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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477807#Comment_477807

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".

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.

Did not say that the practice was perfect...just as my life is not perfect...but I submit to the authority of God through the Scripture alone as the final authority. Any honest look at that passage will yield exactly what the author had in mind....but a passage ripped from context, like so many do, will yield anything that we want it to say. Just becomes, in my sinfulness, I do not live the Scripture as I should and desire, DOES NOT in any way diminish the Scriptures authority. Praise God for the Reformers who re-discovered what had been hidden by the established Church.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477841#Comment_477841

Did not say that the practice was perfect...just as my life is not perfect...but I submit to the authority of God through the Scripture alone as the final authority. Any honest look at that passage will yield exactly what the author had in mind....but a passage ripped from context, like so many do, will yield anything that we want it to say. Just becomes, in my sinfulness, I do not live the Scripture as I should and desire, DOES NOT in any way diminish the Scriptures authority. Praise God for the Reformers who re-discovered what had been hidden by the established Church.

in passing:

ἀδιαλείπτως - without intermission, incessantly, without ceasing. I find that hard to believe, if this is not what Paul meant he most assuredly would have chosen another word.....but thanks all the same.

Yes, I agree the Scriptures are Authoritative /

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477834#Comment_477834

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.

I can subscribe to that - and if one works with a Grudem-based definition of Theology as simply the sum total of everything that is said in the bible about a certain topic, it becomes nearly a tautology. But I think it is more complex, since not only theology is driven from interpretation of the bible, but also vice versa.

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.

Even the theology of people that subscribe to Sola Scriptura will normally be based on other things, too, including tradition (probably from the protestant-leaning side of the religios spectrum...) . Some people even advocate to consciously interpret the bible by making it fit into a preconceived theological framework (see Moses Silva making this argument here: logosres:introbblherm;ref=Page.p_307;off=-264 ).

I personally believe in Sola Scriptura (in a reasonable interpretation) but this forum is not the place for theological debate. I just want to remark that even if your claim (theology of non-sola-scriptura-believers must be wrong) was right, again the reverse is not implied.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477910#Comment_477910

Did not say that the practice was perfect...just as my life is not perfect...but I submit to the authority of God through the Scripture alone as the final authority. Any honest look at that passage will yield exactly what the author had in mind....but a passage ripped from context, like so many do, will yield anything that we want it to say. Just becomes, in my sinfulness, I do not live the Scripture as I should and desire, DOES NOT in any way diminish the Scriptures authority. Praise God for the Reformers who re-discovered what had been hidden by the established Church.

in passing:

ἀδιαλείπτως - without intermission, incessantly, without ceasing. I find that hard to believe, if this is not what Paul meant he most assuredly would have chosen another word.....but thanks all the same.

Yes, I agree the Scriptures are Authoritative /

ALONE!!!!! Authoritative ALONE!!! There are those religions that say that they believe that salvation is in the finished work of Jesus...but they do not believe in that ALONE!!! People can say that the Scriptures are authoritative, but you must come to the place where the scriptures are authoritative ALONE!!!!!

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477910#Comment_477910

ἀδιαλείπτως - without intermission, incessantly, without ceasing.

A Constant attitude of prayer in the life of the believer is how the Greek adverb is understood.......I quote John MacArthur on this:

Without ceasing means “constant” and defines prayer not as some perpetual activity of kneeling and interceding but as a way of life marked by a continual attitude of prayer.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2002). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary (186). Chicago: Moody Press.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477735#Comment_477735

The statement that I made would be no problem except for those people that reject "Sola Scriptura".

My experience with theology in the forums: some I agree with, some I find makes me think, some are well-known that but I disagree, a few are useful for humor and not much more. The latter is currently limited to 4 posters i.e. .00000037% Pretty amazing, right?

My experience with logic in the forums: as Dad encouraged heated, logical discussions at the dinner table (and I as the youngest by 6 years), I learned logic early and well. Some of the lack of logic on the forums is down right scary. Note that when I say the argument is fallacious, I am not necessarily saying that your conclusion is true or false -- merely that your argument does not establish whether it is true or false. The term fallacy has expanded to include both errors in logic and false premises/conclusions. I usually use it in the more technical sense of error in logic. BTW I am perfectly willing to use any of a number of standard, useful logics but here that would not change the outcome.

