Translation & More

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth.

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Originally Posted by OBW

Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK.

But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie.

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Honesty is valued by many non-Christians so I think the point is that Christians should be beyond reproach in the matter. In most cases, I see the issue as not intentionally trying to deceive people. The spies were commanded by God to spy out the land, so the 'deception' involved was not their own idea.

When it comes to white lies, there is admittedly a lot of grey area. I don't think it is advisable, but it is also not problematic. It is part of being human. In a perfect world it would be nice if the truth didn't hurt, it would be nice to not worry that being honest could lead to hurt feelings. But padding the truth is often necessary. Necessary at work, at home, around friends, etc.

Originally Posted by OBW

Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible.

I agree here. Disobedience to parents is wrong, except in rare cases. If WL wanted to claim there were something as a "pure lie" there are a lot of grey areas that don't involve something like disobedience. He picked the wrong issue to use to make this claim.

[HERn]

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

"Have my way with you?" That would never work around here.

No answer is not a safe answer. Even a slight hesitation means trouble!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Have my way with you?" That would never work around here.

No answer is not a safe answer. Even a slight hesitation means trouble!

Well, being a redneck I sometimes get away with course remarks. I guess I should have said it was safe for me. My deepest apologies to any of you young newly married sensitive brothers who might have erred in following the advice of an old goat.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

I believe that the implication in both passages is that there are falsehoods used that work to harm the other. Not simply that something less than the whole truth was said. But since it does not clearly say that, it is an opinion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

According the the Bible, I think that a lie can potentially be any sort of untruth. That part is not entirely clear. Notice though, that my reply was regarding a statement that you made: "The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie." I was primarily reacting to that statement. I do not see where the Bible limits the scope of lying to only bearing false witness. Maybe within the context of the 10 commandments yes, but that was not the context of the discussion that was taking place beforehand.

Like I posted yesterday, I see the intention to deceive as the main type of lie that Bible is concerned with. Christians shouldn't be actively seeking to deceive others.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

This is why I stated yesterday that there is a lot of grey area. Yes, we should be judicious with our words, but even that can backfire sometimes. For that reason I would not be so quick to assume that a lie is justified by someone's inability to handle the truth. There are times that the truth is needed despite the possibility that it might hurt someones feelings. There are other times when the truth could be used with ill motives, such as if a man were to purposely call his wife fat.

If the truth is used to provoke a negative reaction, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong based on the motive. In your example, the use of the partial truth or a lie is almost always justified. But in other examples, the opposite might be true. Examples all have their limitations.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

According the the Bible, I think that a lie can potentially be any sort of untruth. That part is not entirely clear. Notice though, that my reply was regarding a statement that you made: "The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie." I was primarily reacting to that statement. I do not see where the Bible limits the scope of lying to only bearing false witness. Maybe within the context of the 10 commandments yes, but that was not the context of the discussion that was taking place beforehand.

Like I posted yesterday, I see the intention to deceive as the main type of lie that Bible is concerned with. Christians shouldn't be actively seeking to deceive others.



This is why I stated yesterday that there is a lot of grey area. Yes, we should be judicious with our words, but even that can backfire sometimes. For that reason I would not be so quick to assume that a lie is justified by someone's inability to handle the truth. There are times that the truth is needed despite the possibility that it might hurt someones feelings. There are other times when the truth could be used with ill motives, such as if a man were to purposely call his wife fat.

If the truth is used to provoke a negative reaction, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong based on the motive. In your example, the use of the partial truth or a lie is almost always justified. But in other examples, the opposite might be true. Examples all have their limitations.

All good reasons that it is difficult to define a lie that is prohibited in absolute terms.

My suggestion was not to say that we are free beyond when we are "on the stand." But short of that, there is a lot of grey and there is reason to be judicious. While not necessarily on point, there is a place where we are advised to be cunning as serpents (I think that is stated correctly). But it would appear that there evidently are times when being less than forthcoming is actually encouraged.

And while I do not believe in a post-modern kind of truth, there is a lot in which the answer is not as absolute as we often think, but is contextual. Just like the issue of judging. We are told in one context not to judge and in another to judge.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

My suggestion was not to say that we are free beyond when we are "on the stand." But short of that, there is a lot of grey and there is reason to be judicious. While not necessarily on point, there is a place where we are advised to be cunning as serpents (I think that is stated correctly). But it would appear that there evidently are times when being less than forthcoming is actually encouraged.

This is true. Context is always the determining factor.

[testallthings]

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (KJV)

If we just consider the translation of this verse it doesn't seem to justify the title of this post. Some would even dare to say that I have something against calling on the Lord's name. Not at all. But, being not limited to one source of teaching, which can easily become indoctrination, and so close the door to bad, yes, but at the same time good things, I do my homework, as far as possible, and at the same time I receive help from many servants of God. One of my favorite is Watchman Nee.

