Ian,

in case you haven't noticed. There is nothing new in your answer. You are only seeking to further uphold some confusion by intentionally misreading and misrepresenting my statements. I have made it abundantly clear what I believe ekklesia stands for and that several times. I am satisfied with the fact that the truth loving reader can discern what I meant, regardless of your throwing of dust and sand.

Again, I am satisfied to see that you expose yourself (and thereby confirm my view again and again) again by making me out to have evolved into an expert over night... which is clearly a misrepresentation of anything I have written - and confirms once more that you have to concentrate all your efforts at discrediting the speaker and his capabilities, rather than on discussing objectivly... this latest reply is by far the poorest you have made in this regard.

Tyndale intentionally broke with tradition? Off course he did and praise God for it... how you can make this a negative statement would be a riddle to me, would I not be aware of your roman catholic/ecumenical/reformed tendencies. When I call your writings tendentious I have good reason to do so objectivly, being able to point to a not small number of statements you have made throughout this forum. Ian - in case you were on sick leave during church history - the great majority of protestants today (those who have some basic interest in the matter) would consider your 'accusation' of intentionally going against the tradition of the 'christian' state religeon of his day not a rebuke but a praise. It is not as you are trying to manufacture, that this is my own, or even a minority view. Even throwing around with words 'modern conspiracy' 'revivalist conspircy theories' etc. will not help you, but only further the impression of deflection and ridiculing to the objective reader.

Concerning your aversion against the common man and woman to look up certain words in a koin Greek dictionary: Let us (the objective people.. not necessarily Ian) bear in mind that we are not intending to reach a state where we speak fluent Greek, nor read it of a Grek new testament without help. We are also not really intending to re-translate whole passages. The by far greatest application of us common peasants would be to get further insight into SINGLE WORDS. Now we are blessed with having tools at hand that allow for parralel viewing of tens of translations simultaneously without spending a penny. Being well capable of our own vernacular languages, we already have a very clear understanding of the words garammatic attributes by evaluating plenty of commonly (also by academics) accepted translations. By the time we have done so dilligently it is probably already unlikely that we are entirely ignorant of the grammatic attributes, as to whether we are talking about 1st, 2nd, 3rd person singular/plural (verbs), or nominativ, genitiv, dativ, accusative, vocal (nomes) singular, plural and perfect/imperfect etc etc... So Ian, what is it that we peasents are really looking for... yes.. the verb-STEM.. and the nome-STEM etc...The stem remains contant mostly.. there are of course the declention cases etc... but still.

So Ian, now you have a peasant with a pretty good bit of experts advice on all grammatical attributes from over 10 reknown translation experts PRIOR to looking up the STEM in a Greek dictionary. Now without duobt, in every modern language even there are better and worse, free, cheap and expensive dictionaries. Your advice to spend the money for something descent is taken on board. Assuming therefore that the peasent has now purchased a better lexica/dictionary - he gets plenty of information and applications of the stem... and in the better ones even in detail information on the various cases etc etc... He now has the chance to compare the present active indicatives etc.. with the choice made by the tranlators... that is already PRETTY GOOD considering that most of the time he really only wants one word and THE STEM DOES IT FOR HIM in the context of his ready available vernacular translations.

Just imagine our peasant has access to youtube etc.. and can watch several semester classes worth of footage ( consecutive complete lessons originally stretched over months kindly provided by some koin Greek teachers) and can learn the basic ideas of Greek grammar. Wow - bearing in mind that he does not need to learn every available ending of by heart, but concentrate on the most common ones and knows where to look the others up? Wow - now he knows the possible applications of the stems, the gramatic choices of over 10 reputable translators, the singular/plural/neuter.. aorist, declentions, nominative etc etc etc... out of a mix of learning and dictionary information - wohooo.

And if that was not enough - suddenly he realises he has a Google search button on the screen and see's what other scholars out of all christendom have come up with, watches a few interesting debates on the matter (love it.. each opponent gives away all the stuff the other wants to hide) etc. Just as the peasant thought he was done - he finds a button on his free bible tool and MHUAHAHA... a listing of every single incident of this word being used throughout the entire new testament, GROUPED nicely in different translation choices - making exceptional uses very apparent.

