Bible Sense Lexicon
John 3:16......I guess this may be a question for Sean or another person at Logos who is responsible for the entries in the Bible Sense Lexicon, but anyone who has any ideas would be appreciated.
The word "world" kosmos, both Strong's and BDAG show around 8 different meanings that word can have; from arrangement to world populace, and a whole array of other ideas. So, how did you all come to the conclusion that the word "kosmos" has the sense of "world populace" when that is only one of eight possible meanings of the word? Just curious.
We need to make sure that our theological bias does not determine our interpretative principles.
Michael
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
Comments
-
Since the adjective the MSS of the adjective "pas" is always used as a reference to people it seems clear the context would be any person among the world's populace who "believes in Him" will not perish but have eternal life.
That may be considered theological bias; but it is a bias grounded in the text.
0 -
Good one Fred. But it illustrates the problem. One could alternatively scan usage in the greek writings around the 1st century, in which case the meaning would change considerably.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Fredc said:
Since the adjective the MSS of the adjective "pas" is always used as a reference to people it seems clear the context would be any person among the world's populace who "believes in Him" will not perish but have eternal life.
That may be considered theological bias; but it is a bias grounded in the text.
I agree with you, Fred; that all who believe have eternal life, I dont dispute that at all. My thought was "pas" does not modify "kosmos", it modifies "pisteuo", in fact they are two separate clauses. So does the verse teach that God loves those who believe or those out of the "world populace". That is where folks need to pay close attention to the words that are being modified before coming to a conclusion.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
I am not proposing that pas modifies kosmos. I am proposing it contributes to context. I have always been taught that when it comes to interpreting a text, grammar and syntax are important; but "context is king".
0 -
Fredc said:
I am not proposing that pas modifies kosmos. I am proposing it contributes to context. I have always been taught that when it comes to interpreting a text, grammar and syntax are important; but "context is king".
Could not agree more......all who believe........would be "pas" in context.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
DMB said:
Good one Fred. But it illustrates the problem. One could alternatively scan usage in the greek writings around the 1st century, in which case the meaning would change considerably.
Certainly this could be the case. We are blessed to have the ability to check many of those writings using the BWS tool. However the goal would be to try and draw a conclusion regarding the author's original intent. In of John's biblical writings (his gospel, his epistles, and Revelation) what I stated above is the case. With all of the other NT biblical writers that is the case as well.
In determining the sense of the word for a given verse or passage, we are drawing conclusions about the intent of the person who wrote it, not how it may have been understood in other cultures, or periods of time.
0 -
Fredc said:
In of John's biblical writings (his gospel, his epistles, and Revelation) what I stated above is the case.
If I am understanding you correctly, Fred and I do not want to put words in your mouth, but if John meant "world populace" in all of his writings, then you would have a major problem when you get to 1 John 2:15 or John 17:9 or in Revelation when John says that the "whole world" went after the beast". Was I misunderstanding what you were just saying?
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Michael's question is probably one that many would have difficulty answering without touching at least some theological bias.
On one's interpretation of Kosmos at Jn 3:16 and what follows in the subjunctive clause, hangs much of the debate regarding limited atonement. Did Christ come to die for the whole kosmos, or only the believers?
But whether or not one thinks that is something the immediate text demands a response for, I don't see it as something Logos can define beyond the general, logically acceptable "world populace" that they have given. It still leaves enough room for the exegete to define what "world populace" means. Anything else might be too restrictive in one theological camp or another.
Since all would likely agree that kosmos here refers to the "world populace" in one sense or another (rather than the globe on which we live), perhaps the only question one could ask at this point is whether "world populace" means everyone under the sun in every age, or only those who believe "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων?" But that requires more exegesis than John 3:16 alone can offer. Does that make sense?
Mark Nigro
Pastor/Teacher/Student/Writer
www.calvarychapelbiblecollege.com
0 -
I guess I did not state it as clearly as I could have. I am not proposing that kosmos always means world populace. Again, context would largely determine the sense. I am simply saying that in John 3:16 I read that passage as John stating God loved all the people in the world and any(or all) of those people who believe will not perish.
In the other passages you note, kosmos certainly has a different sense because the context is different in each. I note that the BSL also expresses a different sense as well.
0 -
Mark Nigro said:
perhaps the only question one could ask at this point is whether "world populace" means everyone under the sun in every age, or only those who believe "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων?" But that requires more exegesis than John 3:16 alone can offer. Does that make sense?
