|
|
|
|
The following debate is principally between Rev. Greg Neal and hyper-skeptic Dennis SnakePiper AKA ViperPiper on the meaning of the Greek word "miseo" as contained in Luke 14:26. We have resurrected this debate, because the same diatribe is repeated over and over by hyper-skeptics attempting to discredit Jesus Christ and the Bible. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 KJV Subject: Re: Hate means love less >>Gary: Jesus is saying we are to love them less than God. He loved Esau less in comparison to Judah, because it was through the latter His dear Son would enter the world.<< K: No. Jesus said "hate" --the same word "hate" used in every other Bible verse which means to detest. If the text meant to "love less" then the language would have said just that instead of "hate." The Living Bible attempts to do that, but about a dozen other popular translations use the word "hate." I will be glad to post them if Gary persists in trying to rewrite the script to make it sound less offensive than it actually is. We now revert to the 1997 debate. The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dennis: <<The issue is that the Bible shows Jesus Christ teaching hate. It cannot be clearer. Those who deny it most fervently ARE the biblical fundamentalists!>> Oh? How so? I was under the assumption that Biblical fundamentalists took every word of the Bible literally, no questions asked? If so, then they ought to be right there with you claiming that Jesus taught to "hate" your parents, et al. I thought that's what you were doing? What was that little phrase you used? Oh yes... Dennis: <<I am REPLYING to biblical fundamentalist interpretations which use that mentality. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?>> Well, which is it? Do biblical fundamentalists go word for word by what the Bible says, which is why you show them the ignorance of their ways by presenting arguments to smash literal interpretation to bits, or are they those who interpret the Bible in light of what it is, a book, written by men who were inspired of God, yet still fallible? If the latter is your choice, then why on earth do you act like we believe the Bible is to be literally interpreted word for word? I for one, do not. The "literal" interpretation of the passage in question when read in Greek would obviously be different than when read in English. The word used for hate in every translation that has been looked at here is miseo. Mark (MJM) has already provided 8, count 'em 8, "authoritative sources" showing that the word most often means "love less", to your 1, count it 1, that only gives the English word "hate" as a definition. I fail to see your or Korn's point. You seem to be searching out nitpicking little things to try to discredit Christianity (Intended for Korn, primarily). Well, I for one am not convinced. You'll have to do much better than that. In Christ, NotKJVOnly The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood NotKJVOnly: [Re:NotKJVOnly snoozing 97-07-03 23:42:55 EDT] <<<Well, which is it? Do biblical fundamentalists go word for word by what the Bible says, which is why you show them the ignorance of their ways by presenting arguments to smash literal interpretation to bits, or are they those who interpret the Bible in light of what it is, a book, written by men who were inspired of God, yet still fallible? If the latter is your choice, then why on earth do you act like we believe the Bible is to be literally interpreted word for word?>>> Biblical fundamentalists are the literalists. However, when non-literalists argue that a passage does not say what it does say, then they, too, are wrong. If a non-literalist argues that the Bible does NOT say that Jesus taught hate according to the text Kornform presented, then those of us who show them the error of their claim are responding appropriately. NKJVO, if you tell me the passage does NOT show Jesus preaching hatred, I will disagree with you in the manner I have already done. If you AGREE that it DOES show Jesus preaching hatred, please admit this and that you choose to disagree with this particular passage of the fallible Bible. <<<The word used for hate in every translation that has been looked at here is miseo. Mark (MJM) has already provided 8, count 'em 8, "authoritative sources" showing that the word most often means "love less", to your 1, count it 1, that only gives the English word "hate" as a definition.>>> NO authoritative passages have said "love less." Strongs presented that as HIS OWN extension, representing his interpretation NOT based on the actual meaning. Furthermore, as I ALREADY EXPLAINED, "love less" does not apply in this situation where nothing comparative is applicable. <<<Well, I for one am not convinced. You'll have to do much better than that.>>> We HAVE done much better than that, and you HAVE ignored it. This interesting point by Kornform is hardly comparable to the REALLY heavy duty stuff that you people have closed your eyes to so often. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dear NKJVO: You wrote: <<The "literal" interpretation of the passage in question when read in Greek would obviously be different than when read in English. The word used for hate in every translation that has been looked at here is miseo. Mark (MJM) has already provided 8, count 'em 8, "authoritative sources" showing that the word most often means "love less", to your 1, count it 1, that only gives the English word "hate" as a definition. I fail to see your or Korn's point. You seem to be searching out nitpicking little things to try to discredit Christianity (Intended for Korn, primarily). Well, I for one am not convinced. You'll have to do much better than that.>> While I have not been following along in this discussion, I thought I would throw my two cents in on the meaning of "miseo." The following summary comes from Kittle's masterful and HIGHLY regarded "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," The word "miseo" in the Greek language is an interesting one. It has, seated within its roots in Attic Greek, the fundamental sense of "separation" or "exclusion" of one from another -- usually out of a fear of physical or spiritual harm. It doesn't, therefore, include the "psychological sense" of anger or emotional "againstness" that modern English seats in the word "hate," but rather describes one's relational orientation toward another. With whom does one associate as opposed to whom one avoids? If one is impure -- if one is SICK -- that one is to be avoided ("miseo.") The word was adopted by the LXX translators for the many references to God's attitude towards people who were engaged in certain sinful acts. For example, it is used in reference to homosexuals and, when understood in its *linguistic* context, ACTUALLY highlights that God requires His people to separate themselves from such out of a fear of ritual impurity. Homosexual intercourse can result in significant bleeding. Issues of blood make one ritually unclean. HENCE, those who engage in such activity are susceptible to bleeding which makes them unclean and, in turn, makes those who come into contact with them unclean. God "hates" ("miseo") them because they spread ritual uncleanliness among His people. HENCE, God's people are required to distance themselves from such. There is no anger, dislike, or any other kind of negative emotional antipathy towards such -- only a concern over ritual impurity. The meaning of "miseo" in the Koine Greek of Hellenistic Judaism and the Early Church is informed by this concept of ritual impurity. These authors looked especially to the Greek Translations of Hebraic Wisdom Literature (both Biblical and Extra-Biblical) for their understanding of how one was to deal with spiritual "stumbling blocks." ANYTHING that comes between a disciple and the master, between God and God's child, is considered a fit object of "miseo." The TDNT remarks: <<The reference [Luke 14:26] is not to hate in the psychological sense, but to disowning, renunciation, rejection ("kai ten psukhen eautou"), as in the Wisdom literature of the OT. Those who become disciples of Jesus must be committed exclusively to Him; they cannot be bound to anyone or anything else. The term "hate" demands the separation of the disciple, and the warning not to love anyone or anything more is the test. This abnegation is to be taken not psychologically or fanatically, but pneumatically and christocentrically.>> (Kittle: "Miseo," in TDNT, Vol. L-N; pp. 690-691) Informed by the linguistic roots of the word "miseo," it seems clear that there is no emotional baggage with it, no anger or malicious disregard -- as there is in the English word "hate." Quite the contrary, in THIS context "miseo" has a very CLEAR meaning -- a meaning missed ONLY by those who are looking to create problems where none exist: it means to separate or remove one's self from entangling relationships or circumstances which might come between the disciple and the master. Grace and Peace, Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Biblical fundamentalists are the literalists. However, when non-literalists argue that a passage does not say what it does say, then they, too, are wrong. If a non-literalist argues that the Bible does NOT say that Jesus taught hate according to the text Kornform presented, then those of us who show them the error of their claim are responding appropriately. >> Said like a true Fundamentalist. The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal <<Said like a true Fundamentalist.>> Perhaps I should modify that a bit. Christian Fundamentalists tend to engage in a strictly literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures out of deep love and respect for the Scriptures and with much Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Others, however, demand literal interpretations of the Scriptures for the expressed purpose of attacking and destroying people's faith in them. In so doing, they do violence to the meaning of the Scriptures ... for not ALL scripture is intended to be taken literally, nor is all scripture easily understood EVEN if a simple literal sense in indicated. Quite the contrary ... sometimes single words in one language contain many multiple meanings and aspects in other languages. That is the essence of our problem with the word "miseo." It's meaning may LOOK simple to those who have not bothered to REALLY look into the etymological background of the word, but in reality it is NOT simple at all. Grace and Peace, Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal: [Miseo 97-07-04 19:50:14 EDT] <<<The reference [Luke 14:26] is not to hate in the psychological sense, but to disowning, renunciation, rejection>>> That DOES sound pretty hateful! Especially as treatment for the closest members of one's family! I guess the unanimity of all those translators who translated all those English Bibles is validated by Rev Neal after all! <<<The term "hate" demands the separation of the disciple, and the warning not to love anyone or anything more is the test. This abnegation is to be taken not psychologically or fanatically, but pneumatically and christocentrically.>> (Kittle: "Miseo," in TDNT, Vol. L-N; pp. 690-691)>>> Those who feel compelled to defend Jesus can come up with these kinds of explanations, as I've seen Rev Neal do before when trying to justify his pre-determined agendas. The comparative aspect is simply not justified, but those who desperately need to twist the meaning will undermine their own credibility by doing so. <<<Informed by the linguistic roots of the word "miseo," it seems clear that there is no emotional baggage with it, no anger or malicious disregard>>> So we turn to what "seems" clear to Rev Neal as the basis for rejecting what Strongs and Thayers say? STRONGS tells us "from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute)". THAYERS tells us "1) to hate, to pursue with hatred, to detest 2) to be hated, to be detested" But Rev Neal says no anger or emotional baggage????? HOW CONVENIENT! Sorry, I will stick with the experts -- Strongs, Thayers, and the translators of every English version of the Bible I can find. <<<Quite the contrary, in THIS context "miseo" has a very CLEAR meaning -- a meaning missed ONLY by those who are looking to create problems where none exist: it means to separate or remove one's self from entangling relationships or circumstances which might come between the disciple and the master.