This is what I call a multitude of councellors - here is safety. Now Ian, this is an objective presentation of the possibilities of a modern peasant of TODAY.

Maybe you could answer once more - so we can see whether you still uphold your view on this, or finally let some common sense reign: Should this peasant refrain from attempting to establish the meaning of A WORD in the Greek?

Greetings, Torben

P.S. No I will not tell you which studytools I use now - so as to give you the most well-meaning chance of coming to conclusions objectively. I invite you to judge the things I say wrong or right. It is a quite repetitive lesson to this reader that sources get discredited upon the bare mention of their name :)
P.P.S The answe as to whether CAI is 'a' church has been given, for example in my second latest reply - maybe you should rephrase your question? (To the normal reader - before this is misunderstood... CAI preach a false gospel, dictate and command people by an authority NOT given to them by scripture, exploit their members and families (also financially)and are entirely ignorant (blind) and that in many cases intentionally to their error in scriptural understanding regarding these and many other matters. DO NOT JOIN them... if you are in there - reform>fail>leave  or dis-associate with the leadership ASAP :)

Hi Torben,

Might I suggest that you ponder whether a non-German speaker could grasp the intent of Goethe, or even Angela Merkel by simply looking up the meanings of the words they used in a dictionary, or even doing a comparative  analysis of the translations of their words from their various works/speeches?

Might I also suggest you compare how well someone in the following two scenarios would grasp their intent.
1) Person A: six months intensive study of vocabulary and grammar; familiarity with 20 analyses of their works
2) Person B: 10 years immersion and formal training in the language; familiarity with German culture and history; ability to read the works as a native speaker, familiarity with 100+ analyses of the works and familiarity with many other works in German; accredited as a teacher of German language.

Cheers

Good morning, Torben.

My but you do rate your abilities rather highly, don't you? :)

To begin with there's no need for me to introduce anything new into my responses, given that you've yet to 'answer the mail' regarding the salient points of the discussion. Instead of doing this you seem determined to (1) demonstrate to me just how smart you are, and (2) tell me how much of a 'Roman Catholic' you believe me to be. I'd suggest that neither inference is actually a close representation of the truth.

I'd like to point out that your latest attempts at 'grammatical' self-justification are just plain silly. As I've indicated to you a number of times previously, there is no language in which meaning resides at simply the lexical (i.e. 'word') level. Such is a function of syntax. So for you to harp on about dictionaries providing you with insight into 'individual words', implying that such enables you to grasp (biblical) meaning aright, simply reinforces the fact of your naivete. Let me provide you with a demonstration from your own language. If I was to pick up an English-German dictionary to 'translate' the simple statement 'I am cold' from English into German, what I'd end up with would be: 'Ich' ('I') 'bin' ('am') 'kalt' ('cold'). Now you and I both know that each of these words separately means precisely what I've just written: 'I-am-cold'. However, when used together (i.e. considering the syntax) my 'translation' is read, 'I am (sexually/emotionally) frigid!' This is hardly what I had in mind, is it? What I should've written was, 'es ist zu mir kalt'. So much for one-to-one verbal correspondence from one language to another.

Let's now consider a pertinent example of the fact of 'semantic range/domain' that exists within individual Greek lexemes. The simple word σάρξ can mean: (1) flesh, (2) human striving, (3) sinful nature, (4) man, (5) no one, (6) outwardly, (7) that nature, (8) ordinary way, (9) illness, and (10) physical. Knowing what the word 'means' in isolation doesn't help one jot when we have to consider the competing possibilities that can apply when Paul uses our word in one of his letters. Let's review, for example, Romans 7:18. Did the apostle mean, 'I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my physical body'? Or should it be read, '... sinful nature'? Or '... human nature'? Or ...? And what of 1 Corinthians 7:1? There Paul wrote:  Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι· One popular English version translates this statement as, 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman'. Another renders it, 'it is good for a man not to marry'. The verb ἅπτεσθαι can mean 'to touch', but it can also be understood to be referring to 'marriage'. The word, by itself, doesn't really enlighten us as to what the statement means. Consequently, you might then compare how the various versions have translated the phrase, but in doing so you aren't exercising an informed judgment based on first-hand familiarity with the structures and strictures of the Greek language. To the contrary, you're largely dependent on the judgment of others. Limitations of this sort don't apply to those of us who've gone to the trouble of learning the biblical languages sufficiently well; we are able to exercise a measure of independent judgment. For example, several years ago I wrote a lengthy essay that convincingly demonstrated that Revivalists/Pentecostals had completely misread 'who' and 'what' was involved in Acts chapters one and two. My essay convinced even you, and we all know just how stubborn and contrary you are! So despite the fact that the masses accepted the legacy of Lloyd Longfield, they were completely wrong in what they believed. Personal competence in Greek removed the need for me to be completely dependent on the opinions of others. The end result of this being the public dismantling of Revivalism's principle proof text, and the subsequent freeing of hundreds of people from that form of religious bondage.

