Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - LSM's Etymological Errors

Cal · 08-21-2014, 09:00 AM

An interesting and enlightening study. Tomes makes a strong case that Lee and LSM's approach to the language of the Bible was and is flawed.

One item he does not mention is that it was not only Lee's approach to the language that lead to his conclusions, it was his whole approach to the Bible. Lee plainly believed that the Bible contains hidden messages that were encoded into the Greek, messages that the original writer may not have been aware of nor intended. Precise distinctions of the meanings of words and license to find them is necessary with this sort of approach. One example is Lee's distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God," which is built on nothing more than that Matthew uses the word "heaven" while Mark and Luke used "God" when quoting what are clearly the same historical utterances. Why Matthew (or Mark and Luke) chose to do this we don't know. But it's important to realize that Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic. Other than a few instances, all records of Jesus's words are translations of Aramaic to Greek. So we have no idea what he actually said. All we know is what he said translated into Greek.

So the question becomes a philosophical one: Do you believe that God used writers to encode messages into the Bible based on the meaning of words that go beyond what the writers intended to convey, or even what the original speaking meant to convey. We know that God's sovereignty is present in the numbers of words and letters in, for example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. And God is surely capable of doing this in other ways if he wanted to.

So the question becomes, do you believe he did. Tomes's report shows that the approach of modern biblical scholars implicitly holds that we should not suppose he did.

But if like Lee you think we should, then finding messages in words like "Nicolaitans" and "Laodicea" might make sense to you. The downside to that, however, is deciding where to stop. Lee went all out finding hidden meanings in the Bible. The potential for subjectivity and insertion of personal bias in such an approach is obvious. Although tempting, to go down that path is to jump down the rabbit hole and join Alice in Wonderland, where anything is possible, nothing is provable, and imaginations can run wild.

My personal view is stick to the plain word and the main message of the Bible. If you can't find truth there you aren't going to find it in some Bible Code.

08-21-2014, 09:00 AM	#2
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes An interesting and enlightening study. Tomes makes a strong case that Lee and LSM's approach to the language of the Bible was and is flawed. One item he does not mention is that it was not only Lee's approach to the language that lead to his conclusions, it was his whole approach to the Bible. Lee plainly believed that the Bible contains hidden messages that were encoded into the Greek, messages that the original writer may not have been aware of nor intended. Precise distinctions of the meanings of words and license to find them is necessary with this sort of approach. One example is Lee's distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God," which is built on nothing more than that Matthew uses the word "heaven" while Mark and Luke used "God" when quoting what are clearly the same historical utterances. Why Matthew (or Mark and Luke) chose to do this we don't know. But it's important to realize that Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic. Other than a few instances, all records of Jesus's words are translations of Aramaic to Greek. So we have no idea what he actually said. All we know is what he said translated into Greek. So the question becomes a philosophical one: Do you believe that God used writers to encode messages into the Bible based on the meaning of words that go beyond what the writers intended to convey, or even what the original speaking meant to convey. We know that God's sovereignty is present in the numbers of words and letters in, for example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. And God is surely capable of doing this in other ways if he wanted to. So the question becomes, do you believe he did. Tomes's report shows that the approach of modern biblical scholars implicitly holds that we should not suppose he did. But if like Lee you think we should, then finding messages in words like "Nicolaitans" and "Laodicea" might make sense to you. The downside to that, however, is deciding where to stop. Lee went all out finding hidden meanings in the Bible. The potential for subjectivity and insertion of personal bias in such an approach is obvious. Although tempting, to go down that path is to jump down the rabbit hole and join Alice in Wonderland, where anything is possible, nothing is provable, and imaginations can run wild. My personal view is stick to the plain word and the main message of the Bible. If you can't find truth there you aren't going to find it in some Bible Code.