Yes, you certainly cannot define "kosmos" solely on John 3:16 and then make a theological belief on just that one passage with so many different meanings of the word.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Mark Nigro said:
Michael's question is probably one that many would have difficulty answering without touching at least some theological bias.
On one's interpretation of Kosmos at Jn 3:16 and what follows in the subjunctive clause, hangs much of the debate regarding limited atonement. Did Christ come to die for the whole kosmos, or only the believers?
But whether or not one thinks that is something the immediate text demands a response for, I don't see it as something Logos can define beyond the general, logically acceptable "world populace" that they have given. It still leaves enough room for the exegete to define what "world populace" means. Anything else might be too restrictive in one theological camp or another.
Since all would likely agree that kosmos here refers to the "world populace" in one sense or another (rather than the globe on which we live), perhaps the only question one could ask at this point is whether "world populace" means everyone under the sun in every age, or only those who believe "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων?" But that requires more exegesis than John 3:16 alone can offer. Does that make sense?
Without crossing the theological discussion line even further than we already have in this thread; what you say does make sense and the theological questions that have been raised regarding this passage are understandable. My take is the Bible Sense Lexicon is attempting to establish what the author had in mind when he chose to write that word, versus the varying opinions regarding what the word means. In this case I have my opinion regarding the answer to the questions related to limited atonement. That opinion is based on far more than just John 3:16 or the sense of kosmos in that verse. I understand others may have opinions that are different than mine that are based on far more than the sense of kosmos as well.
I have enjoyed this discussion. If nothing else It gave me a chance to pad my post count.[;)] But we should probably end it before we cross the forum rules line.
0 -
Hello everybody!
First off, we on the Bible Sense Lexicon appreciate the interaction. Thanks! Keep it up.
Second, I thought I'd give you some background into our decision-making process.
We follow some general principles about the way "metonymy" works. Metonymy (see Wikipedia) is when an author uses some salient aspect of an entity to refer to the whole entity. Metonymy works across various languages besides Greek and Hebrew in characteristic patterns:- Person for name – “I’m not in the phone book.” (i.e. My name is not in the phone book)
- Possessor for possessed – “My tire is flat.” (i.e. My car’s tire is flat)
- Author for book – “This year we read Shakespeare.”
- Place for people – “My village votes Labour” (British politics)
- Producer for product – “My new Mac is superb” (i.e. My new Macintosh iBook is superb)
- Container for contents – “This is an excellent dish” (we aren't eating the flatware!)
We have multiple versions of number 4, Place for people, in the Bible Sense Lexicon:
- 'city people' (Jdg 9:31)
- 'people ⇔ house' (Jos 21:45)
- 'family ⇔ house' (Gen 7:1, Mt 13:57)
- 'hometown (residents)' (Mt 13:57)
- and others
In each of those contexts, the people are being conveyed by the location they inhabit. We find the same phenomenon happening with the sense for "world populace."
The distinction can even be seen in a single verse:
- "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him," (John 1:10, ESV).
Using the tagging of the Bible Sense Lexicon, this could be rendered:
- "He was in the created universe, and the created universe was made through him, yet the world populace did not know him."
Of course, that doesn't convey the literary beauty and genius of John's wordplay, but we hope it does help readers better understand the original languages behind their English translations.
But in the end, the extent of the population (whether total or partial) is outside of our semantic purview. That is a question of broader intertextual, Biblical, and systematic theology.
Third, one day (and one day soon!), you too will be able to search the tagging of the Bible Sense Lexicon and compare the decisions that we have made across the entire Bible. (Plus, *hint hint* we are laboring diligently to get you the tagging of verbs as soon as we can.)
Thanks!
-Mark
0 -
Thanks for the insight Mark. What you explained makes perfect sense to me.
Now go back to work tagging those verbs. I am looking forward the that feature.[;)]
0 -
I think Mark (Logos) just made my point for me. What did 'cosmos' mean in the early 1st century; was it locational, and if so, geographical or cultural? Bible Sense is fine within its parameters. I just don't think it's applicable to the 1st century. This is especially true within religious groups (eg Qumran and Samaria), where words connoted meaning independent of the outer semantics. So called 'mysteries'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Mark, would you mind putting a '(Logos)' after your name? The icon doesn't show up when you read via e-mail, and just 'Mark' isn't quite unique enough to distinguish you from a dozen other Mark's.[;)]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
DMB said:
What did 'cosmos' mean in the early 1st century; was it locational, and if so, geographical or cultural? Bible Sense is fine within its parameters. I just don't think it's applicable to the 1st century.