>>> As interpreted by Strongs, Thayers, and every single translation of the Bible I can find, we see Jesus commanding HATE, however Rev Neal may wish to modify it. Yes, you will always be able to find defenders of the faith try to twist it around, but even Rev Neal's own sources give a definition that is hardly conducive to wholesome family values, at least for those with a higher sense of morality than you can find from the Bible. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal quotes ME: <<<Biblical fundamentalists are the literalists. However, when non-literalits argue that a passage does not say what it does say, then they, too, are wrong. If a non-literalist argues that the Bible does NOT say that Jesus taught hate according to the text Kornform presented, then those of us who show them the error of their claim are responding appropriately.>>> Rev Neal replies [Re:NotKJVOnly, which is it? 97-07-04 19:53:03 EDT] <<<Said like a true Fundamentalist.>>> Unable to reply rationally to my very valid explanation, this is all Rev Neal can evade with? [Re:NotKJVOnly, which is it? 97-07-04 21:36:04 EDT] <<<Perhaps I should modify that a bit. Christian Fundamentalists tend to engage in a strictly literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures out of deep love and respect for the Scriptures and with much Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Others, however, demand literal interpretations of the Scriptures for the expressed purpose of attacking and destroying people's faith in them. In so doing, they do violence to the meaning of the Scriptures ... for not ALL scripture is intended to be taken literally, nor is all scripture easily understood EVEN if a simple literal sense in indicated.>>> And OTHERS, such as the participants in THIS folder, RESPOND to a lot of specific erroneous nonsense that various people, whether literalists or otherwise, pronounce under the authority of the Bible. Unfortunately, some disreputable individuals make blanket assertions of this type without addressing specific instances, thus reducing their own comments to meaninglessness. <<<Quite the contrary ... sometimes single words in one language contain many multiple meanings and aspects in other languages. That is the essence of our problem with the word "miseo." It's meaning may LOOK simple to those who have not bothered to REALLY look into the etymological background of the word, but in reality it is NOT simple at all.>>> The meaning, within the context, is extremely clear. It only becomes complicated to those who do not like what it ACTUALLY SAYS and are faced with the dilemma of justifying some way to change the meaning to something they prefer. And, as we have seen, people of all levels of scholarship are willing to stoop to this tactic when the passage is embarrassing enough to their cherished beliefs. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<But Rev Neal says no anger or emotional baggage????? HOW CONVENIENT! Sorry, I will stick with the experts -- Strongs, Thayers, and the translators of every English version of the Bible I can find.>> Dennis has gone and, as has been a tendency of his in the past, ignored that which was inconvenient for him -- not that we don't all do it at times, it's just that he's done it this time. The point is that, etymologically, the MEANING of the word does NOT include emotional content. Dennis' predetermined -- dare I say "desperate"? -- desire to find negative emotional content is what is functioning here. Hence, he refuses to consider or actually deal with the evidence I presented from Kittle's TDNT (HARDLY a conservative Christian source). He has simply passed it off as examples of Christian twisting. <<Those who feel compelled to defend Jesus can come up with these kinds of explanations, as I've seen Rev Neal do before when trying to justify his pre-determined agendas. The comparative aspect is simply not justified, but those who desperately need to twist the meaning will undermine their own credibility by doing so.>> 1. What an interesting little charge you've loaded into that statement. Attempting to "justify [my] predetermined agendas"? Most fascinating indeed! And you DON'T do that yourself, I assume? You do, you know ... all the time. 2. In this case, I simply wanted to see what my resources (Christian and otherwise) had to say. I've noted Strongs and Thayer -- as usual, they tend to deal with the surface, Koine-only meaning of the words in an extremely limited, wooden, and un-nuanced sense. The full range of meanings for the words, in all their contexts, is generally missing. Comparing Strongs and Thayer to Kittle and Bauer is like claiming that Random House's Pocket Dictionary of the English Language is the equal of the Oxford Unabridged Multivolume Dictionary of the English Language. 3. The explanation is contained within the etymological roots of the Greek word -- roots that existed LONG before the earthly ministry of Jesus, and LONG before his words were translated into Greek. I did not "come up with" or somehow fabricate this analysis ... it is simply a FACT of linguistics that the etymological roots of this word are not inclusive of emotion. Ignore that, or pass it off as "desperate" Christian twisting if you wish -- in so doing you are only undermining your own credibility. (Don't yell, Dennis, I just quoted you and had PERFECT justification for so doing). 4. Upon what do you determine the comparative aspect unjustified? You own opinion? That's hardly solid ground -- especially since you don't know Greek. <<So we turn to what "seems" clear to Rev Neal as the basis for rejecting what Strongs and Thayers say? STRONGS tells us "from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute)". THAYERS tells us "1) to hate, to pursue with hatred, to detest 2) to be hated, to be detested">> It sure "seems" that way to Kittle and Bauer, Dennis. I'm just reporting their work. You have Strongs and Thayer -- roughing the equivalent of the "Random House Pocket Dictionary" -- and I have Kittle, Bauer, Hatch, Greenfield, Anderson (etc.) -- roughly the equivalent of the "Oxford Unabridged." In numbers and quality, I win. That is ... if winning is what this is about. Sometimes, from what I read from you and yours, it would appear that "winning" IS what this is about. Sad ... if true. Regards, Greg+
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Unfortunately, some disreputable individuals make blanket assertions of this type without addressing specific instances, thus reducing their own comments to meaninglessness.>> 'Twas very meaningful. You responded, didn't you? And ... "disreputable." My word, personal attacks just seem to be beyond your ability to resist, aren't they? And, PLEASE, don't protest that such wasn't directed at me. We BOTH know it was.
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal: [Re:Rev Neal's analysis 97-07-05 11:59:31 EDT] <<<Dennis' predetermined -- dare I say "desperate"? -- desire to find negative emotional content is what is functioning here.>>> Yes, of course, it is EXTREMELY "desperate" to rely on the two most reputable lexicons I know of and EVERY single translation I can find, while biased believers coax out some temperance of a word they are struggling to reconcile. <<<Comparing Strongs and Thayer to Kittle and Bauer is like claiming that Random House's Pocket Dictionary of the English Language is the equal of the Oxford Unabridged Multivolume Dictionary of the English Language.>>> In other words, if you look long enough, and find enough variants of meaning, you can FINALLY find one you like and apply it, whether or not it fits the context. Applying this kind of bias is what transforms the tools of "scholarship" into "apologetics", defending a pre-determined conclusion with research skewed toward a desired interpretation or, as with Ezekiel's pronouns previously, doing an analysis and then latching onto the desired interpretation no matter how ill-fitting it is, resting solely on the laurels of credential. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Yes, of course, it is EXTREMELY "desperate" to rely on the two most reputable lexicons I know of and EVERY single translation I can find, while biased believers coax out some temperance of a word they are struggling to reconcile.>> Your desperation is manifested in your FORCING a literal or wooden interpretation of the Bible in order to then find the Bible either in error or in absurdity. THAT is your desire, your bias, and "predetermined agenda," and ANY possible interpretation that runs counter to your predetermined agenda, or which lessens the impact of your charges, you throw out, ignore, or label as being the result of fanatical Christian propaganda ... never mind that Kittle, and the other German scholars who participated in the production of the TDNT, were (in many cases) professed agnostics or atheists. And, AS for Thayer and Strongs being the "two most reputable lexicons" you know of ... well, bellow I'll post the CREAM of the Greek Lexical crop. Might I suggest that you get yourself over to a GOOD theological library or book store and access them? Thayer's is over 100 years old and FAR too narrow in its simplistic focus on the wooden, surface, Koine meaning of the words it explicates. Strongs, on the other hand, is simply a popular work that NO "reputable" scholar I know of would depend upon for anything more than a quick, passing reference. The following sources, however, are those cited in Academic Journals and in the major publications of the "high-powered critical scholars." Anderson, Timothy (ed) "An Etymological Commentary on the Greek Old and New Testament." Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Bauer, Walter; Arndt, William F.; Gingrich, F. Wilbur "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature." Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Blass, F.; Debrunner, A.; Funk, Robert "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament" Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961. Fribert, Barbara and Timothy (eds) "Analytical Greek New Testament." Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981. Greenfield, William; Reprinted with Revisions and up-dated commentary by Green, Thomas S. "The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament." Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970. Hatch, Simon W. and Green, Tomas S. "A Lexicon of the Greek Language: Containing An Indepth Analysis of Ionic to Koine Etymologies." (3 vols) New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Kittle, Gerhard (ed) "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." (10 Vols) Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964. Metzger, Bruce M. Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek Princeton: Theological Book Agency, 1983. Moule, C.F.D An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek Cambridge: At the University Press, 1971. [Continued] The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <In other words, if you look long enough, and find enough variants of meaning, you can FINALLY find one you like and apply it, whether or not it fits the context.>> Your interpretation is the result of significant bias on your part. In doing a well-founded exegesis, one must look DEEP enough into the linguistic structure of every word to REALLY understand its roots and its meaning. In THIS case, the exegesis of the word in question which I presented coordinates PERFECTLY with the context of the passage in question. I challenge you to examine that context. WHAT is Jesus saying here? WHAT is the subject that Jesus is addressing? Is he talking about hating families because families are evil or bad? NO! ANY attempt to TWIST these words into THAT interpretation FAILS to consider both the etymological meaning of the word "miseo" AND the context of Jesus' words. <<Luke 14:25 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, 26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. 33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.