Sadly, having conclusively demonstrated your lack of first-hand knowledge of linguistics you then felt yourself qualified to be lecturing me on the vagaries of Greek stems. Well, 'thanks for that' as I suppose I really didn't know very much about the subject before you saw fit to 'enlighten' me :) Now you obviously believe that considering just the stem of a verbal or nominal provides one with the undifferentiated 'meaning' of any given Greek word. At one level this is true enough; however, it requires a measure of careful qualification if one isn't to risk overstating the case. Prefixes, infixes and suffixes are not largely irrelevant when one attempts to grasp the meaning of nouns and verbs, if they were then Greek wouldn't have them to begin with! This begs the obvious question: how developed is your understanding of the subject? At the simplest level, do you understand the difference between a verbal stem and its root? Do you understand the marked effect on meaning that certain prepositions invoke on nouns in their differing cases? (This feature isn't readily apparent should one consider just the stem.) Do you understand morphology sufficiently well to be able to competently follow a conversation that 'chops' and 'changes'; that wends this way and that, and where the subject and perhaps even the verb is implicit rather than explicitly stated? For these and many similar reasons I fear that when it comes to Greek the 'peasant' believes himself a 'prince', when he is in fact yet a 'pauper' ;)

All of this raises the issue of the value of Greek 'tools' more generally. My own view is that they obviously provide a wealth of benefits, a veritable cornucopia of possibilities in the hands of the careful exegete! I use quality tools all of the time when I engage in exegesis, and I've literally hundreds of volumes devoted to just the Greek New Testament alone. But you've mentioned nothing of the grammars, or synopses and such, lauding instead internet lectures, free Bible tools and the like. Has this to do with the fact that the former requires more than simply a passing 'acquaintance' with Greek? Or is it that you're largely unaware of the existence of such resources? Either way, just as doing an online first aid course doesn't make one a medical doctor, neither does watching a series of video lectures, or using a 'free Bible tool', makes one a competent exegete. If matters were as simple as you present them being then those of us who've laboured over many years to learn Hebrew and Greek properly would've saved ourselves the time, the expense and the heartache! If it all came down to understanding 'stems', owning a dictionary, and knowing which buttons on the computer to push, then that's what we'd all do. But language competence doesn't stop at the rudimentary basics; it doesn't end with being able to identify the morphological features of a noun or verb. Such is simply the beginning, the 'learning to crawl stage'. There is grammar to grapple with, idioms to understand, and complex syntax to consider, never mind the fundamental skill of being able to adequately transfer meaning from source to receptor languages. In short you've not even begun to scratch the surface yet so it might pay to hang onto to that saddle a little more tightly for a while yet ;)

You directly asked me, 'should this peasant refrain from attempting to establish the meaning of A WORD in the Greek?' I'll respond now, just as I have when you posed the same question previously: 'yes', and for the very reasons that I've addressed above. 'Word studies' by dilettantes such as yourself are the number one cause of mistakes in personal Bible study. Their value for exegesis in general is also largely overstated, which is why informed exegetes spend considerably more time engaging in practices such as syntactical diagramming instead.

