LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wrong. See post #96.

Yeah. I read that. And it is technically an ad hominem.

However, once there is evidence that they were willful in their selection of outcomes based on hatred of the Jews (or anything else other than trying to get the scripture right), then it truly becomes a "dangerous book."

[OBW]

Ohio,

Don't take me personally. But I have heard this kind of talk from all kinds of people, including my dad at times. My goal is to talk people off of cliffs of anger over things that they need to concern themselves with a little less.

I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the sand. But the way that we go forward with our personal, religious, political, sports, or other speaking should be consistent with a person representing God as his righteousness and love to be seen by the people around us. And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

[awareness]

Ohio. OBW. Obama. Y'all share "O" in common.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ohio. OBW. Obama. Y'all share "O" in common.

Genius. Just brilliant.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

As for me OBW political preference aside, I see too much common characteristics regarding Obama and our blended brothers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Ohio,

Don't take me personally. But I have heard this kind of talk from all kinds of people, including my dad at times. My goal is to talk people off of cliffs of anger over things that they need to concern themselves with a little less.

I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the sand. But the way that we go forward with our personal, religious, political, sports, or other speaking should be consistent with a person representing God as his righteousness and love to be seen by the people around us. And somehow ranting about Obama, no matter how worthy the rant may be (or at least seem to be), just seems to fall short of that target.

My initial point was simple. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to Kittel. So what if he was a Nazi. Don't you understand that Hitler was a great leader and hero to the German people. Most of them had no clue concerning all the evil we now know. Kittel was just going along with the flow, so to speak. They all were captivated by the charismatic rhetoric of their great leader. Likewise most Americans view Obama with similar love, having little understanding of what is really happening.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My initial point was simple. We have the advantage of hindsight when it comes to Kittel. So what if he was a Nazi. Don't you understand that Hitler was a great leader and hero to the German people. Most of them had no clue concerning all the evil we now know. Kittel was just going along with the flow, so to speak. They all were captivated by the charismatic rhetoric of their great leader. Likewise most Americans view Obama with similar love, having little understanding of what is really happening.

And based on this post, I don't understand the thought to parallel Obama and Bengazi with David and Uriah.

Here you seem to say that Kittel was enamored with a flashy leader and got sucked in (like most of us did with the LRC at some point). That does not automatically make his book bad (though it may be for other reasons). And similarly there are a lot of people who are enamored by Obama. But that does not make him a Hitler. Just and attractive leader.

Yes, too many people have no idea what kind of junk they are eating from the Obama food bank. Probably Soylent Green.

But none of this explains the connection to David other than the weak connection that Obama was the leader when Bengazi went down. The only way I see a connection is that Obama personally knew that that likelihood of dying at that Embassy was really high and sent Stevens there with the intent that he die. And as much as it would be expedient to pin that on him, I don't see it. And once you say it so strongly as if it is true, then when you back down to the truth, it is suspect because the source is suspect.

[Ohio]

The Greek word Ekklesia is a prime example of the error of etymologizing. Prof. James L. Boyer exemplifies the logical process which embodies this error. He writes, “We may illustrate the [flawed] etymological approach to the study of words...The Greek word ‘church’ in the New Testament is ekklesia. This word is formed of two parts, the preposition ek meaning ‘out of’ and the root connected with the verb kaleo, ‘to call.’ Therefore, the etymology of the word suggests ‘a called-out assembly.’ From this point on the [interpretive] process...may go as far as the interpreter's sense of good judgment will let him. It is a select group, called out from among the rest of the world. Therefore also it is a separatist group. It is composed of those who are called, so it is involved in the doctrine of election. Since the calling involved a caller, and an actual call issued, therefore the church is an official constituted body rather than a heterogeneous mass of separatists. Perhaps you can go on further.”

Nigel Tomes uses ekklesia as a primary example of the failed principles of etymolological word meanings, but I still don't see the "problem" here. Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly? So what's the problem? Obviously, at times, the emphasis in the usage of this word is on the "assembly" aspect. But like any word, multiple meanings are available to be determined by the context. Tomes study here seems to be saying, "here is an exception, so let's throw out the rules." I see no revolution here, rather academics trashing old research, just to sell their new books.

I have used "little" Kittel for many years. He never obsessed over etymologies, rather he compiled exhaustive uses of each word in the whole of Greek literature. That's why his initial work is ten volumes. What's the big deal about his being an anti-Semite? So was Luther, the first MOTA.

This forum has discussed Lee's errors at great length. Using word-studies is not one of them. Tomes has not only "pulled the rug out" on Lee, but on the whole evangelical body of Christ. He seems to overly value contemporary scholarship, at the expense at that which has been thoroughly vetted and time-tested by the body of Christ.

One of the things Tomes' study seems to be missing is that the NT writers needed to "convey spiritual things with spiritual words," (I Cor 2.13) by using existing Koine vernacular and at times expanding its semantics. Another missing item is God's sovereignty, inspiring the writers and perhaps preparing a foundation of words long before the coming of His Son. Consider John's Gospel's opening line, "In beginning was the Logos." Was this not inspired by the Spirit of God? Centuries earlier this word had been introduced into the Greek language, and decades after Jesus walked on earth, John initiated something absolutely new by calling God's eternal Son, who walked on earth with him, the Logos. How does logos synchronicity adequately explain to us what that means?

Of course, we have discussed the tendencies of Lee to use hyperbole and allegorize without limitation, but to move to extremes in the opposite direction does the same disservice to the body of Christ.

It's too bad the author never comes on board to discuss his papers with us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes uses ekklesia as a primary example of failed principles of etymolological word meanings, but I still don't see the "problem" here. Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly? So what is the problem? Obviously, at times, the emphasis in the usage of this word is on the "assembly" aspect. But like any word, multiple meanings are available to be determined by the context. Tomes study here seems to be saying, "here is an exception, so let's throw out the rules." I see no revolution here, rather academics trashing old research, just to sell their new books.

I have used "little" Kittel for many years. He never obsessed over etymologies, rather he compiled exhaustive uses of each word in the whole of Greek literature. That's why his initial work is ten volumes. What's the big deal about his being an anti-Semite? So was Luther, the first MOTA.

This forum has discussed Lee's errors at great length. Using word-studies is not one of them.

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

Lee was anti-christianity

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

For all I (maybe we) know, Lee may have been an Anti-Semite.

WL was very pro Israel.

[OBW]

Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly?

Yes to the second part. But not so clearly to the first part. I think that the most direct statement on that question says (in so many words) "in the world but not of the world."

Now that does mean we should live as if not part of the world. And that might be construed as not being in the world. But the task of the Christian in this life is to live as the image of God, demonstrating His love and life in this world. Not at a distance, removed from the world.

I admit that there is a way to understand "called out of the world" that does not avoid that particular task. But most understand "out of the world" as becoming isolationists. Those who tolerate the need to work in the world just enough not to gag when they are forced to be in it, then retreating to the isolation of a meeting where they can "be spiritual." It is not just an LRC phenomenon. But it definitely is an LRC phenomenon.

[zeek]

Meeks states that Kittel's The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. avoids explicit antisemitism, but the book contains mistaken word expositions. http://pibbethel.no-ip.org/bibliotec...rpretation.pdf Kittel's erroneous word expositions were adopted by Lee and he in turn taught them to us. If we haven't gotten them out of our system, we may still be driving under their influence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes to the second part. But not so clearly to the first part. I think that the most direct statement on that question says (in so many words) "in the world but not of the world."

The church is not "of the world" because she was called out. Then she is directed to go back to the world with "good news."

There is no contradiction here.