I'm not quite sure I understand you. I agree that the Bible Sense lexicon is limited by both time and its multilanguage aspects. But kosmos would not have had a single denotation without nuances. We should be able to tease apart most of the denotations and some of the connotations from the contemporary literature. In this particular case, as Mark (Logos) noted, a common figure of speech leads rather directly to the Logos choice. I'm not saying that Logos is right - I don't know enough Greek to say anything beyond Logos' tagging is plausible and likely. I'm just saying that someone needs to build a strong case for an alternative before I would accept it.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
fgh said:
Mark, would you mind putting a '(Logos)' after your name? The icon doesn't show up when you read via e-mail, and just 'Mark' isn't quite unique enough to distinguish you from a dozen other Mark's.
I updated it (or at least I think I have). I have been told that the changes will propagate through the system at some point.
Sorry about the confusion.
- Mark (Logos)
0 -
DMB said:
What did 'cosmos' mean in the early 1st century;
The use of "kosmos" in John's gospel would have culturally meant Jews and Gentiles..not every single person without exception. Jesus was taking Nicodemus beyond the Jewish mind set, that only the Jews have a relationship with God, to that God loves not only the Jews but Gentiles also. That would be be historical and cultural understanding of the text, which are both processes of any good interpretation.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Pastor Michael ... I hope you won't be offended by my reply. But you participated in the issue that you introduced in your thread lead-in. You selected a theological meaning.
So, whoever at Logos is doing the dirty work on 'sense' is in the exact same position. Having to give the theological meaning, and one likely parallel to protestants. If the Logos person puts in a 'sense' at any variance from the customer base (who purchase the lexicon), mucho squeeling will occur. So effectively, 'sense' is mimicry.
Now, I'm carefully 'not' getting into theology; only noting that the sense lexicon is a structure of semantic organization reflecting language/concepts thousands of years later.
And for that reason, I've got absolutely no idea 'how' a pastor could use it (since he and I guess she, already has a theological construct in place).
What I would have 'hoped' for would be a semitic or greek structure similar to LN but again viewable and clickable that would show what alternative word(s) John could have semantically used (and didn't). Therefore the necessity of your answer.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
[...]
What I would have 'hoped' for would be a semitic or greek structure similar to LN but again viewable and clickable that would show what alternative word(s) John could have semantically used (and didn't). Therefore the necessity of your answer.
As for the rest, well that is slightly irrelevant to what you will read:
There is no way we could even begin to fathom the plethora of cogants, whether semantically or rhetorically, that John could have used. The best we can do is "guess", yet we do have the 'word' that he used; Namely, because of the audience. Were they intelligent, were they schooled, were they even modern people's working the salt mines from an early age and knew just enough to know that their paycheck was correct? The possibilities of second guessing are extremely high and most highly speculative of even the most learned men[women].
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
And your point?
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Pastor Michael Huffman said:DMB said:
What did 'cosmos' mean in the early 1st century;
The use of "kosmos" in John's gospel would have culturally meant Jews and Gentiles..not every single person without exception. Jesus was taking Nicodemus beyond the Jewish mind set, that only the Jews have a relationship with God, to that God loves not only the Jews but Gentiles also. That would be be historical and cultural understanding of the text, which are both processes of any good interpretation.
I am slightly confused, where does the word 'kosmos' appear in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus[are you referring to v16,17]? And, with that conversation in mind, how do you know that when Jesus spoke he wasn't referring the whole of Creation, as well?
R4m.
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
I'm not particularly interested in telling you why John used the particular word. But most earthlings derive meaning by the choice of possible words that a speaker could use in-context. There's often more semantic information in what was not used, then what was used.
So, real estate agents choose 'home' instead of 'house'. And real estate customers think 'real estate agent'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Pastor Michael ... I hope you won't be offended by my reply. But you participated in the issue that you introduced in your thread lead-in. You selected a theological meaning.
So, whoever at Logos is doing the dirty work on 'sense' is in the exact same position. Having to give the theological meaning, and one likely parallel to protestants. If the Logos person puts in a 'sense' at any variance from the customer base (who purchase the lexicon), mucho squeeling will occur. So effectively, 'sense' is mimicry.