>> [NRSV] The context makes it clear ... large crowds are not likely to be exclusively devoted to Him, as Jesus desires of His disciples. They are going to have attachments, entanglements, and barriers to being able to REALLY follow him. Kittle said it best: <<The reference [Luke 14:26] is not to hate in the psychological sense, but to disowning, renunciation, rejection ("kai ten psukhen eautou"), as in the Wisdom literature of the OT. Those who become disciples of Jesus must be committed exclusively to Him; they cannot be bound to anyone or anything else. The term "hate" demands the separation of the disciple, and the warning not to love anyone or anything more is the test. This abnegation is to be taken not psychologically or fanatically, but pneumatically and christocentrically.>> (Kittle: "Miseo," in TDNT, Vol. L-N; pp. 690-691) Jesus required that His disciples remove themselves from the entanglements of family and possessions; he does this NOT out of maliciousness, not out of hatred for family itself, but out of an understanding that such entanglements GET IN THE WAY of being a committed disciple. "Miseo," here, describes the *orientation* of one toward those things which conflict with devoted allegiance. One disassociates oneself from those things that are "hated," from those things which would conflict with serving God. Family is GOOD ... as Jesus' words regarding the Law on this subject makes very clear -- but family can conflict VERY EASILY with ministry. THIS is why, for example, the Roman Catholic Church requires that its clergy be single and celibate. Family can conflict with a calling to follow Jesus. And THIS *kind* of conflict (the stumbling block of family and possessions) is the context of the passage. [Continued] The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Applying this kind of bias is what transforms the tools of "scholarship" into "apologetics", defending a pre-determined conclusion with research skewed toward a desired interpretation>> As I have shown, it is only because of your predetermined conclusion that you assert that Jesus MUST be speaking evil of family. I believe that you do this in order to splash mud on the character of Jesus in hopes of harming the faith of any who might read what you write. Your predetermined conclusion DEMANDS that the ONLY valid interpretation of this passage be literal, wooden, and cast Jesus in a negative light. ANY other interpretation (indeed, ANY deviation from your interpretation) you automatically label as "apologetics." It is THIS kind of bias, the bias which YOU bring to the text, that invalidates your interpretation. YOU have come to this passage with a predetermined conclusion, hoping and struggling to make the passage say what you want it to say. The context clearly doesn't matter to you. And neither does the etymology of the words -- arguments that you have entirely ignored or twisted to serve your ends. No, none of the aspects of scholarly exegesis matter to you, Dennis. Only victory matters to you. And THAT is reason you REFUSE to step beyond your narrow, paltry few sources and ACTUALLY examine alternate interpretations. <<....or, as with Ezekiel's pronouns previously, doing an analysis and then latching onto the desired interpretation no matter how ill-fitting it is, resting solely on the laurels of credential.>> FOFLOL No ... I'm not getting drawn into that scuffle again. I did my job and I did it well. You didn't like it because it conflicted with what YOU wanted (indeed, what YOU demanded) the passage say. That's really just too bad. Sometimes the results of critical exegesis are not what we would want. I've had to accept that fact, and live with it, seeing as how I encounter it often enough. One of these, days, perhaps, you will learn that. Regards, Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood >>As I have shown, it is only because of your predetermined conclusion that you assert that Jesus MUST be speaking evil of family. I believe that you do this in order to splash mud on the character of Jesus in hopes of harming the faith of any who might read what you write. Your predetermined conclusion DEMANDS that the ONLY valid interpretation of this passage be literal, wooden, and cast Jesus in a negative light. ---------------------------------------------------- I agree with the light that you have shed forth on these certain Scriptures. Yahushua the messiah was not saying to "hate our family." Putting all things together, line upon line........Yahushua was stating to love less by comparison, meaning--you must be willing to give up all and follow him, not that you should not love them. All throughout the Scriptures is stated, "Love Yahweh first, which all your life (mental heart, mind), with all your nephesh, and with all your strength," and also, "Love your neighbor as yourself." It only takes common sense to figure it out, and a good search of the wording helps. Yahweh be with you, Dr. Neal--we have so terribly
narrow minds around. The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dennis: <<Biblical fundamentalists are the literalists. However, when non-literalits argue that a passage does not say what it does say, then they, too, are wrong.>> So we just can't get it right either way, huh? If we go literal, we're wrong, if we go non-literal, we're still wrong. Is that it? Dennis:<<NO authoritative passages have said "love less.">> I'm telling you, Dennis, you really would make a great fundamentalist. No, the other 7 authoritative passages may not say the exact words, "love less," but Strong's did. You claim it is by "his" extension, and I assume that by this you mean Strong. If this is only his extension, then why do the other 7 sources all bring about the same idea? Let's go over those sources again, shall we? <<The words are stern, using the Semitic expression "hate", that is, "turn away from," "detach oneself from." Even among primary relationships Jesus demands first loyalty"[ Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper's Bible Commentary] hate: The force of the word is Semitic; in Mt. the expression "loves father or mother more" shows that hate must be understood in the sense of "love less."" [The Jerome Biblical Commentary] Literally hating one's family would have been a violation of the Law. Since Jesus on several occasions admonished others to fulfill the Law, He must not have meant here that one should literally hate his family. The stress here is on the priority of love (cf. Matt. 10:37). One's loyalty to Jesus must come before his loyalty to his family or even to life itself"" [Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary] Every good man loves his relations; and yet, if he be a disciple of Christ, he must comparatively hate them, must love them less than Christ, as Leah is said to be hated when Rachel was better loved." [Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible] "HATE, HATEFUL, HATER, HATRED MISEOµ (misevw , (3404)ÉLuke 14:26, as to the claims of parents relatively to those of Christ; John 12:25, of disregard for one's life relatively to the claims of Christ" [Vine, W. E., Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words] "Jesus' disciples would have to hate their families to follow him (Luke 14:26). Hate here refers not to emotional hostility but to the conscious establishment of priorities. Hate means to love family less than one loves Jesus (Matt. 10:37). Similarly, one should hate personal life to gain eternal life (John 12:25)É" [Harper's Bible Dictionary]>> I didn't see the pertinence of "The New Bible Dictionary's entry, so I omitted it. Now we have only seven authoritative sources again. Let's look at something again. You claimed none of the sources said "love less." I counted three, excluding Strong's. <<...understood in the sense of "LOVE LESS."" [The Jerome Biblical Commentary]>> <<...must LOVE them LESS than Christ...[Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible] AND <<Hate means to LOVE family LESS than one loves Jesus. [Harper's Bible Dictionary]>> So you're telling me that these three sources don't use the exact words "LOVE LESS?" Hmm. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. Quite obviously, all six of these sources show that this word, miseo, translated to the English "hate" , does not carry the emphasis that the word "hate" gives us. So what's your beef with these sources? They're Christian? In Christ, NotKJVOnly The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal: [Re:Rev Neal's apologetics 97-07-05 18:12:15 EDT] <<<Your desperation is manifested in your FORCING a literal or wooden interpretation of the Bible in order to then find the Bible either in error or in absurdity.>>> Reading the plain wording and not making it say the exact opposite is wrong? Reading the plain meaning is absurd???? <<<THAT is your desire, your bias, and "predetermined agenda," and ANY possible interpretation that runs counter to your predetermined agenda, or which lessens the impact of your charges, you throw out, ignore, or label as being the result of fanatical Christian propaganda>>> Just because I wouldn't deny what the passage said in extremely simple, plain clarity? <<<And, AS for Thayer and Strongs being the "two most reputable lexicons" you know of ... well, bellow I'll post the CREAM of the Greek Lexical crop. Might I suggest that you get yourself over to a GOOD theological library or book store and access them?>>> You mean so *I* can shop around for whatever interpretation suits MY agenda, too? Sorry, I'm not that desperate to twist the wording when it is already PERFECTLY consistent with the many sources I already have. [Re:Rev Neal's apologetics 97-07-05 18:43:28 EDT] <<<Your interpretation is the result of significant bias on your part. In doing a well-founded exegesis, one must look DEEP enough into the linguistic structure of every word to REALLY understand its roots and its meaning.>>> My interpretation was EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSAGE SAID!!!! In EVERY TRANSLATION and from TWO HIGHLY POPULAR LEXICONS!!! Bias? I'm not the one who has to keep digging deeper and deeper until I find the interpretation that will satisfy MY bias. <<<Is he talking about hating families because families are evil or bad? NO!>>> The context couldn't be clearer, and this distortion is beneath you, Rev Neal. The context shows Jesus telling his followers to hate their families because they distract from full cult-like dedication. <<<Kittle said it best: <<The reference [Luke 14:26] is not to hate in the psychological sense, but to disowning, renunciation, rejection>>>> Yes, disowning, renunciation, rejection... that is exactly what Jesus was telling them. What a beautiful message for families. Yes, that IS hate. A perfect translation indeed. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal quotes ME: <<<Applying this kind of bias is what transforms the tools of "scholarship" into "apologetics", defending a pre-determined conclusion with research skewed toward a desired interpretation>>> Rev Neal replies [Re:Rev Neal's apologetics 97-07-05 19:04:06 EDT] <<<As I have shown, it is only because of your predetermined conclusion that you assert that Jesus MUST be speaking evil of family.>>> Pre-determined? To take the words exactly as they are written in every translation? Show any objective strangers the passage, changing Jesus name so they aren't biased either way, and see what people tell you it means. YOU, Rev Neal, are the one trying to dig around until you find SOME obscure means for making it say something different, NOT ME!!!! {re Ezekiel's pronouns} <<<I did my job and I did it well. You didn't like it because it conflicted with what YOU wanted (indeed, what YOU demanded) the passage say.>>> Yes, you showed that you can take pronouns, skip numerous antecedents which match perfectly in form and number, deny that fact, and skip back numerous verses to an entirely different discussion, and apply the antecedents which support YOUR desired interpretation, in conflict with every English translation. Every translation got it wrong because the translators didn't have Rev Neal to correct them! Your pattern of apologetics is a familiar one, Rev. You have the tools of scholarship, but this is how you choose to apply them to pre-determined agendas. <<<That's really just too bad. Sometimes the results of critical exegesis are not what we would want.