful rendering of what was originally there.
In other words, relying on my own translation skills makes the actual Bible much less accessible than relying on the work of qualified scholars. While God surely can speak to us from either, he has to overcome our self-inflicted errors in what we think he has said that we need his speaking on. Since he tends not to speak in an audible voice, we don't have the opportunity for him to tell us "first, you translated it incorrectly and are therefore asking the wrong question."
And while I do not think that everything is where it should be in the overall scheme of things Christian, I do think that presuming that we should be second-guessing everything and presuming that we can do better than the scholars is a hold-over from our days in the LRC where everyone but the untrained Lee was getting it wrong. Somehow the little Chinaman doing better exegesis than well-trained biblical scholars seems more American because it has that rugged individualism, "by the bootstraps" feel to it.
awareness
01-12-2015, 06:19 AM
Feel free to go on refuting a proposition I'm not making. No problem.Well whatever proposition you are making doesn't stand out. So try again, and this time make it stick out. Then maybe I'll refute it ... just to be cantankerous. Or maybe not, if unable to refute your brilliance.
To me, if a somewhat large group of scholars from various backgrounds join to provide the best wisdom on the original languages as spoken and written at the time of the writing, then I have more certainty that what I read in whatever is my native tongue is more likely to bring the original writing to me. If left to my own devices, I may like what I create better than what the scholars would provides, but I have much less certainty that it is a faithful rendering of what was originally there.
In other words, relying on my own translation skills makes the actual Bible much less accessible than relying on the work of qualified scholars....This is the genius of the assembly: no one has the ultimate voice. Eventually, in the give-and-take, with a spirit of mutuality and accord, a rough consensus can be ascertained, but nobody expects every last jot and tittle to be solved for each member's satisfaction. God has made us different, and that is okay. But we each have an opportunity, as we are able and interested, to take advantage of the skills of the trained linguists, as well as the experiences of our battle-tested veterans (the proverbial 'elders') as well as the fresh perspectives of the so-called 'newbies'. Each one can contribute to the dialog. Coming to some hard-and-fast "this means that" is not the end-all. The certainty that we have is not in one definitive meaning as much as the pleasure and comfort that we're in a mutually edifying, interesting, and satisfying exploration of something of shared relevance. Good enough.
... presuming that we should be second-guessing everything and presuming that we can do better than the scholars is a hold-over from our days in the LRC where everyone but the untrained Lee was getting it wrong. Somehow the little Chinaman doing better exegesis than well-trained biblical scholars seems more American because it has that rugged individualism, "by the bootstraps" feel to it.
Lee did have a 'do-it-yourself' attraction to his work; if he could tackle the Bible armed with little more than Kittel and Alford and Vine and Wuest, then surely we could as well. And we did. But 20 years later that was gone. Then it had become, "Maximum Brother has spoken." The definitive word was in some footnote; why waste your time exploring? Especially if your exploration runs afoul of the Deputy Authority. Lee took advantage of the rugged American individualism and "do-it-yourself-ism" but he merged that into his culture of Asian conformity. It then became: the Bible says we are all one, and Lee has spoken, so we all have to be one (with what Lee has spoken). The only self left was the self of Lee (who according to RK didn't exist anymore).
Here are some of his main sources:
Gerhard Kittel 1888-1948
Kenneth Wuest 1893-1962
Henry Alford 1810-1871
W.E. Vine 1873-1949
As I said earlier, Lee used scholars who couldn't talk back. They were gone, and thus he wasn't subject to peer review from without. Certainly nobody could examine his work critically from within. Lee didn't have to be subject to the indignities of a conversation, and could continue his monologue uninterrupted. I remember hearing him say that nobody (else) had produced anything informative since 1945. It had become, "Witness Lee said," and the conversation in the assembly was effectively over.
aron,
I like the church-based analysis of scripture. But even the one case we are given was not simply the analysis by one assembly. While it was heavily Jerusalem, not all were simply from Jerusalem. It was a broader consensus. And that is how it should be. But the discussion was brought to those who were the leaders, not to the average "member." Their input was considered (assuming there was some), but it was the leadership (the nearest thing to the scholars they had) that made the decision.