No I will not tell you which studytools I use now - so as to give you the most well-meaning chance of coming to conclusions objectively. I invite you to judge the things I say wrong or right. It is a quite repetitive lesson to this reader that sources get discredited upon the bare mention of their name :) That would really depend on your choice of sources though, wouldn't it? If you've had the good sense to acquire a single volume lexicon, I would hope it would be something credible such as Bauer's (in either it's German or English dress), the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged), or the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (abridged). If it is one of these, then I would also hope that you took the time to read the cautions contained within the prefaces to each. However, the very fact that you finally have attempted to obtain decent tools fills me with delight! It's refreshing to note that you do listen to my advice, in spite of largely dismissing the same as being unnecessary; so let's see if we can chip away at your arrogance over the course of the next few weeks too ;)

The answer as to whether CAI is 'a' church has been given, for example in my second latest reply - maybe you should rephrase your question? I thought it was phrased simply enough. Do you believe the CAI is part of the Christian Church? That it is part of the Body of Christ? It's a really simple question, Torben, so perhaps you should cease equivocating and just provide a really simple answer?

In closing educating you is going to provide me with literally hours of enjoyment, I can tell :)

Ian 

Dear Ian,

nobody is lecturing 'you'. The examples given here for demostration (to the readers) of the exaggeration in your verdict to burn the heretics (metaphorically) that possess the cheek to look up the possible Greek meanings in a lexicon/dictionary. This reader does not presume that you can be taught anything anymore...

I should ignore your silly example of 'Ich bin kalt...' since it once more demonstrates your lack of regard to your fellow human beings, who are created in the image of God and do for the most part possess intelligence. I have however picked a random well known scripture incorporating your word cold/kalt, to demonstrate how easy this can be for peasants of today.

Mat 24:12  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (KJV)

In paralel view with Textus Receptus, Scrivener, Robins-Bierp Byzant., Westcott-Hort all agreed (wow) on the verb ψυγησεται (cold + syntax info). Not being able to recognise the information contained in this ending - I made a search at http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=greekSearch.showSearchForm -  pasting the Greek original font word into the window and hit enter :)

This returns: ψυγησεται Verb: Future Passive Indicative 3rd Singular from Lexical Form ψυχομαι

Now - this wasn't too hard so far. Future... aha hmm, Passive: so the subject trageted by the verb does not execute/generate the cooling, but is the passive target of the action... so something will be cooling it, the cooling happens to the subject, which is = the love (subject). Indicative: gives us the idea that this is a statement of factual events.. like: This does happen or this will happen etc.. (imperative would be command form etc)

Sorry Ian, this peasant will not be running around teaching that: 'Love will wax many cold' nor 'many said you should let your love wax cold'.

For anyone who would like to learn all rules to the above in less than 1h, please see a nice quick reference guide at : http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm

The accademics providing such easily comprehendable support are an encouragement, compared to Ian who attempts to scare the motivation out of any sincere seeker. Some academics use their skill to serve the body.. others 'edify themselves' in the midst of the gathering/service/forum.

Ian could have saved all the digital ink required to form is scaring message and tell us that there are only (!) three cases (voices) used in order to display whether the subject acts, is acted upon, or probably benefits from the action itself. Active voice, passive voice and middle voice. I am asking the reader (not Ian) is this so hard? Sure it requires some diligence... but calling it impossible??

No Ian, this does not make one a medical doctor... but great to know that we can put on a plaster when there is a bit of blood, know we need some sleep when we are tired and report to hospital for a complicated brain surgery. Considering the brain surgery is already done for the most part and we just have some additional questions - my available tools shall suffice in combination with the advice and counselling of other learned men. No - nobody is saying your studying was in vain, just because we can get a basic idea within a few weeks/ months. It really depends on frequence of use and application doesn't it? The DIY guy buys the tool he needs once a week... the professonal carpenter will just raise an eye brow. But even the latter would not command the DIY guy to put the gun down, just because he can do better and faster.

Don't take this personally Ian, but if all 'competent exegete's' were like you, I'd think my chances would be higher stranded on a lonely island with a cantonese transliteration of Confucius and just beholding the Glory of God in nature, rather than trusting them ;)

You keep bragging and demanding worshipful glory and thanks for the reasonable christian service you provided to us ex-revivalists and that despite thanks and recoginition being shown on repeated occasion. You have our thanks - and reward before men - now. It might interest you that your tongues exegesis was only subsequent to my departure from CAI. The final straw 'making me free' to leave was the debunking of KJV (and most others) translation of the word 'obey' in Heb 13:17. Had God not led me to the study of this vers in the Greek (by just not being able to fit it in to the spirit of the remainder of the Word), I might well still be sitting there and obey blindly.

