LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

That depends upon how we determine inerrancy? Hasn't Nigel shown us that we can't determine the meaning of Greek words undisturbed by doubt?

Nigel says that we should just use the meanings of the Greek works at the time of the NT, and not consider the etymology, history or future use of the word. He doesn't say that we can't be sure of the meaning of the Greek words.

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

That is one definition put out under the teaching of inerrancy.

But there is nothing that insists that words are "true" in the sense that in each case it is the only word that could have been used to convey the meaning intended. The problem with looking at inerrancy at the word level is that it is where you get the growing need to parse each word for its precise meaning. What about what the sentence says. In its most straightforward way? What if it had been written slightly differently yet provided the same information?

If each Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc. word is importantly specific and must be studied to arrive at the real meaning, then we should be seeking with all our being to create the single English translation that faithfully translates each word or phrase as necessary to be exact and precise. Word by word (or phrase by phrase where word pictures are involved).

And every time someone goes in to analyze the Greek, they conclude something different somewhere relative to someone. So there is a difference in the scripture as far as the two readers are concerned.

But when it says that Jesus went up to Jerusalem, it could have said that he travelled to Jerusalem. Or that he walked to Jerusalem. Or . . . . But what is it telling us? He went to Jerusalem. Did the word used change the meaning?

I agree with Igzy that God is capable of inserting things that the writer may not have had any idea had been pushed into the text. But a whole lot of it is the telling of events. And the events described are the important thing. Not the nonsense of what we parse out of the individual words.

That, coupled with other hermeneutic tools is how craziness comes to town. Someone insists that certain words can only mean a single thing. For example, there can only be one spirit that gives life. You know where that one goes.

I fully believe in what the Bible tells me. I now tend to not put much stock in the special teachings that come from isolating words and phrases from their context and parsing them to death. That's how we got the ground of dirt, God's economy (Lee's teaching, not the real thing) being simply God dispensing himself into man, and even line-in-the-sand "decision" salvation that is all you need (not Lee's creation). But it is only as inerrant as the interpretation that is put on it. And virtually everyone that used the word is trying to insist that their interpretation is simply the word of God and not another interpretation.

So I don't put much stock in the term "inerrant" or "inerrancy" because, the only way in which it is true is not the way in which it is used.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Nigel says that we should just use the meanings of the Greek works at the time of the NT, and not consider the etymology, history or future use of the word. He doesn't say that we can't be sure of the meaning of the Greek words.

Inerrant means that every word of the Bible is true. Do you believe that?

Voice, I grew up from diapers indoctrinated that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. And that didn't change in the local church.

But since then I've learned that there are more variations in the Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. And to me just one variation is enough to call its inerrancy into question.

Yet I'm told by my Southern Baptist family that God protected His word down thru the ages.

But the evidence in the over 5000 manuscripts prove that fails to hold true.

[zeek]

Is every thread on this board going to be hijacked by a discussion of inerrancy? I thought that Tomes made it clear that his article does not attack the fundamentals. Inerrancy is one of the fundamentals, so it is off topic as far as this thread goes. Besides there's already a thread devoted to that subject. Isn't there enough to consider here already between etymology and linguistics? Tomes has called Lee's etymological method into question. If that's the case, every single Lee exposition of Biblical words should be re-examined. Yes? No?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Tomes has called Lee's etymological method into question. If that's the case, every single Lee exposition of Biblical words should be re-examined. Yes? No?

Well let's get down to brass tacks then. I think we've beat horses Example #1 & Example #8 to death but how about the rest?

Example #1 Ekklesia—“Called-out Assembly”
Invalid Word-Dissections

Example #2: Invalid Word-Dissections--Parakletos—“One called to another's side to aid him”

Example #3: Reverse Etymological Fallacy—Dunamis--Dynamo

Example #4: Illegitimate Totality Transfer—Proginosko--Foreknowledge

Example #5: Oikonomia—LSM’s trademark “God’s Economy”
Dissection: Oikonomia (Economy) = Oikos (House) + Nomos (Law)
Witness Lee’s Theological Lexicography

Example #6: LSM’s Etymologizing—Revelation’s 7 Churches

Example #7: Laodicea--‘Devilish’ Degraded Democracy in the Church

Example #8: The Nicolaitans
Invalid Implications for Church Governance

Example #9: Over-emphasizing Distinctions between Synonyms—Oida vs. Ginosko
Selective Presentation—Tampering with Biblical Evidence

Example #10: Word-Concept Fallacy--Agapao vs. Phileo
Peter’s Love for the Lord

Example #11: Logos vs. Rhema —‘Constant Word’ vs. ‘Instant Word’

Example #12: Unwarranted Associative Fallacy—‘Holy, holy, holy’ because God is Triune

Let's start with Parakletos. Let's see our choice between Lee and Tomes, and the supposed "excluded middle."