Now, I'm carefully 'not' getting into theology; only noting that the sense lexicon is a structure of semantic organization reflecting language/concepts thousands of years later.
And for that reason, I've got absolutely no idea 'how' a pastor could use it (since he and I guess she, already has a theological construct in place).
What I would have 'hoped' for would be a semitic or greek structure similar to LN but again viewable and clickable that would show what alternative word(s) John could have semantically used (and didn't). Therefore the necessity of your answer.
Hey DMB!
I'm having a little trouble following what you're arguing, so let me show you some things that the Bible Sense Lexicon DOES offer.
1. The Bible Sense Lexicon browser tells us that "world populace" is a kind of "people," as well as shows other kinds of "people" that John didn't pick. Here are a broad range of similar terms that John could have used (sorry about the size):
2. I can type in transliterated Greek to see all the different senses that we find in the New Testament for KOSMOS. This also helps to convey the semantic range of the lemma KOSMOS (a la Louw-Nida).
3. I can click on the lemma in the Bible Sense Lexicon browser to launch a Bible Word Study panel:
Then scroll down to the "SENSES" panel and click "more":
This will display the Senses for KOSMOS in a more traditional Lexicon style format.
All the senses possible for the word KOSMOS are displayed here in alphabetical order, as well as:
- multi-word phrases like "finite wisdom (ability)" that include the word KOSMOS in it
- the senses' labels
- all lemmas associated with that sense
- their immediate location in the semantic hierarchy
- their definitions
(Cut off for space)
That's one way in which the Bible Sense Lexicon can be used by pastors to understand *some* of the semantic decisions that John made.
And remember, the Bible Sense Lexicon isn't finished yet! There's more to come! [;)]0 -
Mark said:Thanks, Mark{Logos].So outside of the off usage of adornment/ability, that when the word kosmos is used that the, superfluous to say, meaning is that of the whole of creation, IE> Jn 1.10;3.16,17 etc. etc., [glad I studied rocket science].Thanks again, Mark{logos].R4m
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Yep R4M, you're just a rocket kind of guy.
Mark (Logos) ... appreciate your lengthy reply and I'm sure (and hope) others will go through your sequence carefully, since it should be quite helpful.
But I think we're getting close to theology here and so probably need to let it go at that.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Yep R4M, you're just a rocket kind of guy.
Mark (Logos) ... appreciate your lengthy reply and I'm sure (and hope) others will go through your sequence carefully, since it should be quite helpful.
But I think we're getting close to theology here and so probably need to let it go at that.
I don't see the connection of what Mark has shown as being anywhere near a theological discussion, or even alluding to such a thing. Since he was gracious enough to show what the word 'kosmos' deals with, how could you even conceive that he was leading into a theological discussion?, that's just purely ludicrous.......
R4m.
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Like I said before ... need a library.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Like I said before ... need a library.
wow, its been a while since I have read this kind of chatter; for someone to even think that a dedicated Logos employee would consider enticing the forum users to get involved in a theological discussion, is well just......you get the point; if not get a dictionary.
R4m.
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
DMB said:
Good one Fred. But it illustrates the problem. One could alternatively scan usage in the greek writings around the 1st century, in which case the meaning would change considerably.
Here, you said this in the beginning; demonstrate for me - using Logos - how the "the meaning would change considerably".-?
Your first bullet is: Explain what it{the word 'kosmos'} meant to the present Audience[1st Century] that would have read the Letter of John.
school me with your prowess....
R4m
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Mark said:
I updated it (or at least I think I have). I have been told that the changes will propagate through the system at some point.
Sorry, but that "some point" doesn't seem to have arrived yet, so I'm guessing it didn't work.
I have an e-mail filter that tags all posts by Logos staff. It makes it much easier to find the most important posts, and to locate posts I've saved, for one reason or another, but it doesn't work when people call themselves just 'Mark', or 'Steve'. There are too many Marks and Steves. It needs something more; if not a surname, then a '(Logos)'. So if you could make another try, I'd appreciate it.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
I've been told that I have done all there is to do, but my name change will not be retroactive.
This post is also a test to see if my name change has gone into effect currently.
Edit: Err..Apparently all there is to be done is yet to be done. I'll keep working on it.
0 -
Denise said:
Pastor Michael ... I hope you won't be offended by my reply. But you participated in the issue that you introduced in your thread lead-in. You selected a theological meaning.