The strong 'persuasion' attributes of the verb in the passive voice opened my eyes to this being a very different kind of obedience. Yes - it involves obedience, but that which follows a persuasive approach. The other uses of this greek word made it even clearer and typical hirachical and dominating obedience connected to this word was rare ( even though not absent). This new perception of the scripture allowed me to walk away from CAI and their Heb 13:7and17 grinding RULER , simply because he seriously failed to persuade and reach a difference in my persuasion, no matter how much I sought for the logic in it. If you knew how many painful sleepless nights I had over this scripture...

Had I listened to your advice to not use a Greek dictionary - I would still be in there. You talk about educating me ... I would submit that you have misjudged ever so slightly the regard in which I hold you. Since your recommendation to me to join the RCC in order to better my situation, I have completely lost trust in your extra biblical advice and you have somewhat reached the tilte of a ecumenist and reprobate in my mind.

Is the CAI part of the Christian church that is the body of Christ? Hmmm... Let's see ; a not small number of local congregations depart from the apostle's doctrine - and that even in regards to the salvation message. They further do not want to repent nor listen even after many admonitions. I would reckon that the reaction of the apostles to them as an organisation would be to reject them. The question is whether they would treat them as an organisation at all... or as they do in the bible as individuals... named individuals as heretics/loving to have the pre-eminence among them/casting out some of the  (WHAT?) ekklesia? How can that be?? The guy refuses the apostles and their messengers? He has power to cast people out of God's Holy Church/es??? Myomy some power these rebells have don't they? Unless it was just the local gathering of the called out they were expelled from.

3Jn 1:9  I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:10  Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

I was one of those cast out. I came in the name of (and pointed to) the apostles writings and was cast out as a result - as they did not receive the apostles' instruction. As a result I was cast out of the ... what?

So what is your game of question and asnwers all about (yours and that of your little anonymous helperlings and or accounts)? Why don't you give us the all-important to us answer hmm? There must be something really special in the bush, that you are witing for it like a child for christmas. Enligten us Rabbi. Deliver us from the pain of our knowleglessnes. Shed forth your life changing wisdom on this matter... so we can finally rest in peace. 

Got to go for now. Greetings, Pilgrim

Hi Torben,

This is a short note just to make two points:

(1) I am not Ian

(2) My previous post was to flag a lesson that I had to learn: that a gram of humility is more valuable than a tonne of hubris. I am not Ian's "helperling".

Cheers

Hi Talmid,

my reference was to the recent anonymouse posts, seemingly playing into Ian's hand. The reference was not to your recent post.

To answer the question in your post: Person 1 should be able to handle a dictionary... person 2 might consider trying without dictionary betimes :)

Greetings, Pilgrim

Ian: And what of 1 Corinthians 7:1? There Paul wrote:  Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι· One popular English version translates this statement as, 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman'. Another renders it, 'it is good for a man not to marry'. The verb ἅπτεσθαι can mean 'to touch', but it can also be understood to be referring to 'marriage'. The word, by itself, doesn't really enlighten us as to what the statement means. Consequently, you might then compare how the various versions have translated the phrase, but in doing so you aren't exercising an informed judgment based on first-hand familiarity with the structures and strictures of the Greek language. To the contrary, you're largely dependent on the judgment of others. Limitations of this sort don't apply to those of us who've gone to the trouble of learning the biblical languages sufficiently well; we are able to exercise a measure of independent judgment. For example, several years ago I wrote a lengthy essay that convincingly demonstrated that Revivalists/Pentecostals had completely misread 'who' and 'what' was involved in Acts chapters one and two. My essay convinced even you, and we all know just how stubborn and contrary you are! So despite the fact that the masses accepted the legacy of Lloyd Longfield, they were completely wrong in what they believed. Personal competence in Greek removed the need for me to be completely dependent on the opinions of others. The end result of this being the public dismantling of Revivalism's principle proof text, and the subsequent freeing of hundreds of people from that form of religious bondage.

