|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discerning Which Definition to Use | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That is irrelevant to the issue. If you can't correctly understand what is written, you aren't going to get the correct message. Right now you're making your own message and aren't accepting what is actually being said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:They have it correct. You have it wrong. It's another case of not understanding what is written. Eternal and Forever: Unending or Just a Very Long Time? You mentioned Psalm 104:5 in Message 4"He has founded the earth upon its established places; It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever" and Ecclesiastes 1:4
"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite" You haven't quoted anything from Isaiah yet, so I can't comment on that one.
Psalm 104:5 is part of a hymn of praise. Just as God is not liable for anything we sing today, he is not liable for anything they sang back then. These are songs to God, not from God. Just because an individual feels their land (not the planet) will never end, doesn't mean that it won't. They have no idea what the future brings. The time of the end is unknown to them. The writer isn't stating a known fact, he is expressing feelings. Ecclesiastes 1:4 is a lament and not a vision or instruction from God. Olam refers to an indefinite time, not never ending. The writer is trying to show the vanity of all things under the sun, and their insufficiency to make us happy. Even from our perspective, compared to an individual life, the planet does last forever. The average person doesn't know the end date. These are not instances of God saying, the land will never end. The end-time concept was a later belief around, if not after, the exile. Solomon, who supposedly wrote Ecclesiastes, would not have had that end-time mind set. If the Psalm was written by David or around his time frame, he also would not have had that end-time mindset. It was unknown to them. As I said before, neither of these has any bearing on what is written in 2 Peter. Instead of deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), you prefer to read meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). You deny this, but you haven't provided any support that your methods (not conclusions) are a legitimate means of interpretation or in choosing a word definition. It's a great method if you want to make the text mean what you want (eisogesis), but not if one wants to understand the natural meaning of the text (exegesis). Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Seriously, you don't understand the difference between quoting a scripture for a lesson and redefining what a word means when reading the text naturally? The NT writers quoted from the past. You don't redefine the Hebrew words in the OT with Greek from the NT. You don't redefine the writings of the OT with writings from the NT. The OT may inspire the NT writers, but the NT writers do not inspire the OT writers. You're doing the same thing the Priestly writer did. You're creating your own Bible. You have no respect for the natural reading of the text. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It is when it isn't used figuratively as in the case of yom and ge in the verses we've discussed. quote:I've read the Bible cover to cover and I have no issue with the creative writings. I know how they are used, but you can't deem something figurative just because it doesn't agree with your belief or because the word has been used creatively by another author. There is no legitimate support for that method. quote:Earth is not used figuratively in those passages. Why do you feel earth is used figuratively? They both refer to land. What do you think they are saying? quote:Earth doesn't lose it meaning in this verse. The phrase "all the earth" depending on how it is used can refer to just the human inhabitants of the land or all creatures inhabiting the land. It is the phrase that carries the figurative meaning, not the word earth and even the phrase may not always refer to people. In 1 Kings 2:2, the phrase "I go the way of all the earth" means he's going to die like any living thing. So this one isn't just referring to people, and the word earth doesn't mean die. Again, it is the difference in the meaning of the word and the meaning of the phrase or sentence. The use of earth/eretz in this phrase does not impact the use of the word earth/eretz in any other verse. IOW, we don't say that Genesis 1:1 can now be understood as saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the people." because in Psalm 66:4 and 13:3 earth implies people in the phrase "all the earth". So your first two examples are not being used "figuratively" and in the second two the sentence determines the meaning of the phrase "all the earth". Sometimes it refers to people, sometimes it refers to death, sometimes it refers to all living things. The sentence tells us how to understand the phrase.
quote:I have no problem understanding the verses in their natural form. Your method of interpretation, on the other hand, is confusing, misleading, and unnecessary. It is your style that causes people to put the Bible away because your interpretations makes no sense and tend to run contrary to the natural reading of the text. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You also said: Peg writes: just for an example, have a look at instances of the figurative use of the word 'earth' in the hebrew and greek scriptures below and just inside the quote box:
Peg writes: figurative uses of the word earth writes: If you're showing figurative, why list the normal in the quote? Given your track record, I wouldn't assume you knew the difference. I apologize for the mistake. ![]() quote:In Psalm 66, which is a song, the earth is not what is bowing down. The "All" is what is bowing down. Imagine singing this song in church. It means the same without the word earth as it does with. In poetry or songs, sometimes unnecessary words are added to maintain the rhythm or flow.