So, whoever at Logos is doing the dirty work on 'sense' is in the exact same position. Having to give the theological meaning, and one likely parallel to protestants. If the Logos person puts in a 'sense' at any variance from the customer base (who purchase the lexicon), mucho squeeling will occur. So effectively, 'sense' is mimicry.
Now, I'm carefully 'not' getting into theology; only noting that the sense lexicon is a structure of semantic organization reflecting language/concepts thousands of years later.
And for that reason, I've got absolutely no idea 'how' a pastor could use it (since he and I guess she, already has a theological construct in place).
What I would have 'hoped' for would be a semitic or greek structure similar to LN but again viewable and clickable that would show what alternative word(s) John could have semantically used (and didn't). Therefore the necessity of your answer.
Sorry to say that you cannot study the Scriptures without coming to theology...the Bible is a book of Theology.....Whenever you study the true meaning of words and the syntax and now the sense, you reach a theology. So, sorry if the discussion has made clear a "theology" that you do not like, but the Bible is a book of Theology and there is only one theology. Thanks for your addition to the thread; also, thanks Mark (Logos) for your input.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Mark said:
my name change will not be retroactive.
When your name changes, it will change in all posts, including past ones… but anywhere someone has quoted you (as I have in this post), your original name will remain.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
I think it takes a while for ones name change to work its way through the labyrinth between FaithLife, Logos.com and the forums. Mine took about 4 days between my 'male' picture, and DMB trying really hard to 'hold on'.
Pastor Michael ... the problem's not with 'theology'. It's with 'Biblical' being confused with 'theological'. The first deals with linguistic / semantic issues 2000+ years ago; the latter next Sunday's sermon.
But indeed you have a 'Theological Sense Lexicon' which hopefully you'll enjoy. No need for you to express sorrow over the situation.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
'Biblical' being confused with 'theological
If it is Biblical, it is Theological!! If you do not have the Bible right, your theology is wrong!!!!
Denise said:No need for you to express sorrow over the situation.
No sorrow expressed on my part. The point was is that some folks get "uptight" when the Scripture/Theology contradicts their tradition.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If it is Biblical, it is Theological!! If you do not have the Bible right, your theology is wrong!!!!
No sorrow expressed on my part. The point was is that some folks get "uptight" when the Scripture/Theology contradicts their tradition.
Not really, first of all how is Gen 1.1 or Dan 8.18, or Zeph 2.12 theological? Yet it IS Biblical: they teach no doctrine that can be even remotely associated with a theology.
These verses as well as many many more would contradict your statement, even the opening of the book of Numbers has no theology....unless you are claiming that a census is theological in nature...../?
Also, if I understand Gen 1.1 correctly that it was God that created the heavens and the earth, my Bible is correct, but this doesn't effect my theology.......
Secondly, isn't it philosophically[Spiritually] incorrect to have your "traditions" interpret your Bible{Scripture/theology] - ?
just asking.....
R4m
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If it is Biblical, it is Theological!! If you do not have the Bible right, your theology is wrong!!!!
If a then b DOES NOT IMPLY if not a then not b. If it is raining then the sidewalk is wet. HOWEVER, it is not raining but the sidewalk is wet because my lawn sprinkler is on ... or I put the hose on it when I was washing my car.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark said:
2. I can type in transliterated Greek to see all the different senses that we find in the New Testament for KOSMOS. This also helps to convey the semantic range of the lemma KOSMOS (a la Louw-Nida).
Mark
How does "finite wisdom" (sofia) come under the sense of kosmos? It certainly isn't a la Louw-Nida!
The senses for sofia do not include kosmos, thankfully, but does include "finite wisdom".
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
I'm glad you asked. I think I need to flip your question upside-down though:
How does the word KOSMOS come under the sense "finite wisdom (ability)"?The Bible Sense Lexicon browser shows the original and primary organizational scheme of the sense, finite wisdom (ability):
It turns out that this sense (or meaning) is conveyed by five different items, and some of those items consist of more than one Greek word!
The Bible Words Study on the other hand flips the Bible Sense Lexicon on its head and organizes senses by Lemma, a secondary and somewhat different usage of the Bible Sense Lexicon than first imagined (useful though it may be).