>>> But when the "results" really smell funny, don't fit, and take a great deal of effort and contortion to evade the obvious meaning, then someone has to take a closer look. When that square peg just won't fit into the round hole, it's time to question how "critical" that exegesis really is. And when this happens consistently, the apologist has to be recognized as such, regardless of the scholarly tools they have employed in forcing out the desired conclusion. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood NotKJVOnly: [Re:NotKJVOnly, which is it? 97-07-05 21:59:12 EDT] <<<Literally hating one's family would have been a violation of the Law. Since Jesus on several occasions admonished others to fulfill the Law, He must not have meant here that one should literally hate his family. >>> Jesus violated the law several times. <<<Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible]>>> This is an apologetics reference. OF COURSE these Christian faithful are looking for a better explanation than what the passage actually says. Rev Neal has shown us how they go about justifying their agenda. Obviously, once the "love-less" explanation was concocted, others latched onto it. But it doesn't change what the text actually says. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Reading the plain wording and not making it say the exact opposite is wrong? Reading the plain meaning is absurd????>> It's always good to allow the words in question to say what they MEAN in their original language and in the particular context of its usage. In most languages -- as in English -- the meaning of a word is nuanced by its context. This very true of English, in fact, since we don't have much linguistic inflection. Hence, when I say that I love my cat, I DON'T mean that I love him the same way that I love my parents; nor do I love my cat or my parents the same way I loved my deceased wife. When my mother says she loves me, she doesn't mean that she has the same *kind* of love for me that she has for my father or for her dog. The nuance of meaning shifts according to its context. Your way of reading "miseo," if applied to the English word "love," would demand that when that word is used, it ***always*** incorporates the same psychological content ... i.e., let us say physical sexual attraction. In other words, you would demand that when I say I love my cat, what I am saying is that I want to have sex with him; or that when my mother says she loves me, what she means is that she wants to have sex with me. This is clearly absurd ... but your wooden, hyper-literal understanding of how words are translated into other languages demands it. The word "love" contains many different nuances of meaning, mostly dependant upon its context of usage. The SAME is true of "miseo." JUST because we don't happen to have similar kinds of nuances for "hate" as we do for "love" doesn't mean that other languages don't. The "plain simple meaning" of a word or phrase isn't always so easily established through the process of translation. This is true, for example, when one tries to translate any of the many dozens of Eskimo words for snow: any one of their many different words for different kinds of snow would need several words in English to translate (lite snow, heavy snow, packed snow that's good for igloo building, snow that is safe to drink, snow that is not safe to drink ... shall I go on?) And, conversely, the word "snow" in a Eskimo dictionary would have to have several PAGES of definitions to communicate ALL the many different words that communicate the many nuances of kind and nature that we pack into ONE simple word, "snow." While not nearly so complex as the MANY Eskimo words for "snow," the Greek word "miseo" is a highly nuanced word, and tends to be both case and context dependant. A surface literal reading communicates "hate" but, in it's fuller and more accurate meaning, does not contain the emotional negative sense. Believe it or not, there ARE other words in Greek for "hate." This fact -- that "miseo" is a nuanced word that doesn't tend to contain the emotional content of the English word "hate" -- has been shown to you several times, Dennis, and still you are struggling against the fact that words are NOT so EASILY translated from one language to another. A 1 to 1 translation equivalence is almost always a RARE occurrence. Indeed, that "miseo" contains nuanced meanings has been very clearly shown through several source (at least 10 sources, if my count is correct). The word simply doesn't mean what a wooden, surface attempt at translation would suggest. <<Just because I wouldn't deny what the passage said in extremely simple, plain clarity?>> If the passage doesn't actually MEAN what is seems to, on the surface, then YES. And, this is one of the cases where it DOESN'T mean what a simple, surface transliteration suggests. The nuances are lost in transliteration. [Continued] The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood My Bible renders Luke 14:26 as, "If any [man] come to Me, and does not put aside his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." But either way, it is #3404-SEC, Greek, and it means to love less. It does not mean actual hate. You see, hate is just a word that the scholars used to try to explain it. I like my Bible's rendering of "aside" better than "hate." We need to love Yahshua Messiah more than our biological family, more than our own life, more than anything. He comes first, and then we prioritize on down from there. See, that's not too hard to understand now, is it?............Sue YS>>>>I agree with the light that you have
shed forth on these certain Scriptures. Yahushua the messiah was not saying to
"hate our family." Putting all things together, line upon line........Yahushua
was stating to love less by comparison, meaning--you must be willing to give up
all and follow him, not that you should not love them. All throughout the
Scriptures is stated, "Love Yahweh first, which all your life (mental heart,
mind), with all your nephesh, and with all your strength," and also,
"Love your neighbor as yourself." It only takes common sense to figure
it out, and a good search of the wording helps. Yahweh be with you, Dr. Neal--we
have so terribly narrow minds around.<<<<<<< The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<You mean so *I* can shop around for whatever interpretation suits MY agenda, too? Sorry, I'm not that desperate to twist the wording when it is already PERFECTLY consistent with the many sources I already have.>> You mean the two narrow sources you have ... one of which doesn't support you nearly as well as you lead on. And, NO, not so that you can "shop around" for the interpretation that you want. Rather, so that you can get a more accurate and representational cross-section of what scholarship has to say on an issue. Roosting on just ONE or TWO minor scholars' interpretation can be dangerous. Reference to MANY scholars helps to give one surer footing. <<My interpretation was EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSAGE SAID!!!! In EVERY TRANSLATION and from TWO HIGHLY POPULAR LEXICONS!!!>> Not quite. Your interpretation is exactly what the passage says when un-nuanced by context. ALSO, your bias has driven you to discount part of what Strongs says. <<Bias? I'm not the one who has to keep digging deeper and deeper until I find the interpretation that will satisfy MY bias.>> Yes, Bias with a capital "B". YOUR bias causes you to reject any etymological facts that contradict your agenda. In this particular case, that is not functioning on my end. HAD the sources I checked affirmed that "miseo" means "hate" in EVERY context, in EVERY way, in EVERY emotional and psychological sense, I would have reported as such. Do you expect me to reject the VAST MAJORITY of scholarship, and the VAST MAJORITY of linguistic analysis, just because it conflicts with the high and mighty Dennis SnakePiper's supposedly unbiased interpretation? Sorry ... you're not that good. <<The context couldn't be clearer, and this distortion is beneath you, Rev Neal. The context shows Jesus telling his followers to hate their families because they distract from full cult-like dedication.>> Dennis, there wasn't a twist in my entire statement regarding the context. Saying that I engaged in "distortion" on this issue is a flat out LIE. You've taken to calling others liars all the time ... above you prove that you're good at it yourself. I didn't distort the passage at all. I stated that Jesus made it clear that his disciples were to separate themselves from distraction, from families and possession that would conflict with their following him. It is YOU, dependant upon your negative agenda, that demands that the MOTIVATION for this separation must be emotional "hate." The context and nuance of the word "miseo makes it clear that there is NO emotion involved in the separation; one "separates from" (miseo) family because such entanglements get in the way with the mission of the disciple. As for your emotionally charged: "...they distract from full cult-like dedication.>> it is VERY true that families and possession get in the way of devotion to Jesus. Your negative assessment of this, however, is very questionable, is both relevant AND very telling as to your bias. <<Yes, disowning, renunciation, rejection... that is exactly what Jesus was telling them. What a beautiful message for families. Yes, that IS hate. A perfect translation indeed.>> I really wish you would READ it, rather than read
INTO it what you want. No emotional HATE is here, it involves removing oneself
from the entanglements of families and possessions. One disowns one's membership
in a family. One renounces possession and family obligations. One rejects the
ties of family and the debts of life. NOT EVERYONE can do this ... however. The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<Pre-determined? To take the words exactly as they are written in every translation? Show any objective strangers the passage, changing Jesus name so they aren't biased either way, and see what people tell you it means.>> I've done it. The person looked at the whole text and said "looks like he's asking those who would follow him to remove themselves from their families and to give up their possession." <<YOU, Rev Neal, are the one trying to dig around until you find SOME obscure means for making it say something different, NOT ME!!!!>> YOU, SnakePiper, are the one trying to force a wooden, surface, literal, un-nuanced, contra-contextual meaning on the phrase, NOT ME!!!! <<{re Ezekiel's pronouns} <<<I did my job and I did it well. You didn't like it because it conflicted with what YOU wanted (indeed, what YOU demanded) the passage say.>>> Yes, you showed that you can take pronouns, skip numerous antecedents which match perfectly in form and number, deny that fact, and skip back numerous verses to an entirely different discussion, and apply the antecedents which support YOUR desired interpretation, in conflict with every English translation. Every translation got it wrong because the translators didn't have Rev Neal to correct them!>> Oh, boy, I can smell a charge of "arrogance" coming! OH NO! The one of the most self-absorbed, arrogant posters I've ever run into on AOL is going to charge me with arrogance! Can the network stand the strain!? <<Your pattern of apologetics is a familiar one, Rev. You have the tools of scholarship, but this is how you choose to apply them to predetermined agendas.>> Your pattern of bias is a familiar one, Snake. You DON'T have the tools of scholarship, and so you choose to belittle their results. You're predetermined agenda reeks of ... well, it just reeks. <<But when the "results" really smell funny, don't fit, and take a great deal of effort and contortion to evade the obvious meaning, then someone has to take a closer look. When that square peg just won't fit into the round hole, it's time to question how "critical" that exegesis really is. And when this happens consistently, the apologist has to be recognized as such, regardless of the scholarly tools they have employed in forcing out the desired conclusion.>> Said like a literalist who so hates (not Miseo, but emotional hatred) the Bible that he will force the Bible to be literal in order to destroy people's faith in it. AN ASIDE: Some of you may have noticed that Dennis has gotten us off the topic of the meaning of the word "miseo," and is now charging me with biased motivations for the results of my scholarship. That's about par for the course.