Shout with joy to God, Sing the glory of his name; make his praise glorious!... All bow down to youthey sing praise to you they sing praise to your name... These are people singing to God. They aren't singing to anyone else. The use of the word earth in this song is really unnecessary, but it doesn't sound as impressive. In this case the word "all" refers to people. In the verse I showed you, the word "all" refers to all living things. As I said, the meaning of the word earth isn't changed. The "all" refers to the people, not the word earth in Psalm 66.
quote:That's the way you read it and so far you haven't shown legitimate support for your method of interpretation. I have not disagreed that words can be used figuratively. Trotting out various sentences with figurative uses is just chaff. The point of contention is your position that because a word is used figuratively by one writer, constitutes the same meaning for the word used by another writer. The sentence determines the meaning to be used, whether figurative or literal. Paul's use of night and day doesn't influence the meaning of the word yom in Genesis 1. The phrase with the word earth in Psalm 66 doesn't influence the meaning of the word earth in 2 Peter 3:10. No passage loses its natural meaning (p'shat). Teachings that pull unrelated verses together to create a third meaning, should never contradict the natural meaning of the passage or strip a passage of its natural meaning. Show legitimate support for your position. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No you haven't shown a legitimate source. Legitimate means someone other than you. Legitimate means somewhere in the rules of language and grammar. So far you are presenting something that is not recognized by the normal reading populace. quote:Did that in Message 77. Different writings, different purposes. quote:The world (kosmos) of that time suffered destruction. This is not the same as eretz or ge. Kosmos does usually refer to the inhabitants. Not The Planet quote:Unfortunately I'm afraid to ask what you think the literal earth is. I'm not going to look up the flood story to see what word they used, but if they used eretz, they were referring to the inhabited land of the time. From my recollection of the story, the known land and everything on it was to be destroyed. Normally dry ground that is covered with water for over 40 days if not 150 days, is pretty much destroyed. Anything not used to living underwater, would have been destroyed. Eretz doesn't refer to the planet. Nope, Peter is saying the earth will be destroyed, sorry. There's nothing in the chapter that tells us otherwise. Good news is, he wasn't talking about the planet. ![]() quote:There's a difference between using sentences surrounding a verse and using a different writer from several hundred years earlier. Plus, my guess is you're following those rules either. Then show the legitimate support. So far it's just you and from what you've shown, I question your knowledge in this area. Remember the opening question for this thread.
When a word with multiple meanings is encountered in a sentence, how does one discern which meaning is to be used? You're deeming things figurative because they don't say what you want or match what you believe. That doesn't make them figurative. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I explained in Message 9. PurpleDawn writes: This is where the Rule of Historical Background comes in to play. If one reads the verse and assumes the word earth refers to the entire planet, then they will conclude incorrectly that the plant will be destroyed. At the time 2 Peter was written, ge was not a name for the planet (Not The Planet), but the literal meaning of the word ge is to be used in that sentence. I don't see a figurative meaning for the word ge/earth. I explained in Message 23 PurpleDawn writes: The writer is saying that the known inhabited land will be destroyed, not the planet. If you feel that ge refers to the planet, then yes the planet will be destroyed. It doesn't matter what any other verse says in the Bible, if you make ge refer to the planet, that's how it reads. There is nothing in the sentence that is figurative concerning ge. No, the verses from the OT don't make a difference. You really don't understand literary techniques. Try reading some of the links I've provided. When you use the correct meaning, the planet isn't destroyed. When you use the wrong meaning, the planet is destroyed. and Message 53 PurpleDawn writes: The author doesn't tell us this is a vision. He is very clear that everything will be destroyed. He is also clear that heaven and earth will be restored or rebuilt. and Message 73 PUrpleDawn writes: No it isn't. The author is talking about the land and the people who dwell on it. "The earth and everything in it will be laid bare." The word earth is not talking about people. Genesis 18:25 has nothing to do with understanding 2 Peter 3:10. My reasoning is based on standard language and grammar rules. It is also based on standard Christian and Jewish interpretation rules. You have a problem with the natural reading of a text when the meaning is contrary to your personal beliefs or understanding. If you disagree that the word translated as earth doesn't refer to the planet, then you'll need to go to the appropriate thread for that discussion. The link is above. You do realize that even if you go with the meaning of planet for ge, the author wasn't saying the earth would crumble, implode or explode. He didn't say the land would disappear. Cleansing by fire. Just think of a forest fire. Out of the ashes springs new life. This is a map of the known "world" at about the time 2 Peter was supposedly written (100-160 CE). That is what the writer is saying will be destroyed, not the planet. Stop using the term figurative to cover what you don't understand or don't agree with. If you can't understand the text, then you can't understand the message. Read what the text says and stop trying to make it fit your needs. It's less confusing. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. The heavens will disappear with a great noisethe elements will melt from heat the earth will be burned up the works that are therein shall be burned up In verse 7, the writer says the ungodly men will be destroyed, not all people. Since God isn't going to burn up the whole planet, he'll just move the godly people off to a cooler spot. Relocate them to the new heaven and new earth. ![]() There is nothing in the verses to suggest earth means anything figurative. There are no indicators. There is no phrase. Now obviously if the earth burns up, anything built on it, and anyone standing on it will also burn up. His point to his audience is that since everything is going to be destroyed, there is no reason to put stock in the material world. Godliness should be one's priority.