PS. The statement I quoted above in this post is also worthy of the Fallacy Hound for much the same fallacy.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477926#Comment_477926

ALONE!!!!! Authoritative ALONE!!! There are those religions that say that they believe that salvation is in the finished work of Jesus...but they do not believe in that ALONE!!! People can say that the Scriptures are authoritative, but you must come to the place where the scriptures are authoritative ALONE!!!!!

I do not agree that they are alone, but if you do then what do you do about the Spirit's leading?

ἀδιαλείπτως - without intermission, incessantly, without ceasing.

A Constant attitude of prayer in the life of the believer is how the Greek adverb is understood.......I quote John MacArthur on this:

Without ceasing means “constant” and defines prayer not as some perpetual activity of kneeling and interceding but as a way of life marked by a continual attitude of prayer.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2002). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary (186). Chicago: Moody Press.

...as for Macarthur, well he could be right, but I do not agree, the word means constant, is there some urban slang definition about 'constant' that I am not aware of, that defines it differently? [ if so then this supports dmb with the statement that meanings change over time......bogus.] If I take his definition to heart then I could constantly think I am living a perfect life before God, whether I am or not, since it is just an "attitude". If it is representative of just an attitude - what else does 'sola scriptura' belittle.............oh, I was unawares that one had to be kneeling when praying.

Thanks all the same.

R4m.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477924#Comment_477924

ALONE!!!!! Authoritative ALONE!!! There are those religions that say that they believe that salvation is in the finished work of Jesus...but they do not believe in that ALONE!!! People can say that the Scriptures are authoritative, but you must come to the place where the scriptures are authoritative ALONE!!!!!

Remember the Logos guidelines, please

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477968#Comment_477968

ALONE!!!!! Authoritative ALONE!!! There are those religions that say that they believe that salvation is in the finished work of Jesus...but they do not believe in that ALONE!!! People can say that the Scriptures are authoritative, but you must come to the place where the scriptures are authoritative ALONE!!!!!

Remember the Logos guidelines, please

Ditto!!!!

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477949#Comment_477949

I do not agree that they are alone, but if you do then what do you do about the Spirit's leading?

The Scriptures are a spiritual book; therefore, the Spirit leads through the Scripture. I need the Spirit's leading to help me understand the Scriptures.

...as for Macarthur, well he could be right, but I do not agree, the word means constant, is there some urban slang definition about 'constant' that I am not aware of, that defines it differently? [ if so then this supports dmb with the statement that meanings change over time......bogus.] If I take his definition to heart then I could constantly think I am living a perfect life before God, whether I am or not, since it is just an "attitude". If it is representative of just an attitude - what else does 'sola scriptura' belittle.............oh, I was unawares that one had to be kneeling when praying.

Notice what MacArthur said: Without ceasing means “constant” and defines prayer not as some perpetual activity of kneeling and interceding but as a way of life marked by a continual attitude of prayer.

He did not say that kneeling was part of praying, in fact we do not believe that is necessary at all, he said it is NOT defined by that.....

In further defining the word "ceasing":

In 1 Thess. 5:17, we find Paul’s injunction to incessantly pray, which means to pray every time an opportunity presents itself and to be in a constant attitude of dependence upon God (Luke 18:1; Rom. 12:12; Eph. 6:18). This does not imply that the believer should neglect everything else and should utter unending prayer, or that he should abstain from work and cloister himself in a monastery where he can constantly pray. The word for “pray” here is proseúchomai (4336), a word which never refers to praying to men, but always to God. Therefore Paul’s injunction means that one should be constantly conscious of his full dependence upon God.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

Now, we can make a choice to ignore the scholars that have devoted their lives to the study of language and, instead, rely on our tradition; or we can take into consideration the wisdom of those that labor to understand the language of Scripture. One fallacy so many make in Bible interpretation is to try to interpret the Bible based on how we, in the 21st century, understand it, instead of how the original hearers would have understood it. As a Pastor, my job is to tell my people what the original author originally intended to say to the original audience; and the Scripture always has application for our lives today because it is a timeless book.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478145#Comment_478145

Michael Huffman,

Having read Macarthur's full writ, tho rather longwinded in my opinion, I understood clearly what he meant.

As to Zodhiates(CWD), again he infer's attitude. Again, if it's merely an 'attitude' then why bother? His last is probably the best "Therefore Paul’s injunction means that one should be constantly conscious of his full dependence upon God." does not mean to me to be anything of an "attitude" - [you will also notice he bashes monastery's]

As a pastor, telling them it is just an 'attitude' defeats and IMHO belittles the verse, in context or not. This is why soooo many young one's are reflecting such 'spiritualness' on sunday morning, and having mindless chatter at the mall sunday afternoon, because church and worship and reverence is merely an "attitude", as so they have been told. I over-heard one young lady say "I can wear this, I can't control what he thinks when he see's me in it" ----doh!!