Pilgrim: I do not see much reason to search much here at all. The context makes it abundantly clear (to me - it might be harder for people influenced by strong pre-conceived institutional understanding from the medieval ages - This is not meant sarcastically, but there were many works concluding in strange views regarding women and 'romantic')
 
1Co 7:1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

(not touch a woman) (Nevertheless) (better to have wife)  seems quite clear.

I find to know, to touch and even to lay with very nice and clean, without graphic detail that would get the congregations minds work overtime. There is little more information in my Greek lexicon, but that απτεσθαι > ἅπτομαι can mean: to connect, bind. To apply oneself to, to touch. Refers to such handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it or upon oneself. The same effect may be conveyed by the verb thiggánō .... In 1Co_7:1, "to touch a woman" is not to be taken literally, but is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. However, in the context of this verse, Paul seems to be referring to the whole idea of the sanctity of the marriage relationship.....

To connect, to bind oneself to, to apply onself to, to have a modifying influence upon the 'touched' object.. all does not seem starnge to the context at all and I see no further reason to persue the matter by means of Greek grammar / syntax / dictionary. It is obviously a matter that has to be resolved in a different way - which I believe the context does pretty well without further need for study.

A brief check through the majority of uses in the new testament confirms the dictionary's statement on the 'handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it or upon oneself' ... all the uses I just examined were limited to 'touching' a person, a part/member of a person (like an eye for healing) or something a person wore for clothing. Infants were touched (so es to impart a blessing), people were touched in order to be healed (passively and actively). I saw no single use for 'touching' an object or the surface etc.. as other Greek words often are used for. So ... I won't spend more time on this without cause... the case seems clear.

Greetings, Pilgrim

Good morning, Torben.

Several points 'popped' out of your last two responses. First, with newly acquired dictionary in hand you obviously perceive yourself to be suffciently competent in Greek/translation/comparative linguistics to be 'lecturing' me. (You might want to revise some of the basics though, such as the difference between 'case' and 'voice'.) Of course, I'd like to see you have a 'crack' at responding to my questions occasionally, instead of simply dismissing them. Second, I don't really think you're in any position to be claiming that what I engage in is bragging, certainly not when your arrogance is so over the top even by CAI standards. I think the fundamental reason why you won't mix with other churches is because you think you know better than they do with respect to 'doctrine'. Such hubris renders you largely unteachable, a fact that you've demonstrated in spades here. Third, for whatever reason you continue to hedge around answering the simple question: 'do you believe the CAI is part of the Christian Church/Body of Christ'. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice. Fourth, despite your claimed ability of being able to judge written context aright, you clearly struggle comprehending my posts. You continue to make claims about my opinions which simply aren't supported by the facts. Fifth, and as a true son of 'Revival', you're completely unhinged in your bias against the Roman Catholic Church.

But let's have a brief look at your latest piece of 'exegesis', that having to do with 'touching' a woman from 1 Corinthians 7.

I do not see much reason to search much here at all. The context makes it abundantly clear (to me - it might be harder for people influenced by strong pre-conceived institutional understanding from the medieval ages - This is not meant sarcastically, but there were many works concluding in strange views regarding women and 'romantic')
 
1Co 7:1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

(not touch a woman) (Nevertheless) (better to have wife)  seems quite clear. Does it, though? Here's the funny thing: you've completely misunderstood the meaning and the context of 1 Corinthians 7:1-3! It was the Corinthians who proposed to Paul that it was 'good not to marry' (obviously your dictionary didn't explain for you the grammatical markers that make plain the 'direction' of the statement, i.e. the use of περὶ δὲ). Paul responded to their mistaken view by pointing out that asceticism of this sort wasn't necessary; that forced 'singleness' (rather than the God given gift of celibacy) ran with it the risk of descending into lust, and from lust to sexual immorality (apparently you failed to note that ἅπτεσθαι is an infinitive; ἅπτομαι is the verb form).