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dennis leaves yet another wobbly trail in the smoke filled grass ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: [D] "Reading the plain wording and not making it say the exact opposite is wrong? Reading the plain meaning is absurd????É" [MJM] Oh Oh! Now what have you gone and done? Don't tell me, you didn't understand the block of wood on the roman candle was the BOTTOM Dennis! Your fire works going PPPPPPHHHHHhttttt!!!! And colored fire balls coming out of the grass and chasing you should have been a sort of message well everyone has tough days huh? Too bad it got ya. Head wounds are the worst and you hadn't even healed from the golf ball! [D] "Reading the plain meaning is absurd????É" [MJM] But this backwards stance, this is unbelievable! Who would have guessed? Two in one week! First K becomes a Fundie and now you! This is mind boggling! Why just last week, you were railing: [D] "honesty doesn't seem to sit well with the fanatic evangelical fundamentalist extremists who are threatened by truthful answers to the nonsense they spew" [MJM] Well ya gotta admit, reading the Bible as honest literal truth is better than your former stance. Hey! Maybe next year you'll get the little colored fire balls to go up! Watch that curly red wig there Dennis, its flammable! Best Fishes.
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal: [Re:Rev Neal still apologizing 97-07-06 14:31:50 EDT] <<<Your way of reading "miseo," if applied to the English word "love," would demand that when that word is used, it ***always*** incorporates the same psychological content ... i.e., let us say physical sexual attraction>>> Now Rev Neal dodges the point by SWITCHING WORDS!!!!! Any comments I made regarding the word "hate" have exactly NOTHING to do with the word love, no matter how desperately Rev Neal tries this latest evasion. <<<In other words, you would demand that when I say I love my cat, what I am saying is that I want to have sex with him; or that when my mother says she loves me, what she means is that she wants to have sex with me. This is clearly absurd>>> This is clearly the most fabulous STRAW MAN sample I have ever collected!!! And from a "scholar" no less! What a trophy! I have never and would never do any such thing but, unable to reply to what I have ACTUALLY done, Rev Neal has to construct a STRAW MAN to whack away at. Such brilliant scholarship in action! <<<While not nearly so complex as the MANY Eskimo words for "snow," the Greek word "miseo" is a highly nuanced word, and tends to be both case and context dependant.>>> This is why I rely on the world-class scholars and teams of scholars who translated the various Bible versions I have investigated. When they are 100% consistent then I know this is a clear interpretation. When they all have something different, then it is obvious subjective in terms of various alternatives. That is NOT the case re "miseo." <<<If the passage doesn't actually MEAN what is seems to, on the surface, then YES.>>> Translation: If you don't like what the passage says on the surface, keep digging 'til you can scrounge up some support for a better definition. <<<YOUR bias causes you to reject any etymological facts that contradict your agenda.>>> I'm the one who takes the words as they appear, Rev Neal. Did you forget that YOU are the one digging and shopping until you can come up with something a bit more palatable to modern civilization? You are all welcome to attribute any meaning you wish to the passage. Certainly, by looking hard enough, you can find a variety of meanings to choose from, thus rendering the "sacred text" MEANINGLESS. Perhaps it would be fitting to say that in seeking the meaning of "hate" we discover those who hate "meaning". DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dear Dennis, Perhaps ... just perhaps ... you need to back away from your screen and take several deep breaths? You've slipped into accusing me of things I did not do. <<Now Rev Neal dodges the point by SWITCHING WORDS!!!!! Any comments I made regarding the word "hate" have exactly NOTHING to do with the word love, no matter how desperately Rev Neal tries this latest evasion.>> No evasion, and no dodge, Dennis. In the posting in question I was simply establishing an ANALOGY in order to illustrate the linguistic situation operating in the nuances of the Greek word "miseo." The two words -- "love" and "miseo" -- are very similar to each other in a specific, linguistic sense: BOTH word contain significant degrees of nuance in varying degrees of emotional content. In other words, BOTH "love" and "miseo" shift their specific meaning relative to the context of the usage of each, and that shift INCLUDES a change in the emotional content of the passage in which the word is used. DEMANDING that one ("miseo") have only ONE nuance of meaning ("hate") is the linguistic equivalent of DEMANDING that the other ("love") ALSO have only ONE nuance of meaning ("eros"). THAT is the analogy I was establishing. And, please note, this IS an analogy. The subject is STILL "miseo"! JUST AS the English word "love" has multiple nuances of meaning relative to its context of its usage, SO ALSO the Greek Word "miseo" has multiple nuances of meaning relative to its context of usage. <<This is clearly the most fabulous STRAW MAN sample I have ever collected!!! And from a "scholar" no less! What a trophy! I have never and would never do any such thing but, unable to reply to what I have ACTUALLY done, Rev Neal has to construct a STRAW MAN to whack away at. Such brilliant scholarship in action!>> Charging others with "Straw Man" tactics is one of SnakePiper's favorite emergency escape maneuvers. In THIS case, he has used it in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that my analogy worked so very well. Sorry, Dennis, you can't get away from the validity of my analogy. Your charge of "straw man" won't divert my attention, nor the attention of our readers, for very long. As I have already made perfectly clear, this was NOT a "straw man" of ANY kind: I never said that you addressed the word "love," AND my focus is STILL the nature of "miseo." My own words <<if applied>> should have been enough to indicate that I was NOT leveling a charge at you but was simply making an analogy between two linguistically equivalent situations. Again, my purpose was to illustrate the error of your position on the nuances of "miseo" by showing how ABSURD it would be were we to apply that same position to the nuances of the English word "love." "Love" is a word -- VERY MUCH LIKE "miseo" -- which is nuance-dependant for its meaning. The Greek word "miseo" is ********LIKE********* the English word "love" in that very respect. <<This is why I rely on the world-class scholars and teams of scholars who translated the various Bible versions I have investigated. When they are 100% consistent then I know this is a clear interpretation. When they all have something different, then it is obvious subjective in terms of various alternatives. That is NOT the case re "miseo.">> WHY, then, is there SIGNIFICANT agreement among scholars of the Greek language that the word "miseo" does, indeed, have this nature??? You claim that the translations prove that "miseo" is NOT context dependant. Eight out of ten linguistic commentaries and lexicons CONTRADICT you. <<Translation: If you don't like what the passage says on the surface, keep digging 'til you can scrounge up some support for a better definition.>> Counter Translation: If you want to destroy people's faith in the Bible, or if you want to make Jesus look bad, just accept the wooden, surface, un-nuanced meaning of the words in question, disregarding their context and the etymological essence. [Continued]
<<I'm the one who takes the words as they appear, Rev Neal. Did you forget that YOU are the one digging and shopping until you can come up with something a bit more palatable to modern civilization?>> I am the one who is revealing the ACTUAL etymological meaning of the word in its context. YOU are the one who is forcing an inaccurate, literalist interpretation like the perfect literalist you are ... doing so in hopes of destroying the faith of all who read. <<You are all welcome to attribute any meaning you wish to the passage. Certainly, by looking hard enough, you can find a variety of meanings to choose from, thus rendering the "sacred text" MEANINGLESS. Perhaps it would be fitting to say that in seeking the meaning of "hate" we discover those who hate "meaning".>> Again, spoken like a true hard-core literalist. W.A. Criswell would have been proud. Unfortunately, by demanding literalist interpretations EVEN WHERE the surface, wooden, literal meaning is NOT the correct one (as determined by the word's etymology AND the context of the passage), you are hoping to render the "sacred text" invalid. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will continue to force wooden, simplistic, un-nuanced meanings upon the Bible in keeping with your agenda to destroy faith in the Bible; a Snake may change his skin, but his innards never change. Regards, Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Korn whip it good 1 Kornform rides in on his dead ass hollering: [K] "Rev Neal apparently believes that only he is capable of looking "DEEP enough" into the true meaning of words and that all these experts translators are a bunch of bozos" [MJM] Borrowed Dennis' wig did ya? Didn't need the nose I see. One more time there K. Most of the folks who translate from Koine Greek to English use a specific dictionary: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Gerhard Kittel (Editor),Gerhard Friedrich (Editor) Pub. Price: $549.90 ISBN#: 0802823246 [More MJM] From the preface: "The purpose of TDNT is to mediate between ordinary lexicography and the specific task of exposition, particularly at the theological level. The discussion of each New Testament word of religious or theological significance includes comments on the word's secular Greek background; its role in the Old Testament, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts; its usage in such sources as Philo, Josephus, the pseudepigraphal and rabbinical literature; and finally its varied uses in the New Testament and, where pertinent, in the Apostolic Fathers. [Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament] [More MJM] In other words, it was not written as an apologetic. It was written to inform Biblical and other scholars concerning Koine Greek usage. Now, for the specific matter at hand: "Éc. Hatred in Discipleship. To be a true disciple one must hate all others for Jesus' sake. This is not psychological hatred but a total commitment that gives absolute priority to Jesus. It is to be understood pneumatologically and christologically" [More MJM] Just in case you think I'm hiding something I need to fess up, here's the entire article: miseÎoµ [to hate] 1. Secular Greek. This term is found from an early period in the sense "to dislike," "to hate." The idea of being hated by the gods is ancient. In Aeschylus the gods hate evil deeds and those who do them. Comedy does not take this so seriously but still retains the thought that the gods are averse to disreputable passions. As a human impulse, hatred can and should be overcome according to Epictetus. Prohibitions of hatred occur in the Mandaean writings along with the golden rule that what is hateful to us we should not do to our neighbor. Continued The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Korn whip it good 2a (reader skip this page unless you want the full dictionary article.) 2. The OT and LXX. a. Human Aversion and Hostility. The group is common in the LXX for human dislike or hatred. This may come out in overt acts (Gen. 26:27; Dt. 4:42; 21:15). It can take a political form (Dan. 4:16). To love is its opposite (Dt. 21:15). Love can turn into hatred (Judg. 14:16; 2 Sam. 13:15). God commands that hatred should be overcome (Lev. 19:17). The Psalms often refer to the hatred of enemies and ask God, or praise God, for deliverance from it (25:19; 106:10). The wicked hate the righteous without a cause (34:21; 35:19), but they will suffer for it (34:21). Hatred of God's people is hatred of God himself (Num. 10:35). b. Goods Hating. God hates various things, e.g., alien worship (Dt. 12:31), the true cultus without heart worship (Am. 5:21), wickedness in all its forms (Prov. 8:13), and the members that commit it (Prov. 6:16ff.). The righteous hate what God hates (Ps. 97:10; Am. 5:15, etc.). This is not an emotional hatred but a disowning of evil and of those who commit it. As the wicked love evil and hate the good, so the righteous love the good and hate evil (Mic. 3:2). Implied is a rejection in will and deed. c. Hatred of God and the Righteous. To this hatred of the wicked by God and the righteous corresponds the hatred of the wicked. God visits sins to the third and fourth generation of those who hate him (Ex. 20:5). Hating God means ignoring his commands and persecuting his people. Those who hate God may be strong, and they show their hatred by repaying evil for good, but in the long run their opposition to God is doomed to failure (Pss. 34:21; 35:19; 38:19-20; 69:4; 86:17). d. Fraternal Hatred. This is forbidden by the OT (Lev. 19:17) and the rabbis. Hating one's neighbor is equivalent to the shedding of blood (cf. Dt. 19:11). God blotted out Sodom because its inhabitants hated one another. 3. Palestinian Judaism. Like the OT, the rabbis are aware of a hatred that is both legitimate and imperative. Thus one must hate seducers, traitors, and freethinkers. Yet hatred within the people is a heinous sin that brings down divine punishment. The battle against its poison is important in apocalyptic. Hatred is wicked, sides with falsehood, and fights against the truth. But it will ultimately be overthrown. 4. Philo. Philo's usage is close to the Greek. God has declared desire and the body to be worthy of hate. Humans hate virtue but God honors it. There is a forbidden hate, but also a proper hate of the passions of youth and the vices of age. By amendment sinful hate may be turned into love. Continued
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Korn whip it good 2b (Reader, same with this one.) 5. The NT. a. Human Hatred. Only miseÎoµ occurs in the NT. This can denote ordinary human hatred, as in Mt. 5:43. Hating one's enemy is not actually commanded in the OT, and Jesus enjoins love instead (Lk. 6:27). In Mt. 6:24 and Lk. 16:13 loving and hating express the thought of preferring the one master to the other. b. Hatred of God's Community. There is a present and future hatred of the community. The righteous are hated in Lk. 1:71. The disciples will be hated according to Lk. 6:22, 27. Hatred is an apocalyptic sign (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:17). The coming of Jesus delivers from it (Lk. 1:71) but also increases it (Mt. 10:22). c. Hatred in Discipleship. To be a true disciple one must hate all others for Jesus' sake. This is not psychological hatred but a total commitment that gives absolute priority to Jesus. It is to be understood pneumatologically and christologically. d. God's Hatred. Rejection by God is described as being hated by God in Rom. 9:13 (cf. Mal. 1:2-3). At issue is God's office as Judge. This is a hatred that disowns what is evil (cf. Rev. 2:6). Jesus himself loves righteousness but hates, i.e., repudiates, iniquity (Heb. 1:9 quoting Ps. 45:7). e. Love and Hate in John. In John divine love conflicts with cosmic hate. The world's hatred for God, Christ, and God's people is sin. The world is blinded and impelled by darkness and therefore hates the light (Jn. 3:20). Since Jesus is the light, the world hates Jesus (7:7). In so doing it hates God (15:23-24). It also hates the disciples (15:18). To live in the light is to be a target of hate. To hate the brethren is to live in darkness (1 Jn. 2:9, 11). Yet there is a proper hatred, as in Jn. 12:25, which states that one must hate one's life in this world in order to keep it for eternal life. f. Rom. 7:15. In this verse "to hate" is the negative equivalent of "to will." We are forced by sin (7:17), and hence we have no power either to do what we will or not to do what we hate (i.e., do not will). g. Various Facets. In Lk. 19:14 and Rev. 17:16 hatred means political enmity. The sense in Rev. 18:2 is "hateful." Eph. 5:28ff. shows how unnatural it is not to love one's wife, for people do not hate their own bodies. In Tit. 3:3 hatred is of the very essence of the old aeon. Jude 23 warns against contact with false teachers, probably with licentiousness in view. Whether the hatred extends to those guilty of it as well as their works may be debated, but since the cause of Christ differs so radically from the wickedness of the present aeon, false teachers are certainly to be shunned. h. Distinctive Elements. Jesus forbids his disciples to hate (Lk. 6:27). Hatred means bondage to the old aeon (1 Jn. 2:9). There is still a holy hatred in the sense of the repudiation of evil, but this is directed primarily against the wrong, not the person (cf. Rev. 2:6). The unconditional claim of Jesus means that earthly ties must be put second, but obviously this is not to be construed as psychological hatred. In the NT even holy repudiation is embraced by divine love. It thus involves a repudiation of all personal hatred. 6. The Post-Apostolic Age. The apostolic fathers preserve the NT emphasis. Did. 2:7 forbids hate (cf. Ignatius Ephesians 14.2 and Hermas Similitudes 9.15.3). There is perhaps a new stress on the beneficial results of loving others, as in Did. 1.3. The church realizes that it is hated by the world and prays for deliverance (1 Clem. 60.3). Wickedness and error are to be hated (Barn. 4. 1; 19.2). A new trend, however, appears in 2 Clem. 6.6 which contrasts transitory things (which are to be hated) with eternal things (which are to be loved). Diog. 6.5-6 uses a dualistic image to explain the world's hatred for the church, comparing it to the hatred of the flesh for the soul. But the soul repays this hatred with love. [O. MICHEL, IV, 683-94] [Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament] continued The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Korn whip it good 3 [K] "Rev Neal's rule is if one scholar is good, a dozen or so are much better, provided they're mostly Christian scholars, I guess. I wonder why that rule doesn't apply to Bible translations, also done by scholars? I'll tell you why. Jesus words just stick in the craw of apologists who strain to put the best possible light on this ancient fanatic cult leader" [MJM] Just keep beating your own ass there BalaamForm don't you? Lets make it an unlucky thirteen: "É1.Semitic usage patterns of love/hate in bipolar contexts; The Semitic mind of OT/NT would state relative comparisons as absolutes, and this would even show up in the same passage. Cf. Genesis 29.30-31: "Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah (mem proposition)...When the LORD saw that Lead was not loved (lit. hated)" This text shows that "hated" could mean IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS "love less than"... (You also have a similar use of hate in Deut 21.15-17 wherein one wife is preferred over another and the word 'hate' is used of the 'less preferred'. In other words, the Semite reader would not make the harsh and rigid conclusions that one from a western culture might. [Glenn Miller J H M] [MJM again] Well, maybe just one more: "É2.Semitic range of miseo We have extra-biblical data that argues that while miseo to Greeks has a more narrow word content, to Semites using miseo, the range was considerably wider, including the sense of 'leaving aside', 'renunciation', or "abandonment' [ F.F. Bruce, "The Hard Sayings of Jesus", pg.592.] [K] "The word actually means "HATE." [MJM] No, it SAYS hate. In the context, it means love less, turn away from, detach ones self The ass is not going to rise there BalaamForm. At least not the one you're beating. BTW did you rent that mule?