The original hearer's would have heard it just the way Paul had said/wrote it. We, myself included, tend to want to twist meaning(s) by changing the meaning(s) of the words or the message it brings. So by attempting to underscore 1st Century Church goer's, then how Paul wrote it and said it to them still remains - it didn't change, well it didn't till we got ahold of it......God doesn't have a 'hold' button, constant communication - - - - - - Christ exhibited the same and I can't read anywhere that he starved.

But I digress.....

R4m.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478222#Comment_478222

[you will also notice he bashes monastery's]

I did...and agree....

As a pastor, telling them it is just an 'attitude' defeats and IMHO belittles the verse, in context or not. This is why soooo many young one's are reflecting such 'spiritualness' on sunday morning, and having mindless chatter at the mall sunday afternoon, because church and worship and reverence is merely an "attitude", as so they have been told. I over-heard one young lady say "I can wear this, I can't control what he thinks when he see's me in it" ----doh!!

You misunderstand the usage of attitude as explained by MacArthur and Zodiates, and the original language. It is not an attitude of just "thinking" it is an attitude of life..... though not physically praying, your relationship with Christ is in such a way that you are always ready to pray whenever the need arises to physically pray.

The original hearer's would have heard it just the way Paul had said/wrote it. We, myself included, tend to want to twist meaning(s) by changing the meaning(s) of the words or the message it brings. So by attempting to underscore 1st Century Church goer's, then how Paul wrote it and said it to them still remains - it didn't change,

I agree that the meaning does not change, which is why I minor in Ancient Biblical Languages in Seminary.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478237#Comment_478237

In direct reply:

World English Dictionary

attitude (ˈætɪˌtjuːd)

— n
1.	the way a person views something or tends to behave towards it, often in an evaluative way
2.	a theatrical pose created for effect (esp in the phrase strike an attitude )
3.	a position of the body indicating mood or emotion
4.	informal a hostile manner: don't give me attitude, my girl
5.	See also axis the orientation of an aircraft's axes in relation to some plane, esp the horizontal
6.	the orientation of a spacecraft in relation to its direction of motion
7.	ballet a classical position in which the body is upright and one leg raised and bent behind

[C17: from French, from Italian attitudine disposition, from Late Latin aptitūdō fitness, from Latin aptus apt ]

continuing:

Word Origin & History

attitude 1660s, via Fr. attitude (17c.), from It. attitudine "disposition, posture," also "aptness, promptitude," from L.L. aptitudinem (nom. aptitudo; see aptitude). Originally 17c. a technical term in art for the posture of a figure in a statue or painting; later generalized to "a posture of the body supposed to imply some mental state" (1725). Sense of "settled behavior reflecting feeling or opinion" is first recorded 1837. Connotations of "antagonistic and uncooperative" developed 1962 in slang. //

Medical Dictionary : attitude at·ti·tude (āt'ĭ-t&oomacr;d', -ty&oomacr;d') n.

The position of the body and limbs; posture.
A manner of acting.

So unless you can produce some urban slang definition that changes the learned and scholarly's hard work there has not been a change. Maybe Zod. and Mac. should have chosen a better word. Apparently the young lady understood about 'attitude'.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478237#Comment_478237

Traditions are certainly attractive, as one 're-writes' the meaning as needed. Thank goodness for theology.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478242#Comment_478242

Sorry for the second:

Michael we may be speaking along the same understanding, maybe if you were to drop the usage of "attitude" I think we could get on the same page rather quickly.....