Here's how Leon Morris exegeted our passage in his Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians: 1-3, pp. 104-106 (the bolded emphases are mine):

Paul turns to the specific subjects on which the Corinthians had written to him, the first of which is marriage. In antiquity some people had a deep admiration for ascetic practices, including celibacy, and clearly some of the Corinthians shared this view. Paul makes every concession to their point of view. He agrees that celibacy is ‘good’, and he points to some of its advantages. But he regards marriage as normal, and he will later make the point that, though there are some advantages in celibacy, there is a greater completeness in marriage (11:11). Celibacy requires a special gift from God, and Paul is not unmindful of the stresses involved in living the Christian life in Corinth, with its constant pressure from the low standards of pagan sexual morality, and what he calls ‘the present crisis’ (v. 26). He himself prefers celibacy, but his advocacy of that state is very moderate. He does not command a celibate life for all who can sustain it, nor does he say that celibacy is morally superior to marriage. He regards marriage as the norm, but recognizes that there are some to whom God has given a special gift, who should remain unmarried.

1. ‘Now concerning’ (peri de), which begins this verse, is a formula introducing topics raised in the letter from the Corinthians (again in v. 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). It is possible that we should take the words It is good … as a quotation from what the Corinthians had written (Bruce notes that this view is as old as Origen) ... Good does not here mean ‘necessary’ or ‘morally better’ (cf. vv. 8, 26; Gen. 2:18; Jonah 4:3, 8). It is simply something to be commended, rather than blamed. Not to marry is NIV’s interpretation of what is more literally ‘not to touch a woman’ (RSV). ‘Touch’ in such a context is often used of sexual relations (e.g. Gen. 20:6; Prov. 6:29). It is possible that some of the Corinthians thought it advisable for believers to have no sexual relations in marriage. Paul, however, would not have called this good; he saw sexual relations as a necessary part of marriage (vv. 3–4). NIV’s interpretation seems better. Paul’s view is that the unmarried are freer to serve God, since they are without the cares attendant on the married state (vv. 32ff.). But this does not imply that the married state is not also good. Our Lord commanded the rich young ruler to sell all that he had, but this does not imply that all ownership of goods is an evil.

2. The general rule is that people should be married and the expressions his own wife and her own husband point to monogamy. Paul is agreeing that celibacy is good, but he is also pointing out that temptation abounded: there is so much immorality (the word is plural, pointing to many acts). In the face of such temptation each should be married. Should have is an imperative, a command, not a permission. There will be exceptions (v. 7), but Paul leaves no doubt as to what is normal. Since fornication was so common at Corinth it was hard for the unmarried to remain chaste and hard for them to persuade others that they were, in fact, chaste. Some complain that Paul is here giving expression to a low view of marriage. But, of course, he is not here expounding his view of the married state (cf. Eph. 5:28ff.). He is not saying that this is the only reason for marriage; he is dealing with a specific question in the light of an actual situation. Calvin comments, ‘the question is not as to the reasons for which marriage has been instituted, but as to the persons for whom it is necessary.’ Conzelmann thinks Paul’s words ‘unfashionable, but realistic’.

3. Each partner in a marriage has rights and Paul calls on each to pay what is due (tēn opheilēn). Each owes duties to the other. Paul does not stress the duty of either partner at the expense of the other, but puts them on a level, a noteworthy position in the male-dominated society of the time. His verb is the present imperative, which indicates the habitual duty. It is significant that he stresses the importance of giving rather than getting. Marriage is the giving of oneself to another.

A brief check through the majority of uses in the new testament confirms the dictionary's statement on the 'handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it or upon oneself' ... all the uses I just examined were limited to 'touching' a person, a part/member of a person (like an eye for healing) or something a person wore for clothing. Infants were touched (so es to impart a blessing), people were touched in order to be healed (passively and actively). I saw no single use for 'touching' an object or the surface etc.. as other Greek words often are used for. So ... I won't spend more time on this without cause... the case seems clear.

Well it seems that there is 'cause' after all. That you've uncritically relied on your dictionary's general definition of the (verbal form of the) word in question, and then without considering the fact of grammar. Consequently, Torben, this example demonstrates quite conclusively that you still have a thing or two to learn.

Goose.