Best Fishes. The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood [MJM] <<<<The ass is not going to rise there BalaamForm. At least not the one you're beating. BTW did you rent that mule?>>>> HAR!!!!!!!!!! BalaamForm!!!!!!! ROTFLMBBAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Way to go, Markus!!!!!!!!!!!! Mike The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood In reading over my posts Korn "whip it", I realized I had given the unabridged Kittle as the dictionary used by most Greek / English interpreters. I however; quoted from the ABRIDGED version which is both less expensive and less illuminating. My source is known as "The Little Kittle". I think the definition given is very close to that in the unabridged version; but may be missing some detail. The essence however, is retained as far as I know. Sorry for any possible confusion. MJM The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Responded via Email The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Subj: Re:correction on Korn whip it Dear Mark, <<I however; quoted from the ABRIDGED version which is both less expensive and less illuminating. My source is known as "The Little Kittle". I think the definition given is very close to that in the unabridged version; but may be missing some detail. The essence however, is retained as far as I know.>> Comparing the "Big Kittle" with the "Little Kittle" entry on "miseo" shows that it has been abridged by about 1/3 in the "Little Kittle." Mostly, some highly technical etymological and morphological material has been left out. Also, the usage of the word in pre-Koine Greek was not addressed nearly so well in Little Kittle as it is in the unabridged edition. Grace and peace, Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal quotes ME: <<<Now Rev Neal dodges the point by SWITCHING WORDS!!!!! Any comments I made regarding the word "hate" have exactly NOTHING to do with the word love, no matter how desperately Rev Neal tries this latest evasion.>>> Rev Neal: [Re:The meaning of hate 97-07-08 03:14:31 EDT] <<<No evasion, and no dodge, Dennis. In the posting in question I was simply establishing an ANALOGY in order to illustrate the linguistic situation operating in the nuances of the Greek word "miseo." The two words -- "love" and "miseo" -- are very similar to each other in a specific, linguistic sense>>> No Rev, your reply went on and on discussing the word LOVE, not the word "hate". I did NOT address the word LOVE and I do NOT agree that the word LOVE is a fair analogy of the word HATE. I do not agree that there is any need for an ANALOGY in place of the ACTUAL WORD being examined. But if you want to evade the point, I can certainly understand why. <<<Charging others with "Straw Man" tactics is one of SnakePiper's favorite emergency escape maneuvers. In THIS case, he has used it in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that my analogy worked so very well.>>> To respond to the definition of the word HATE by an "analogy" pursuing the word LOVE, and claiming that the words are so similar that the analogy is valid, when an analogy is not even suitable, is indeed the most glorious of the MANY straw-man examples that, unfortunately, ARE INDEED a frequent dishonest tactic raised by those who need such dishonest tactics. <<<Your charge of "straw man" won't divert my attention, nor the attention of our readers, for very long.>>> Yes, I DO understand the comprehension problem of many readers here, and their complete inability to recognize the straw men fabricated by their good-ol' pals, however I will refresh the memories of those who DO understand this classic logic fallacy -- a straw man argument is one which, instead of replying to the point actually made, creates another argument to answer instead. Rev Neal avoided replying to the issue of "hate" by replying to "love" instead. Few straw man tactics could be clearer. Rev Neal quotes ME: <<<I'm the one who takes the words as they appear, Rev Neal. Did you forget that YOU are the one digging and shopping until you can come up with something a bit more palatable to modern civilization?>>> Rev Neal answers [Re:The meaning of hate 97-07-08 03:15:10 EDT] <<<I am the one who is revealing the ACTUAL etymological meaning of the word in its context. YOU are the one who is forcing an inaccurate, literalist interpretation like the perfect literalist you are ... doing so in hopes of destroying the faith of all who read.>>> I am the one taking what Jesus said according to the gospel author and showing it. Rev Neal is the one who wants to select his own desired meaning because he is embarrassed by the clear and direct passage. Rev Neal, do you also demand that people consult 30 lexicons, pre-approved by you, when reading the sermon on the mount? Do you also dig that deep on all the passages you LIKE??? Is your Bible really that difficult to comprehend? DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Still on his dead ass, BalaamForm protests: [K] "MJM says "most of the folks who translate from Koine Greek to English use a specific dictionary" and then he lists TDNT, without ANY evidence that this is so." [MJM] Kinda limp there Balaam. Has nearly as much life in it as your beaten ass. You are more than welcome to provide the text they do use. I think you'll be a bit hard pressed though. Good luck on this particular windmill. Hope your expired ass will carry you as far as a library. Or your library card expired too? Don't forget your lance. You may have to alter your helmet to accommodate the red curly wig; and I doubt your visor will clear that rubber nose. That ruffled collar will have to go though. You'll never get your breast protector on. [K] "This assertion is a fairy tale." [MJM] This from a person who calls himself KornForm. [K] "hate v. -tr. 1.a. To feel hostility or animosity toward. b. To detest. 2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes. -intr. 1. To feel hatred. --American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition. [MJM] Nice editing job! C'mon there Korn, fess up! You left out some telling parts of where this came from: The American Heritage Dictionary of the ENGLISH Language, Third Edition. BTW If you hate washing the dishes, does that mean you cannot be their disciples? The definition nicely shows the English language definition of "hate" Do you by any chance have The American Heritage Dictionary of the Koine Greek and pre-Koine Greek Language, Third Edition? [K] "Almost nothing beats these forums for comedy." [MJM] I'll say! Especially with the likes of you attempting to kick your own ass. Best Fishes.
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<No Rev, your reply went on and on discussing the word LOVE, not the word "hate". I did NOT address the word LOVE and I do NOT agree that the word LOVE is a fair analogy of the word HATE. I do not agree that there is any need for an ANALOGY in place of the ACTUAL WORD being examined. >> You are engaging a misinformation. For anyone who wants to take a look at the analogy I drew, it's posted in the folder back a couple of days. I made a direct analogy between the two words, and I made it clearly and CORRECTLY. And it IS a fair analogy ... and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion that it is not, everyone who is reading this should be informed that Dennis SnakePiper in unqualified to make such assertions since he has not studied the Greek language, and is most certainly NOT an expert on the subject. As for the VALIDITY of using another word, of similar linguistic characteristics, to aid one in understanding a particular word, it is THE WAY linguistics FUNCTION, Dennis. You've just exposed your ignorance on the subject. I can suggest several EXCELLENT books on the subject, if you like ... and a 4 year degree program. Some actual STUDY of languages is usually a good thing to have behind you before you start pontificating upon the validity of this kind of thing. <<But if you want to evade the point, I can certainly understand why.>> No evasion of any point, Dennis. YOU are evading, and I can CERTAINLY understand why. None of us likes it when our positions have been blow away ... and yours have been blown away quite nicely, if I may say so myself. <<To respond to the definition of the word HATE by an "analogy" pursuing the word LOVE, and claiming that the words are so similar that the analogy is valid, when an analogy is not even suitable, is indeed the most glorious of the MANY straw-man examples that, unfortunately, ARE INDEED a frequent dishonest tactic raised by those who need such dishonest tactics.>> I am not being dishonest ... YOU are. How do you KNOW that there is no linguistic similarity between the English word "love" and the Greek word "miseo?" Your own exalted opinion? You don't even know how to read Greek, Dennis ... you wouldn't recognize a Greek article of speech, or a Mi Verb conjugation, or a second aorist subjunctive if it came up to you and bit you on your slithery behind. And, yet, you expect us to believe that you are fully qualified to make an authoritative statement regarding what is appropriate and what is NOT appropriate in determining the meaning of a Greek word? I would appreciate it if you would post your sources for asserting that "miseo" is an un-nuanced emotional quality word, with only one meaning in every given context. You won't be able to do it. The English word "love" is VERY similar to the Greek word "miseo" in that BOTH are emotional quality words with nuances dependant upon the context (and, in the case of "miseo," ALSO the grammar) of each. That "love" communicates positive emotional qualities and "miseo" generally *negative* (the term Dr. Bauer uses in his commentary is "lesser") emotional qualities is beside the point. The WAY each word functions is, nevertheless, quite similar. You demand that "miseo" be treated in a very limited and un-nuanced fashion -- DESPITE the VAST MAJORITY of commentators who say otherwise. It is very APPROPRIATE to see WHAT such a demand would do IF APPLIED to a SIMILAR KIND of word with which most people are MORE conversant. In this case, it produces abject absurdity. THAT ***should*** tell us something about the inadvisability of using the SAME KIND of interpretive method on a SIMILAR word, like "miseo." And it WOULD tell YOU that, IF you were willing to actually LOOK at the evidence. [Continued] The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<a straw man argument is one which, instead of replying to the point actually made, creates another argument to answer instead. Rev Neal avoided replying to the issue of "hate" by replying to "love" instead. Few straw man tactics could be clearer.>> HOOOOOONK! Wrong! Thanks for playing anyway! What I posted was a valid analogy, directed towards a greater understanding of the GREEK WORD "miseo." I applied Dennis' method of interpreting "miseo" to a linguistically similar word that most readers -- including Dennis -- would understand: "love." I did this NOT to confuse or muddy the debate, but to illustrate the REASON WHY his method of interpreting "miseo" was in error. It is a VALID method of comparing and contrasting linguistically similar words in order to shed light upon a questioned word for which there is ambiguity in interpretation. No strawmen were present, here, so I suggest that you drop that line of obfuscation and DEAL WITH THE ISSUE! Either deal with the question of HOW "miseo" is to be translated, or go and play with someone else. As things are, you're boring the daylights out of me. <<I am the one taking what Jesus said according to the gospel author and showing it. Rev Neal is the one who wants to select his own desired meaning because he is embarrassed by the clear and direct passage. >> FOFLOL. The same old run around! Around and around the mulberry bush we go! Dennis ... "miseo" is a VERY HARD word. I am NOT embarrassed by it. It's a HARD word, no matter WHAT the nuance is! I am ONLY objecting to YOUR biased demand that emotional content be heaped into the word in a contextual situation where THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! Jesus demanded that his disciples detach themselves from all of those things which would conflict with their following him. THAT IS IN NO WAY AN EASY DEMAND, nor is recognizing it "embarrassing What I am refuting in your interpretation is all of the emotional baggage that you apply to the word. You take a wooden, un-nuanced meaning and apply it uniformly. YOUR agenda demands that you cast Jesus in an abjectly negative light here, so you heap emotional content into the word ... content like anger, malicious hatred, violence! THAT IS NOT THE CONTEXT!!!!! <<Rev Neal, do you also demand that people consult 30 lexicons, pre-approved by you, when reading the sermon on the mount? Do you also dig that deep on all the passages you LIKE???