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478241#Comment_478241

In direct reply:

World English Dictionary

attitude (ˈætɪˌtjuːd)

— n
1. the way a person views something or tends to behave towards it, often in an evaluative way
2. a theatrical pose created for effect (esp in the phrase strike an attitude )
3. a position of the body indicating mood or emotion
4. informal a hostile manner: don't give me attitude, my girl
5. See also axis the orientation of an aircraft's axes in relation to some plane, esp the horizontal
6. the orientation of a spacecraft in relation to its direction of motion
7. ballet a classical position in which the body is upright and one leg raised and bent behind

[C17: from French, from Italian attitudine disposition, from Late Latin aptitūdō fitness, from Latin aptus apt ]
continuing:

Word Origin & History

attitude 1660s, via Fr. attitude (17c.), from It. attitudine "disposition, posture," also "aptness, promptitude," from L.L. aptitudinem (nom. aptitudo; see aptitude). Originally 17c. a technical term in art for the posture of a figure in a statue or painting; later generalized to "a posture of the body supposed to imply some mental state" (1725). Sense of "settled behavior reflecting feeling or opinion" is first recorded 1837. Connotations of "antagonistic and uncooperative" developed 1962 in slang. //

Medical Dictionary : attitude at·ti·tude (āt'ĭ-t&oomacr;d', -ty&oomacr;d') n.

The position of the body and limbs; posture.

A manner of acting.

So unless you can produce some urban slang definition that changes the learned and scholarly's hard work there has not been a change. Maybe Zod. and Mac. should have chosen a better word. Apparently the young lady understood about 'attitude'.

I do not understand why people who want to define terms in the Bible, originally inspired in Greek, go to English dictionaries or anything other than the Greek language.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478245#Comment_478245

Sorry for the second:

Michael we may be speaking along the same understanding, maybe if you were to drop the usage of "attitude" I think we could get on the same page rather quickly.....

Would you prefer "disposition"?

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478288#Comment_478288

I do not understand why people who want to define terms in the Bible, originally inspired in Greek, go to English dictionaries or anything other than the Greek language.

WOW look at you!!

Yes, isn't that interesting, you finally figured them out!!!!!!. kudo's to you. [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/animal/1118.gif[/img]

You quoted two sources that are doing the same as you so graciously pointed out, thus, hopefully, you now see the problem with using the word and building upon it, especially in a commentary....it changes the meaning of -what I believe- Paul was intently expressing. He used ἀδιαλείπτως 3x to the Church of the Thessalonians, and then he used it once in Romans, so it was definitely not a word he just used haphazardly. But cautiously and deliberately.......

[denise{aka dmb}, should be proud of you for letting go and learning something about meaning changes/changing meanings.... [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/animal/1136.gif[/img] ]

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478355#Comment_478355

I do not understand why people who want to define terms in the Bible, originally inspired in Greek, go to English dictionaries or anything other than the Greek language.

WOW look at you!!

Yes, isn't that interesting, you finally figured them out!!!!!!. kudo's to you.

You quoted two sources that are doing the same as you so graciously pointed out, thus, hopefully, you now see the problem with using the word and building upon it, especially in a commentary....it changes the meaning of -what I believe- Paul was intently expressing. He used ἀδιαλείπτως 3x to the Church of the Thessalonians, and then he used it once in Romans, so it was definitely not a word he just used haphazardly. But cautiously and deliberately.......

[denise{aka dmb}, should be proud of you for letting go and learning something about meaning changes/changing meanings.... ]

Ummmmm......actually,,,,,I was referring to you [8-)], based on your above quotes being all from English dictionaries. The sources I sighted are Greek scholars using the Greek language. I am fully aware of wording meaning changes, I have a minor in Languages, which is why we have other English translations other than the KJV, because word meanings change. There has never been a question of the meaning of ἀδιαλείπτως....however a fallacy that many people make is to interpret based on word meaning alone (i.e., "constantly" does not help much, as far as meaning) while ignoring context and how the word is used in other places in the NT.

This Greek word is only used by the Apostle Paul and he uses it 4x in the NT (as you have stated 3x in Thessalonians and 1x in Romans). Now, when you want a meaning of a word, and then ignore the context and how it is used elsewhere in the NT, you do not engage in true Biblical interpretation or exegesis.

Here is what I mean.....when Paul uses it in Thessalonians he uses it and says: "I constantly mention you in my prayers" or "I constantly thank God for you" and then he uses it in Romans "I constantly mention you"...., and of course the word used in 1 Thess. 5:17. Now, are we are think that what Paul had in mind is that he was constantly, without ever stopping, always thanking God, or mentioning these people's names before Him, as the English would have you to believe? Absolutely not! That would not make any sense. It is clear from the way that he used the word that he was referring, not to a continual state of non stop prayer or thanksgiving, but an attitude about these believers that led him to mention them and thank God for them often. That is the clear reading of the text. And if Paul used that Greek word 3x in the same way, there is little reason, exegetically or practically, for us to believe that he meant it a different way in 1 Thess. 5:17, without other textual evidence which we do not have.