In it we see a lemma and all the different senses associated with that lemma in the Bible Sense Lexicon (see former post for more information). One of those senses we see is finite wisdom (ability):
The Bible Sense Lexicon's goal is to annotate where a sense (or meaning) occurs despite the number of lemmas (or words) that constitute that sense.
For example, in 1 Cor. 1:20 (ESV) we have, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
I made the call that the sense conveyed there by the words, "the wisdom of the world" was finite wisdom (ability), as in other places by other words, such as "wisdom of men," "human wisdom," "fleshly wisdom," and sometimes even simple "wisdom." In specific contexts, all of those phrases or words convey the finite wisdom (ability).
It just so happens that KOSMOS constitutes a part of one of those phrases, "the wisdom of the world." From that point on, KOSMOS became associated with that sense. We wanted to provide as much useful, exegetical, sense information in the Bible Word Study panel as possible.
Something similar can be seen in Louw-Nida's "Units." For example, KOSMOS constitutes a unit in Louw-Nida 12.44, "supernatural power." We call them (internally at least) multi-word items.
When the search feature is added to the Bible Sense Lexicon, this should become clearer, hopefully.
Thanks for asking for that clarification.
0 -
Mark said:
I think I need to flip your question upside-down though:
I prefer to flip it back, though[:)]
Why does a sense of kosmos have to include "finite wisdom" when it occurs only by association? Both the BWS panel and the Lexicon directly attribute the sense to kosmos. Could there not be a way to indicate association (I would prefer it not to be shown in the BWS because the Lexicon allows me to choose).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Mark said:
I'm glad you asked. I think I need to flip your question upside-down though: How does the word KOSMOS come under the sense "finite wisdom (ability)"?
[...]
For example, in 1 Cor. 1:20 (ESV) we have, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
I prefer to flip it back, though
Why does a sense of kosmos have to include "finite wisdom" when it occurs only by association? Both the BWS panel and the Lexicon directly attribute the sense to kosmos. Could there not be a way to indicate association (I would prefer it not to be shown in the BWS because the Lexicon allows me to choose).
the "finite wisdom(ability)" ; in some sense I can see what Mark @Logos is meaning, yet at the same time I get what Hooten is saying.
But looking that the phrase "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" when attempting to understand what Paul is conveying, it does have an association while at the same time making the 'kosmos' of type of finite ability because , lets face it - our 'wisdom is finite';
cf v26 "
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards (σαρκικός), not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.[ESV]
is there not here the same association of 'kosmos' with an ability to be orderly? does this not also fall under "finite wisdom(ability/content)"?
When you click σαρκικός it has the same sense as "finite wisdom(ability/content)" - ?
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If it is Biblical, it is Theological!! If you do not have the Bible right, your theology is wrong!!!!
No sorrow expressed on my part. The point was is that some folks get "uptight" when the Scripture/Theology contradicts their tradition.
Not really, first of all how is Gen 1.1 or Dan 8.18, or Zeph 2.12 theological? Yet it IS Biblical: they teach no doctrine that can be even remotely associated with a theology.
These verses as well as many many more would contradict your statement, even the opening of the book of Numbers has no theology....unless you are claiming that a census is theological in nature...../?
Also, if I understand Gen 1.1 correctly that it was God that created the heavens and the earth, my Bible is correct, but this doesn't effect my theology.......
Secondly, isn't it philosophically[Spiritually] incorrect to have your "traditions" interpret your Bible{Scripture/theology] - ?
just asking.....
R4m
This is case in point of why we need to be so careful in our Bible interpretation, why I have to be so careful. You read into what I was saying...I did not say that every single verse taught some major theology, I simply said that if you do not have the Bible right, then your theology will be wrong. Nothing that I said gives any indication that I was saying that every single verse taught theology. And no honest theologian would disagree with the statement that the Bible should determine our Theology; which is all I was saying.
You said, "Also, if I understand Gen 1.1 correctly that it was God that created the heavens and the earth, my Bible is correct, but this doesn't effect my theology......" but you contradict yourself. Didn't you say above that Gen. 1:1 did not teach theology, but doesn't Gen. 1:1, as you have just intimated, teach theology on the existence and power of God, i.e The Doctrine of God.....Theology!!!!
Second of all, I agree with you, but I did not say that tradition teaches our theology, but tradition is a DANGER to theology when tradition trumps truth. Never interpret based on tradition, always on the things that are Biblical.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If it is Biblical, it is Theological!! If you do not have the Bible right, your theology is wrong!!!!