We like to gripe about how the RCC does it. But at some level they have it right. Not entirely. There is no one person who can simply make statements and it is so, and just making up stuff, like the immaculate conception, praying to saints and Mary, etc., is an example of an ungrounded system. But the idea that the collective thought of the upper echelons is more in touch with the thoughts of God is somewhat sound, and is supported by the example in Acts. In Protestantism we are more enamored with me and my Bible and have created many divisions because we are unwilling to lay our thoughts at the feet of a larger group that may not conclude as we have.
aron,
I like the church-based analysis of scripture. But even the one case we are given was not simply the analysis by one assembly. While it was heavily Jerusalem, not all were simply from Jerusalem. It was a broader consensus. And that is how it should be. But the discussion was brought to those who were the leaders, not to the average "member." Their input was considered (assuming there was some), but it was the leadership (the nearest thing to the scholars they had) that made the decision.
We like to gripe about how the RCC does it. But at some level they have it right. Not entirely. There is no one person who can simply make statements and it is so, and just making up stuff, like the immaculate conception, praying to saints and Mary, etc., is an example of an ungrounded system. But the idea that the collective thought of the upper echelons is more in touch with the thoughts of God is somewhat sound, and is supported by the example in Acts. In Protestantism we are more enamored with me and my Bible and have created many divisions because we are unwilling to lay our thoughts at the feet of a larger group that may not conclude as we have.
If you remove the assumption that there is anything divine about the reasoning of the "divines" then what you are left with is something like a crowd of experts. You may find it prudent to follow their discourse, but they hardly command the kind of allegiance that might get you, oh I don't know... crucified. Isn't that what Jesus asked for? What the crowd produces is, at best a product of more or less. Is it any surer than the here-to-day-gone-tomorrow zeitgeist of Tomes' panel of linguistic experts? So, at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors. What is needed is subjective passion and that cannot be conjured. If anything is divine that's it. Call me a fideist but I call it faith.
awareness
01-13-2015, 10:16 AM
If you remove the assumption that there is anything divine about the reasoning of the "divines" then what you are left with is something like a crowd of experts. You may find it prudent to follow their discourse, but they hardly command the kind of allegiance that might get you, oh I don't know... crucified. Isn't that what Jesus asked for? What the crowd produces is, at best a product of more or less. Is it any surer than the here-to-day-gone-tomorrow zeitgeist of Tomes' panel of linguistic experts? So, at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors. What is needed is subjective passion and that cannot be conjured. If anything is divine that's it. Call me a fideist but I call it faith.Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.
But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.
And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???
And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.
Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.
Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.
What does this mean?
Jesus then told the crowd and the disciples to come closer, and he said: If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me.
But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.
And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???
And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.
Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.
Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?
Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.
awareness
01-13-2015, 07:20 PM
What does this mean?
Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html
Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?
Looks like we'll have to riff on the idea ourselves until Tomes, or his experts or Godot shows up.Where's the rope?
Yes, well, I'm not claiming that I know that there are no Christians, and I'm certainly not claiming that I am one. But, I think, one can find a lot of evidence to support the idea that there are very few if any if we use the New Testament as a standard. The usual pattern is for someone to come out and make Christian claims which seem shiny and new until you peel of the superficial layer of Christian paint and find out a little more of their life and see that they are pretty close to the gutter where the rest of us live. Then they confess that they are sinners. But any mob boss or terrorist or prostitute could say the same thing. So, where are the New Testament Christians?I think that there is a disconnect in here somewhere. The verse that was quoted concerning being a follower has a context. The context is of a rabbi with his followers (disciples) that will learn his teachings and spread them. Everyone who comes to "follow" those teachings is not necessarily a follower in the sense of those who literally trail behind the rabbi are.
I think that the disconnect is that we take the references to a kingdom of priests to an unsupported extreme. While the average Israelite prayed and brought sacrifices, the priest was, at least at some level, a mediator for the people. But we no longer have a mediator that is strictly of our kind (human without divinity). We clearly have access to God.