So while you may attempt to cast a shadow of a doubt on "Sola Scriptura" or "Tota Scriptura" because you want to say to take that literally would be ridiculous because we cannot pray without ever physically stopping, what you fail to see is the clear idea of how it is used in the entirety of the NT, that is exegesis. [;)]

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478506#Comment_478506

[...]

Now, are we are think that what Paul had in mind is that he was constantly, without ever stopping, always thanking God, or mentioning these people's names before Him, as the English would have you to believe?

Yes that is exactly what he meant, and your writ has not proved otherwise.

Absolutely not! That would not make any sense. It is clear from the way that he used the word that he was referring, not to a continual state of non stop prayer or thanksgiving, but an attitude about these believers that led him to mention them and thank God for them often. That is the clear reading of the text. And if Paul used that Greek word 3x in the same way, there is little reason, exegetically or practically, for us to believe that he meant it a different way in 1 Thess. 5:17, without other textual evidence which we do not have.

Again, you infer that it is an attitude, should Paul have just wanted the current 1st believers to 'keep an attitude' he would have said so. Wouldn't you agree?

So while you may attempt to cast a shadow of a doubt on "Sola Scriptura" or "Tota Scriptura" because you want to say to take that literally would be ridiculous because we cannot pray without ever physically stopping, what you fail to see is the clear idea of how it is used in the entirety of the NT, that is exegesis.

No the ridiculous-ness lies in the fact that 'we' are attempting to twist away the sincerity of Paul's words to make it a 'well if I feel like it today, I will have an attitude of [insert your feelings here]' - attitude attitude.

By your own writ you strengthen what I am saying, you have not supported your claim that Paul was merely wanting to express an attitude that we should have, but only add viability to mine. By your writ it gives creditable Scriptural support that what I have been saying all along is true, that it IS a constant.

We incorporate the meaning of the text to a usage of it being an attitude because we know that we won't do it and better than half won't even try [sidebar: but now you have read it and we have discussed it, we are Therefore Accountable]:

-Since when can you not offer up a brief prayer for another believer should they come to mind all of a sudden? Is it because you won't do it or because that is not your attitude at the moment?

-Since when can you not see a beautiful flower and take a moment to Thank the Heavenly Father for such an amazing Flower? Is it because you won't do it or because that is not your attitude at the moment?

-Since when can you not offer a helping hand to a beggar on the street who is in need? Is it because you won't do it or because that is not your attitude at the moment?

-Are you getting it now? -or- Is it because you won't ! -or- Is it because this is not your attitude at the moment?

R4m.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478606#Comment_478606

Listen, I have given you more than ample proof through sound exegesis exactly what Paul was referring and how he meant the text....I can't help but wonder is that maybe the problem here, and I am getting this vibe (so correct me if I am wrong), is that you have doubt about the total authority of Scripture alone. If that is the case, then to engage in a conversation on the basis of Scripture alone, generally doesn't work. But this thread has gone on long enough.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478634#Comment_478634

When I look at R4M's posts, I come away with the feeling that there is great expectation for others to work hard to approach his way of thinking, without much reciprocation of that expectation.

In other words, I wouldn't waste my breath if I find myself disagreeing.

Back to your original post, one might be asking too much from the Bible Sense Lexicon, which is only a rough tool.

However, your training in the languages is good, use it well! One note: I am concerned that you are mainly looking at lexical meanings and meanings at word level. It is too much to discuss here, but there is an inexhaustible richness in the original languages. "Context is king" is one of those aphorisms that sums it up, but does not even begin to plumb the depths. I am sure that your efforts in the languages will help you to be more effective in ministry, so keep at it! At the same time, the slightly-less-than-perfect English Bible is already a mighty tool and sufficient indication of the standard by which all your flock will be fairly and ultimately judged.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478634#Comment_478634

Listen, I have given you more than ample proof through sound exegesis exactly what Paul was referring and how he meant the text....I can't help but wonder is that maybe the problem here, and I am getting this vibe (so correct me if I am wrong), is that you have doubt about the total authority of Scripture alone. If that is the case, then to engage in a conversation on the basis of Scripture alone, generally doesn't work. But this thread has gone on long enough.

I give you credit on your exegete, it does prove what Paul meant and that being it is a constant, or rather should be a constant: Three extremes to this in one Letter to one Church. then one mention in another Letter. Paul could not have been more clearer as to what He meant as being directed by the Father.