quote:It is land with people on it. I say inhabited land to differentiate from the planet. I could also say known land. Ge doesn't refer to people in 2 Peter 3:10. If Ge is destroyed obviously anything on it will also be destroyed, but that doesn't mean the word is referring to the people. If you disagree, show the indicators. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Good grief! No, I"m not doing the same thing. You're saying the word ge in the verse is figuratively referring to the people and not the land. I'm saying he is referring to known land as opposed to the planet since some feel that ge refers to the planet. quote:Since you don't consider ge to refer to the planet, I won't speak in those terms. Don't you dare flip on me! quote: FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE: A deviation from what speakers of a language understand as the ordinary or standard use of words in order to achieve some special meaning or effect. Perhaps the two most common figurative devices are the simile--a comparison between two distinctly different things using "like" or "as" ("My love's like a red, red rose")--and the metaphor--a figure of speech in which two unlike objects are implicitly compared without the use of "like" or "as." These are both examples of tropes. Any figure of speech that results in a change of meaning is called a trope. Any figure of speech that creates its effect in patterns of words or letters in a sentence, rather than twisting the meaning of words, is called a scheme. Figurative is a deviation from the standard use of the word. In 2 Peter the writer didn't deviate from the standard use of the word ge. When we say the land is flooded, we know the water will affect anything associated with the land. The same when there is a fire. That is a standard use of the word. In 2 Peter 3:10, the writer is using the standard use of the word. If the land is burned up anything associated with it will also be burned up. There is nothing in the writing to signal that ge means only the people. In verse 13 he says "...we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. Anew land will be the home of righteousness, not new people. In 2 Peter 3:10, the writer is not using the word ge figuratively to mean something different than the standard use of the word. If you still disagree, please use the link provided and show me the figurative style being used in 2 Peter 3:10 concerning the word ge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Which was then (100-160 CE), not today. quote:You are using current knowledge. What did heavens (ouranos) mean to them in 100-160 CE? Remember their "world" was a lot smaller than ours. These are examples of hyperbole.
* These books weigh a ton. (These books are heavy.) * The path went on forever. (The path was very long.) * I'm doing a million things right now. (I'm busy.) * I waited centuries for you. (I waited a long time for you.) * She ran faster than a bullet. (She ran fast.) * I'm so hungry I could "eat a horse". (I am very Hungry.) * "Today", please! (hurry up) Notice that even in exaggerations the common meaning of the words are understood. Putting them together is what gives us the understood meaning. The understood meaning doesn't change the meaning of any of the words in the sentence. As I've said before, there is meaning of the word, meaning of the sentence, meaning of the paragraph, and meaning of the story. Don't confuse the meaning of the word with the meaning of the sentence. Show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I didn't say ask me, I said show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying. Just like the examples I gave you. I'm not going to guess about what's going through your mind. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Excuses, excuses, excuses. You said that 2 Peter 3:10 contains hyperbole. I haven't agreed or disagreed with you yet. I'm waiting for you to show the exaggerations and the meaning(s) as in the examples provided in Message 92. Example: These books weigh a ton. (These books are heavy.) The exaggeration is the weight of the books. The person is saying the books are heavy. So far, all you've mentioned is heaven (even though we were discussing the word earth), but no meaning. In 2 Peter 3:10 the author writes: The heavens will disappear with a great noise. So if this is a hyperbole, disappear with a great noise is the exaggeration. So what does that mean? What will the heavens actually do? Now if heavens and earth symbolize (which is not the definition of the word) something else, then please provide outside scholarly support for that symbolism. As I said in Message 51, symbolism and idioms are cultural and unless explained within the writing can't be determined without knowing the cultural basis. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But to know what symbols were used thousands of years ago requires someone who has studied history. The average person is not going to know symbols or idioms of the past. Today they would use the internet and find the information available from someone who has studied ancient cultures, languages, etc. My guess is, that's where you glean your information that is beyond average knowledge, just as I do. If you had known this symbolism already, you would have made a clearer case sooner. You also would have understood that the discussion we were having concerning yom and multiple meaning words, does not apply to 2 Peter 3:10 if you had understood the symbolism earlier. I made it clear in Message 51 and Message 96: When it comes to symbols and idioms, the scholars have done the research to enable us to understand these types of phrases. There is no way to discern these types of things from the text unless the writer explains it at some point like the writer did for Matthew 16:5-6. This thread is about words with multiple meanings in the definition. When we look at the definition of heaven, we don't see a meaning of government. So 2 Peter 3:10 is also not an example of discerning which definition of a multiple definition word is to be used. Now concerning the hyperbole in 2 Peter 3:10. Since you mentioned hyperbole, I've done my homework also. Heavens and earth are not the hyperbolic part of the verse as I showed in Message 96. So the correct figurative use would be symbolism, not hyperbole when it comes to how the word earth is used. Given this new information (not from you), if heavens and earth symbolize government and nation, I agree that the word earth is being used figuratively in 2 Peter 3:10. I disagree that the word earth simply refers to people. In the future, when the word is a symbol for something else, say that it is a symbol for something else. Personally, I don't think you really knew earlier, just like I didn't.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. So destruction of the nation will come when they least expect it.The political powers won't go down without a fight. There will be chaos. The social order of the nation will be destroyed. I say that the word earth doesn't just symbolize people because of the verses concerning "new earth". As I said before, I don't think he's talking about new people. With this symbolism he would be referring to a new social order or nation. So, if the writer was using symbolism, then the word earth is being used figuratively to refer to the nation. Unfortunately, even though it took us a long time to get here, this is not a case of a word with multiple meanings available in the lexicon like the word yom. Do you understand the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Now you're back to fiction. The author of 2 Peter would have been referring to one nation, not many. I didn't find that the symbolism referred to more than one nation. The author would have been referring to one area. If we carry the statement forward, that means anything outside of that original area today is not included. Back to the Topic So do you understand the difference in what this thread is about and what you brought forth in 2 Peter 3:10 or do I have to ask several times before I get a straight answer? Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Apparently you don't understand the difference and aren't going to answer the question dealing with the topic.
So now you've veered off into symbolism and apocalyptic language, which isn't the topic of this thread, since symbolism isn't usually part of the definition of a word.
quote:Give an inch and you take a mile. ![]() Heavens: Religious or political authorities.Earth: The place or nation involved in the prophesy. So in your mind since earth symbolizes a specific nation and nations contain people, then earth symbolizes people. Not how it works. Again, you appear to be altering the usage to fit your beliefs. I'm sure you ran into the same information I did on the internet, so you know that the use of heavens and earth in the OT, referred to variations of the nation of Israel.
Christ Coming in Vengeance The heavens and earth are simply the Jewish religious/political authorities and the lands of Palestine and the people who lived there. They were the ungodly men — ungodly because they had rejected and killed the Christ, and still rejected him — who were being kept (by the gracious mercy of God who wanted all to repent and come to him) unto the day of judgment and destruction. This phrasing tells us that this is another day of the Lord just like the ones we see exampled in the Old Testament. Don't change the meaning of their symbol. The word earth in apocalyptic language doesn't symbolize people in general, it symbolizes a nation; which is a specific group of people.
quote:Yes, if you don't know what the OT is speaking about, you won't understand the NT. That's why you persist in changing the OT and now the NT. Yes, the author in Peter is speaking of the same things. The Hebrew or Jewish nation. It still goes to how a word is used in a sentence. The verses you provided, as usual, do not support your position. Even with symbolism, the word earth is referring to a limited area or group of people of the time. You can't just say the word earth as used by the author now refers to all people on the planet when it didn't back then. Understand what the word meant at the time it was used.
Comparing Symbols from Old and New Testament Prophecies Edited by purpledawn, : Final Thought Edited by purpledawn, : Added Link Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024