Log in

No account? Create an account
thoughts and feels and thoughts and feels
:::::...... ::::::. ..:: ::::::

September 2009
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30

thoughts and feels and thoughts and feels [userpic]
Refutation cont'd

Another overarching objection I have is that the whole argument hinges on comparing an apparently flawed apple to another equally flawed apple rather than comparing an apple to God's plan for an apple.

I tried to locate a Greek NT text online (since this crit. is from 1993, the OT MSG hadn't been published yet - which is a relief, since as Greek is almost completely over my head and Hebrew absolutely so) but I'm not sure whether I found what I was looking for.

And it's uphill work and painfully slow (enough that it's not worth plugging in for the argument what I learned) but it's fascinating.

KJV: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law ... Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin."
MSG: "This makes it clear, doesn't it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says
about others but to us... Our invovlement iwth God's revelation doesn't put us right with God. What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else's sin."
[This interpretation endorses today's false standard of tolerance: Don't expose or criticize another person; just deal with your own sin...]

'Complicity' means 'involvement' - usually in something shady. According to MSG, everyone's sin is our own responsibility. I don't know why, then, anyone would conclude that we should just deal with our own sin.

1 Peter 3:1, 7. For this I *am* going to the Greek I've got. Jesu juva.

Also - tacked in vs 2 because it looks like vs 1 ends midthought. We'll see.

The Greek I've got: NT - Westcott, Hort eds. (Let me know if you know of a better one.)

Petrou A 3:1-2, 7. (Transliterated from the Greek for ease of fonts - but not by me)
III. Homoiôs gunaikes hupotassomenai tois idiois andrasin, hina ei tines apeithousin tôi logôi dia tês tôn gunaikôn anastrophês aneu logou kerdêthêsontai [2] epopteusantes tên en phobôi hagnên anastrophên humôn.
[7] ptoêsin. Hoi andres homoiôs sunoikountes kata gnôsin, hôs asthenesterôi skeuei tôi gunaikeiôi aponemontes. timên, hôs kai sunklêronomoi charitos zôês, eis to mê enkoptesthai tas proseuchas humôn.

Homoiôs 'like, resembling (similar)'
Gunaikes plural from gunê 'a woman'
hupotassomenai congujaction from hupotassô 'to place or arrange under'
tois form of ho 'the, that'
idiois form of idios 'one's own, pertaining to oneself'
andrasin from anêr 'a man'

hina 'in that place, there'
ei 'whether'
tines form of tis 'any one, any thing, some one, some thing'
apeithousin conjugation of apeitheô, 'to be disobedient, refuse compliance'
tôi form of ho
logôi form of logos, 'the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed' (trivia?: 'logos' is the word translated 'The Word' at the beginning of the Gospel of John)
dia 'through, by means of'
tês form of ho
tôn form of ho
gunaikôn form of gunê
anastrophês form of anastrophê, 'a turning upside down, upsetting'
aneu 'without'
logou form of logos
kerdêthêsontai conjugation of kerdainô 'to gain, derive profit or advantage'

Which to me says neither the quoted KJV "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands..". nor the MSG "The same goes for you wives: Be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs...". If I were a translator (which may become my new object in life), I would translate thus:
"Likewise, women are under their own man," [recognizing that 'idiois andrasin', 'one's own man', does not seem to literally translate as 'husband' but may be idiomatically/connotatively accepted as such] "whether anyone disobeys there [in marriage], a woman can upset [that is, can dramatically change the status quo] with a word, or gain without it [the word]." SDG.

epopteusantes conjugation of epopteuô 'to look over, overlook, watch'
tên form of ho
en form of eis 'into, to'
phobôi form of phobos 'flight'
hagnên form of hagnos 'full of religious awe'
anastrophên form of anastrophê
humôn form of su, a mystery word (no translation but 19960 uses [998 pages of references] given.)

Okay, back to the show.

This whole thing seems like a whole lot of people who are accustomed to taking the KJV at face value and not thinking about what it means or its application. KJV "Then all the churches will know that I am the God who searches hearts and minds" is portrayed to mean something terribly different from MSG "Then every church will know that appearances don't impress me." (Rev. 2:22.) "Hearts and minds" - that is, NOT appearances.

I believe that [Peterson's] language reflects neither the heart of Jesus nor His followers' fiery devotion to a holy sovereign God and the integrity of His Word Er, how old are you? 1,963 years? No, I didn't think so.

If The Message is accepted as Biblical truth, three distortions of New Testament teachings could spread and permeate the Church, conforming "truth" to popular consensus and false unity:
*Since God is love, He wouldn't be so cruel as to cause someone to suffer, perish or burn in hell. So don't mention Biblical consequences or punishment.
*Since God forgives, don't be too concerned about specific sins such as homosexuality or adultery. Jesus wouldn't want you to offend someone.
*Since God is tolerant, don't correct others. Be tolerant of all, except those who criticize. (This politically correct attitude censors much-needed rational, objective criticism as a corrective force.)

1. He doesn't. We cause our own punishments.
2. He didn't. We are as responsible for the offense we take as we are for our sins.
3. Okay, I don't even know where to begin with that one. I stare openmouthed.

Throughout history, whenever God's people followed distorted teaching and ignored genuine truth, they would compromise with popular culture and drift back to earth-centered spirituality. I think there's something to this - high or low anthropology. The pith of the matter involves questions like "Does God make bad things? If not, are there really 'bad people'?" and "What's the scriptural basis for this whole 'original sin' thing, anyway?" And these, I think, are questions for another day.

I wonder why I bother trying to change the minds of people from other intellectual traditions when I could be using my brain cycles refining my own. (I don't really count John Calvin among my faith ancestors. A good man, a faithful man? Most probably. A theologically/spiritually plausible thinker? No.)

My argument isn't really for the MSG or against the KJV - it's against the original argument. Proof denies faith. I deny attempts at proof.