As towards the Sola/Tota Scriptura, if we truly believed and applied it as it is put out to be then there would be no misunderstandings. But as so shown, those claiming Sola/Tota Scriptura, don't really ascribe to their own teachings of the same....................

This is not my first encounter with this type of Biblical logic/application, and many before you have side-step this one verse because it does infringe upon the Sola/Tota Scriptura Traditionalist/Restorationist/Reformist type of thinking. IF/Should we really want to be 'Sola/Tota Scriptural-ist' in our theological beliefs and practices, then I would recommend the practice of this one among many verse(s), and that not being in any type of dispositional or attitude type of pleasurable lifestyle.

Of course I do not ascribe to the Sola/Tota Scriptural applications/teachings/theology/beliefs, at least not any more, seen tooo much 'do as I say and not as I do'............

When I look at R4M's posts, I come away with the feeling that there is great expectation for others to work hard to approach his way of thinking, without much reciprocation of that expectation.

Lee, thanks for the comment, I do not expect any or all, to 'work hard to approach' anything. If you cannot do anything/something in a rejoicing manner then do not insult the Father by attempting to do something because it is just an attitude........do it because you Love Him for what He has done for you.

R4m.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478645#Comment_478645

When I look at R4M's posts, I come away with the feeling that there is great expectation for others to work hard to approach his way of thinking, without much reciprocation of that expectation.

In other words, I wouldn't waste my breath if I find myself disagreeing.

Back to your original post, one might be asking too much from the Bible Sense Lexicon, which is only a rough tool.

However, your training in the languages is good, use it well! One note: I am concerned that you are mainly looking at lexical meanings and meanings at word level. It is too much to discuss here, but there is an inexhaustible richness in the original languages. "Context is king" is one of those aphorisms that sums it up, but does not even begin to plumb the depths. I am sure that your efforts in the languages will help you to be more effective in ministry, so keep at it! At the same time, the slightly-less-than-perfect English Bible is already a mighty tool and sufficient indication of the standard by which all your flock will be fairly and ultimately judged.

Well put!!!!

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478649#Comment_478649

Lee, thanks for the comment, I do not expect any or all, to 'work hard to approach' anything. If you cannot do anything in a rejoicing manner then do not insult the Father by attempting to do something because it is just an attitude........do it because you Love Him for what He has done for you.

R4m.

[*-)] [*-)] [*-)]

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478649#Comment_478649

Three extremes to this in one Letter to one Church. then one mention in another Letter. Paul could not have been more clearer as to what He meant as being directed by the Father.

Greek 101....trace the usage of Greek words as used by the writer in other passages to gain the sense of the word.

those claiming Sola/Tota Scriptura, don't really ascribe to their own teachings of the same....................

We ascribe, not to how it is necessarily translated in any given English translation, a language, by the way that did not exist at the time of the writing of the Bible, but to how it was originally intended by the writer...we do that as by noted above.

This is not my first encounter with this type of Biblical logic/application, and many before you have side-step this one verse because it does infringe upon the Sola/Tota Scriptura Traditionalist/Restorationist/Reformist type of thinking.

These principles are just how you interpret the Scriptures. You go back to the source and define the words in context and usage across the NT...I can not go anywhere by there. That is how you do Bible exposition/exegesis. Just because I have difficulty or need abundance of Grace to live a truth in the Scripture, DOES NOT diminish the Scriptures authority. I am sorry you live by that tradition. I do not understand the Trinity, but the does not diminish the veracity of that truth. Just because truths go disobeyed, does not diminish that truth or the authority of that truth.

Of course I do not ascribe to the Sola/Tota Scriptural applications/teachings/theology/beliefs, at least not any more, seen tooo much 'do as I say and not as I do'............

That has nothing to do with it...as stated above.

Lee, thanks for the comment, I do not expect any or all, to 'work hard to approach' anything. If you cannot do anything/something in a rejoicing manner then do not insult the Father by attempting to do something because it is just an attitude........do it because you Love Him for what He has done for you.

Lee, I understand your confusion. When we try and get around absolute authority, we are left to our own devices...sad state.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478678#Comment_478678

Michael.

Thanks for your words. In closing

ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε

you either do your best to live by it or you do not. No Sola/Tota Scriptura involved. It is what it is, when you make any attempts to change it you are essentially changing the meaning of the Scriptures to mans way of thinking and not God's Way of Living.....

R4m.