"A great mistake that many people make is that they do not search the Scriptures themselves. Rather, they read what others have said. No matter how much help others can render us, we have to read and search the Scriptures ourselves. We must not seek help from others all the time while neglecting to read the Bible ourselves. On the one hand, we do not despise prophecy; we need the edification of the prophets as well as those of other ministries. Yet at the same time we have to study the Bible ourselves. We cannot simply receive help from others while neglecting to read it ourselves."
(How to Study the Bible, Chapter 3, Section 1)



Coming back to the passage in question, I let speak another two of them.


“Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord - The marginal reading is, Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord; which words are supposed to signify that in the time of Enos the true followers of God began to distinguish themselves, and to be distinguished by others, by the appellation of sons of God; those of the other branch of Adam’s family, among whom the Divine worship was not observed, being distinguished by the name, children of men. It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended that הוחל huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry. Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry, I shall insert it here.
“In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred; and their error was this: they said, Forasmuch as God hath created these stars and spheres to govern the world, and set them on high, and imparted honor unto them, and they are ministers that minister before him; it is meet that men should laud, and glorify, and give them honor. For this is the will of God, that we magnify and honor whomsoever he magnifieth and honoureth; even as a king would have them honored that stand before him, and this is the honor of the king himself. When this thing was come up into their hearts they began to build temples unto the stars, and to offer sacrifice unto them, and to laud and glorify them with words, and to worship before them, that they might in their evil opinion obtain favor of the Creator; and this was the root of idolatry, etc. And in process of time there stood up false prophets among the sons of Adam, which said that God had commanded and said unto them, Worship such a star, or all the stars, and do sacrifice unto them thus and thus; and build a temple for it, and make an image of it, that all the people, women, and children may worship it. And the false prophet showed them the image which he had feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of such a star, which was made known unto him by prophecy. And they began after this manner to make images in temples, and under trees, and on tops of mountains and hills, and assembled together and worshipped them, etc. And this thing was spread through all the world, to serve images with services different one from another, and to sacrifice unto and worship them. So, in process of time, the glorious and fearful name (of God) was forgotten out of the mouth of all living, and out of their knowledge, and they acknowledged him not.
And there was found no people on the earth that knew aught, save images of wood and stone, and temples of stone, which they had been trained up from their childhood to worship and serve, and to swear by their names. And the wise men that were among them, as the priests and such like, thought there was no God save the stars and spheres, for whose sake and in whose likeness they had made these images; but as for the Rock everlasting, there was no man that acknowledged him or knew him save a few persons in the world, as Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Sham, and Heber. And in this way did the world walk and converse till that pillar of the world, Abraham our father, was born.” Maim. in Mishn, and Ainsworth in loco.”
(Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

COMPANION BIBLE. APPENDIX 21.**
ENOS.* (GEN. 4:26.)* "CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD."


"Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah."* If this refers to Divine worship it is not true:* for Abel and Cain both began, and their descendants doubtless followed their example.
What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah.* They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah.* The A. V. suggests "themselves", in the margin.* But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words "their gods"; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.
The Targum of Onkelos explains it:*
"then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord."
The Targum of Jonathan says:*
"That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord."
Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this.* Rashi says:
"Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord."
Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probably account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos. The name Enos agrees with this, for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable.* The sons of men, as "Enosh", are so called for a similar reason (Job 7:17; 15:14.* Ps. 9:20; 103:15.* Dan. 2:43).* See Ap. 14.
If Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, became the first idolatrous priest in Israel (see notes on Judg. 18:30), what wonder that Enos, the grandson of Adam, introduced idolatry among mankind.
Moreover, what "ungodliness" did Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" have to prophesy about in Jude 14, 15, if purity of worship was begun in the days of Enos, instead of profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord? Surely this is sufficient evidence that this profanation of the Name of the Lord was the reason why Enoch was raised up to prophesy against it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

This is an interesting possibility regarding the meaning of Genesis 4:26. Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked to see that it could be interpreted in a way completely opposite from I am accustomed to. I had never given such a possibility any thought before.

Sure enough, I found at least one translation that actually translates the verse that way: Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the LORD began. (ISV)

It's probably fair to say that either possibility is just as likely, however, because the LC has made a rigid practice out of this, the implications are much more severe if it turns out that the meaning is completely the opposite. By the way, I do consider yelling "Oh Lord Jesus" at the top of ones lungs to be a type of profaning of the Lord's name, especially if it is done for show. It is disrespectful of the Lord to say the least.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

That was very good. Thanks for finding this. I think evil spirits get access to our minds via spiritual lies. I think the teaching of LSM is full of them.

[JJ]

[QUOTE=testallthings;46947]

DID MEN BEGIN TO CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD OR DID THEY BEGIN TO WORSHIP IDOLS?

Interesting post, testallthings. The International Standard Version is the only translation I see that renders the word "call" as "profane" in Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb.../t_bibles_4026) and Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=KJ21. All the others use "call", "worship", "preach", 'call themselves by", and even "call inwardly". I'm no Hebrew scholar. But, that suggests the right interpretation to me here.