But from the very beginning, Jesus created circles of followers. There was the 12 (and probably the three within that). Then the 70. And then the others. We don't know how the whole thing broke down. But when he went among the people, he did not preach following, but belief and obedience. When some came wanting to follow, then he turned up the rhetoric to see if they were really ready to follow. "Go and sell all." "Let the dead bury the dead." And so on.
Surely we all have a part in the spread of the gospel. But a lot of our part is in being people who live in a manner that is worthy of consideration. And we do need to have something to say when asked. But I think there is a tendency for us to think that we are either preachers, missionaries, or at least giving away all of our free time to the "work of ministry" in a big way, and since we do not, we feel like failures and allow ourselves to miss our calling.
And that is where you correctly point out the number who continually fail and just confess they are sinners. Yes, any mob boss or prostitute can say that. What should be the difference is the will and desire, fueled by the Spirit, to reduce the sins and have less cause for repentance.
But even for the best among us, we will sin until the day we die. Anyone telling you otherwise is either deluded or a liar. Repenting will be a theme in our lives until the end. So on one hand, it is true that Christians continually sin. The problem is not that they sin, but whether there is any evidence of sanctification so that they are not simply falling into every sin they ever had without ceasing. There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. Only that there is now the way to move out of it. But we have to be involved. It is not just grace, or dispensing.
The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless.
Yes, Christians continue to sin. And some of them seem to never get past any of it. But that is not the measure of being a Christian. However, never getting past any of it begs the question of belief. If you can't even try to follow and obey, do you really believe? I didn't say that if you can't succeed today do you really believe. And there is the problem. There is a question mark for me on those who do not even try. But there is a charge for us to spur one another on. So those who have given up on church, although they may have contacts with other Christians, are they sufficiently connected to allow themselves to be spurred on?
Don't make sinless perfection the marker of a Christian. There are no such people. But have a question concerning those who claim to believe but have absolutely no evidence in their living and don't seem to think it is important. You seem to want it to be all or nothing when the only thing you will ever find is progress or nothing. And there is a large spectrum in progress.
Ask the experts. Etymology of immolation:
http://www.myetymology.com/french/immolation.html
I know what immolation is. What's your point?
So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?
I'm not at liberty to discuss it here. Let's take it up in Alternative Views.
awareness
01-14-2015, 09:06 AM
I know what immolation is. What's your point?
It's not my point. It's your point. And I quote:
at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors.
You're the one pointing out that the Bible says God has a nose ... for barbecue ... and likes His followers: "Well done my good and faithful servant."
So are you saying that true Christianity was lost all the way back in the New Testament days? Where have I heard that before?
I'm not at liberty to discuss it here. Let's take it up in Alternative Views.Alternative Views would be a great place to discuss it. But we're all exLCers here, and heard it from Lee that the early church was corrupted. So it can be discussed here on the open forum. Just maybe not on this thread.
Methinks that unless bro Cassidy has more to say, or Nigel comes out of the woodwork, this thread has petered out.
And we're :deadhorse:
...There should be some change in their lives. And it should continue over time. But becoming a Christian was never a promise that sin would just go away. ...
The prayer that Jesus provided as the pattern for the disciples turns from God and the kingdom with "forgive our trespasses." There was never any hint that this part of the prayer would eventually become useless... there is a large spectrum in progress.
I appreciate OBW spelling this out. One parable on the idea of making progress is in Luke chapter 16 where the debtors owed 100 measures of wheat, or of oil, and at the end they owed 50. Or they owed 80, and then at the end they owed 40. They still owed something at the end, but their situation had improved. Who wouldn't feel some relief? In the "all or nothing" scenario, owing 50 or owing 100 is irrelevant: if you owe, you're doomed. But in real life it matters how much you owe, and Jesus' parable suggests to me that it matters, spiritually, as well. "You won't get out until you pay the last farthing" (Matt 5:26) -- don't you think that a God who numbers the hairs on your head also numbers the farthings you owe?
Another thing is this: whether you owe 50, or 100, or you have 2 talents or 5 talents, will the Master come and find you laboring at it? Or will you tell yourself that He delays, and give up? Wherever you are is where you are -- are you going to struggle forward, or quit? I think it's better if the Master finds you struggling on "that day", wherever you are on the scale of perfection.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.