If a then b DOES NOT IMPLY if not a then not b. If it is raining then the sidewalk is wet. HOWEVER, it is not raining but the sidewalk is wet because my lawn sprinkler is on ... or I put the hose on it when I was washing my car.
HMMMMM.......very interesting.......was the fallacy what I said or were you saying that what you were about to say was fallacy? That would make better sense. The statement that I made would be no problem except for those people that reject "Sola Scriptura".
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
I was only distinguishing between scripture (from God) and religious leaders (who hold opinions concerning theology which they express to their followers each Sunday).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Pastor Michael Huffman said:MJ. Smith said:Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If a then b DOES NOT IMPLY if not a then not b. If it is raining then the sidewalk is wet. HOWEVER, it is not raining but the sidewalk is wet because my lawn sprinkler is on ... or I put the hose on it when I was washing my car.
HMMMMM.......very interesting.......was the fallacy what I said or were you saying that what you were about to say was fallacy? That would make better sense. The statement that I made would be no problem except for those people that reject "Sola Scriptura".
Pastor Michael,with all due respect, if I may chime in, the fallacy is probably in your statement, as MJ tried to point out with her example.Note that she didn't discuss your first sentence (biblical = theological), but took it for granted to show that your second statement (no bible / bible not right = theology wrong) doesn't necessarily follow from the first. It might even be correct, but it doesn't follow from the first, that's the fallacy.I personally think, taken as an absolute statement it's wrong (people may not have access to a bible, or only have access to (parts of) unreliable translations and still get their theology right, if they receive the right teaching). And I think we shouldn't mix Sola Scriptura into the discussion since this muddies the waters even more.MickHave joy in the Lord!
0 -
Pastor Michael Huffman said:MJ. Smith said:Pastor Michael Huffman said:
If a then b DOES NOT IMPLY if not a then not b. If it is raining then the sidewalk is wet. HOWEVER, it is not raining but the sidewalk is wet because my lawn sprinkler is on ... or I put the hose on it when I was washing my car.
HMMMMM.......very interesting.......was the fallacy what I said or were you saying that what you were about to say was fallacy? That would make better sense. The statement that I made would be no problem except for those people that reject "Sola Scriptura".
interesting statement. I only have a few minutes, gotta catch a bus....
Sola Scriptura, you are aware that if you do not "pray without ceasing" that you are in violation of Sola Scriptura - right/? Because that's what the Scriptures says.....pray without ceasing - meaning continually never stopping....so the practice of sola scriptura- very questionable......
ltr.
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
NB.Mick said:
Pastor Michael, with all due respect, if I may chime in, the fallacy is probably in your statement, as MJ tried to point out with her example. Note that she didn't discuss your first sentence (biblical = theological), but took it for granted to show that your second statement (no bible / bible not right = theology wrong) doesn't necessarily follow from the first. It might even be correct, but it doesn't follow from the first, that's the fallacy. I personally think, taken as an absolute statement it's wrong (people may not have access to a bible, or only have access to (parts of) unreliable translations and still get their theology right, if they receive the right teaching). And I think we shouldn't mix Sola Scriptura into the discussion since this muddies the waters even more. MickPastor Michael Huffman said:MJ. Smith said:Pastor Michael Huffman said:If a then b DOES NOT IMPLY if not a then not b. If it is raining then the sidewalk is wet. HOWEVER, it is not raining but the sidewalk is wet because my lawn sprinkler is on ... or I put the hose on it when I was washing my car.
HMMMMM.......very interesting.......was the fallacy what I said or were you saying that what you were about to say was fallacy? That would make better sense. The statement that I made would be no problem except for those people that reject "Sola Scriptura".
Again, this is the same area of interpretation that I was pointing out before. I did not say "no bible" that is adding or taking a statement to a conclusion that was not intended by the author. Just as in the Scripture, we must interpret based on authorial intent. I simply said that if you do not have the Bible right, your Theology will be wrong; meaning that if your interpretation of the Bible is wrong than your Theology will be wrong. Nothing was said about "access", that was taken for granted in the argument. I am sorry but "Sola Scriptura" does not "muddy the water", that is the entire point. If you do not believe in the absolute authority of Scripture ALONE, your theology will be based on other things; i.e, tradition and; therefore, your theology will be wrong if it is not based on Scripture.
But this thread has gotten off of point......
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0