>> I dig deeply into passages that I like all the time. Sometimes the results are not what I expected, but I DO it because it's what I DO! And, guess what, I LIKE this passage! Why do you think I *specifically* chose this particular one to post on? I didn't start this particular debate, but I joined it because it's one I know SOMETHING ABOUT. These days, due to my schedule, I'm VERY selective regarding the topics I post on. I don't have time to go dancing all over creation. And, with my students, I HAVE demanded that they use a broad selections of ACADEMICALLY recognized lexicons. It's a processes that was drilled into my head in graduate school, and I haven't let my students get off the hook easily either. It's a GOOD practice to cross-check yourself with at LEAST several resources. <<Is your Bible really that difficult to comprehend?>> Hmmmm...plop yourself down in front of a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and translate it from Greek into English. AFTER you've done that, YOU tell me if it's easy to comprehend the New Testament. You're having to deal with ALREADY translated materials, and LOOK at the difficulties that rear their heads. YES, the Bible is not always so easy to understand as we would like. It IS, after all, a collection of diverse documents produced between 2 and 3 thousand years ago, by cultures radically different than our own. Greg+ The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood MJM4646, unable to reply rationally to Kornform, tries to emulate MSShelton: [Korn whip it good 4 97-07-09 10:38:39 EDT] <<<Kinda limp there Balaam. Has nearly as much life in it as your beaten {{possible tos violation deleted}}. You are more than welcome to provide the text they do use. I think you'll be a bit hard pressed though. Good luck on this particular windmill. Hope your expired ass will carry you as far as a library. Or your library card expired too? Don't forget your lance. You may have to alter your helmet to accommodate the red curly wig; and I doubt your visor will clear that rubber nose. That ruffled collar will have to go though. You'll never get your breast protector on.>>> Then, as though that stream of evasive invective was not adequate, he goes for the personal ad-hominem to make SURE we know that he has no actual valid replies: <<<This from a person who calls himself KornForm.>>> Oh yes, MJM4646, brilliant, what a way to show that the only way you can answer is to taunt the screen name. That's a good one! <<<Especially with the likes of you attempting to kick your own {{potential tos violation deleted.>>> Having completely imagined his OWN fabrication to actually be projected, MJM4646 completes his perfect demonstration of how he cannot actually reply rationally. Another total surrender! DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Rev Neal: [Re:Rev Neal's straw 97-07-09 13:52:59 EDT] <<<I made a direct analogy between the two words, and I made it clearly and CORRECTLY.>>> No, you went on and on with an analysis of a completely word, which was neither necessary nor did you show that the nuances of one transfer to the other. Can't you be big enough to admit you are wrong when you are exposed? <<<And it IS a fair analogy ... and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion that it is not, everyone who is reading this should be informed that Dennis SnakePiper in unqualified to make such assertions since he has not studied the Greek language, and is most certainly NOT an expert on the subject.>>> Here we go again, Rev Neal back to claiming no one can talk to him because he's the only one who claims to have a degree... well, of course, except for that renowned scholar DrGary777. Rev Neal doesn't like the fact that I draw attention to his blatant straw man of replying to a DIFFERENT WORD that WASN'T EVEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION!!! And it takes a scholar in GREEK to recognize that analyzing the word LOVE is NOT the same as analyzing HATE???? :::WHEW::: Have the standards of scholarship really slipped that much? <<<I can suggest several EXCELLENT books on the subject, if you like ... and a 4 year degree program.>>> Yes, anything to divert attention away from the obvious straw man diversion. <<<How do you KNOW that there is no linguistic similarity between the English word "love" and the Greek word "miseo?">>> It simply DOESN'T MATTER. Unless you want to claim that they are exactly the same. And, of course, if they were, you would have no reason to analyze the more favorable one because you could get the same image from analyzing the one that is actually being discussed. The fact that you had to pick a different word is a clear enough indication that the ACTUAL one being discussed didn't suit your purposes adequately. [Re:Rev Neal's straw 97-07-09 13:54:52 EDT] <<<HOOOOOONK! Wrong! Thanks for playing anyway!>>> Who gave the losing contestant the controls to the buzzer? <<<Dennis ... "miseo" is a VERY HARD word.>>> Yes, that is obvious from the amazing amount of energy those who are threatened by it must spend to cook up a way of altering what it says. What was it THIRTY or so lexicons Rev Neal had to go through to look for something to grasp? DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dennis leaves this trail in the tangled undergrowth of his mind ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: [D] "Oh yes, MJM4646, brilliant, what a way to show that the only way you can answer is to taunt the screen name. That's a good one!" [MJM] Speaking of screen names, what's this??? [DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper ]??? Yet another screen name! Why Dennis, you're an amalgamation (that means a blend). But still the period is a problem. By the way, how's the swelling? The char marks? Your {{possible tos violation}}? I know that stings like all get out when those little fire balls get in the back of your jeans huh? [D] "ÉMJM4646, unable to reply rationally to Kornform, tries to emulate MSShelton: [Korn whip it good 4 97-07-09 10:38:39 EDT] <<<Kinda limp there Balaam. Has nearly as much life in it as your beaten {{possible tos violation deleted}}" "Good luck on this particular windmill. Hope your expired ass <<<==== you forgot to delete this one Dennis, tos is now after you for copying the synonym for a jenny. [MJM] What's wrong with emulating? You do it all the time! Look for yourself (its from that other folder you mentioned). [D] "Dennis>>>Everyone dies. If dying paid the price, everyone ELSE paid it, too. :::knocking on YHWHservnt's skull:::: HELLOOOOO...<<<É" [MJM] I'm very flattered Dennis.Dennis????? Yo Dennissss..!!!!!!!! You in there Dennis????? HEY DENNISSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! KnockÉKnockÉKnock!!!! Huh! I coulda sworn HEY! Nope, that was a hose. I thought it was a Dennis in
the grass. Well, I was going to tell him that he's more than welcome to emulate
me emulating MSShelton. I think humor is wonderful and Dennis is so full of
it!!!! Best Fishes
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood MJM4646: [Re:MJM4646's total surrender 97-07-09 16:33:44 EDT] <<<Dennis leaves this trail in the tangled undergrowth of his mind ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>> Yet more of the childish taunting from those who can do no better. At least the faithful here are consistent. MJM4646 quotes ME: <<<Oh yes, MJM4646, brilliant, what a way to show that the only way you can answer is to taunt the screen name. That's a good one!>>> This whets MJM4646's appetite for irrational, unsupported, irrelevant ad-hominem so much that he turns his taunting at MY screen name, surprise, surprise!!! <<<Speaking of screen names, what's this??? [DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper ]??? Yet another screen name! Why Dennis, you're an amalgamation (that means a blend)>>> MJM4646's imagination is running wild. That's a total of the SAME TWO screen names as ever, yet in true deceptive form, MJM4646 presents it as "YET ANOTHER" as though it were new. And I have ALREADY replied to this VERY SAME QUESTION in this folder when it was, irrelevantly, asked recently, just as I have to KEEP ON explaining to those I have ALREADY explained it to, particularly MJM4646. MJM4646's imagination may be running wild, but his MEMORY has already GONE. Either that, or he is just extremely dishonest. Or both. Not to mention an extreme comprehension barrier of some sort. I have a big family and when I am at work I cannot get on-line with the "SnakePiper" name if the home account is active, plus we need additional screen names. When I'm on a roll with one name, I usually, but not always, try to keep the same name in use in that location. How many more times will I have to explain this IRRELEVANT matter to MJM4646???? Poor guy is obviously REALLY DESPERATE to find something to attack with if this is the best he can do. MJM4646 joins the popular trend among the "faithful" here, with his consistent LACK OF SUBSTANCE, and overwhelming concern for irrelevant and unsupported insult, derision, personal attack and general diversion. It's bad enough that there is a consistent show of NO SUBSTANCE among the faithful, but they lose at both ends, because they also have BAD FORM. DennisssssssssssssnakeViperPiper
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood Dennis leaves two trails in the mire in the same day ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: [D] "ÉMJM4646: [Re:MJM4646's total surrender 97-07-09 16:33:44 EDT] <<<Dennis leaves this trail in the tangled undergrowth of his mind ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>>É" [MJM] You should be more careful, you've gone and cut off your head! Does this mean that we won't have to listen to you holler after sundown? Best Fishes.
The Bible! Is It True? /Obvious falsehood <<No, you went on and on with an analysis of a completely word, which was neither necessary nor did you show that the nuances of one transfer to the other. Can't you be big enough to admit you are wrong when you are exposed?>> 1. I provided an analogy which shed light upon the fallacy of your interpretation of "miseo." That is a FACT, and you are dodging the CONSEQUENCES of that analysis by trying to claim otherwise. 2. The nuances of "love" do NOT "transfer" to "miseo." You have either REALLY misunderstood what I was doing, or you are intentionally attempting to cover up the truth of my analogy. Since you are too intelligent to have missed it, I'll assume that you're consciously trying to obfuscate. Nuances from "love" do NOT transfer to "miseo," and I most certainly did NOT say that. Rather, THEY SHARE ****similar**** KINDS of linguistic characteristics, among which are nuanced meanings relative to their respective contexts. <<Here we go again, Rev Neal back to claiming no one can talk to him because he's the only one who claims to have a degree... well, of course, except for that renowned scholar DrGary777.>> In the above SnakePiper is resurrecting a long-past conflict which he and I had. I have NOT said that SnakePiper cannot talk to me. I do NO |