Ian

Ian: Let's now consider a pertinent example of the fact of 'semantic range/domain' that exists within individual Greek lexemes. The simple word σάρξ can mean: (1) flesh, (2) human striving, (3) sinful nature, (4) man, (5) no one, (6) outwardly, (7) that nature, (8) ordinary way, (9) illness, and (10) physical. Knowing what the word 'means' in isolation doesn't help one jot when we have to consider the competing possibilities that can apply when Paul uses our word in one of his letters. Let's review, for example, Romans 7:18. Did the apostle mean, 'I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my physical body'? Or should it be read, '... sinful nature'? Or '... human nature'?

Pilgrim: The word is not a isolated as you make it pout to be, because we have the entire context. We just need to establish the meaning of a few 'single (isolated?) words in order to establish the answer to your query.

Rom 7:17  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (where?)
Rom 7:18  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh σαρκι (so which of the possible translations applies?),) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me (in my (spiritual) mind/inner man); but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21  I find then a law (or figuratively a principle... being=), that, when I would do good (according to the inward man), evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22  For I delight in the law (this not talking about the principle above, but the proper law of God) of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23  But I see another law (which principally (as a rule) contradicts 1 the law of God as well as 2 my own will according to the inner man, as well as 3 the law of my mind - these three seem to form an alliance/common target for the sinful law/principle) in my members (μελεσιν = moving clearly towards the actual members or limbs of the body - the idea of figurative meaning does not seem apparent), warring against the law of my mind (the same attack target defines/connects this law as being the same as in our 'flesh' σαρκι) , and bringing me (the inner man/spiritual mind) into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (μελεσιν members or limbs of the actual physical body).
Rom 7:24  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body (σωματος - now another clue that this is the physical body. A metaphorical or figurative application does not seem applicable, as we are certainly not dealing with a body of believers like the church nor any other similar figur that can apply - the apostle elaborates on his personal struggle as an individual) of this death?
Rom 7:25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh (σαρκι) the law of sin.

Out of hundreds of words I only consulted the dictionaries for three: flesh, body and members. Normally at this stage I would NOT proceed to teach anything 'newly found' as yet, but would consult many other sources and theological views. My results from looking up words in greek dictionaries are not the final word, but a tool to give further insight. I fail to understand how this can be ditrimetical to the stablishing of further insight.

Ian: Consequently, you might then compare how the various versions have translated the phrase, but in doing so you aren't exercising an informed judgment based on first-hand familiarity with the structures and strictures of the Greek language. To the contrary, you're largely dependent on the judgment of others. Limitations of this sort don't apply to those of us who've gone to the trouble of learning the biblical languages sufficiently well; we are able to exercise a measure of independent judgment.

Pilgrim: So you are saying I am dependent on the judgement of others even after consulting 10 bible versions? I could not have made my point better - thank you :) So you suggest getting a basic understanding of Greek gramma and a descent dictionary... or the consultation of an 11th source being you (solution to the problem = accept the problem = illogical)?  The rest of your comment once more puts you on a podest (getting used to this) and hails your advantages, which nobody denies. The usefulness of trained exegets has been recognised by me in several posts. In your struggle to once more proclaim your monopoly you do not demonstrate how using a dictionary could be harmful. Of course there are people who are very careless in this regard, but we also do not call gun's evil, but their misuse by criminals.

Greetings, Torben

Torben,

Go back and review my last response before you allow your unchecked pride to dig you into a deeper hole ;)

Goose.

Ian

Dear Ian,

I am sorry to destroy your illusion, but I was entirely and fully aware of the context and the aforegone letter to Paul (and many commentaries worth of ideas on it's content). I am also aware of the old testament scriptures, but left them out A in order to give you less room for some smart joker words of hebrew greek blabla etc... and B because the context is entirely sufficient to CONNECT the touching of a women in our passage to such as has an effect (:-) on her... and it can hardly be presumed that Paul would suggest such outside of a Christian wedding.

May I ask what leads you to the assumption that I did not know the context?

Greetings, Pilgrim

P.S. Oh yes - sure I got plenty to learn.

Torben, once more.

I am sorry to destroy your illusion, but I was entirely and fully aware of the context and the aforegone letter to Paul (and many commentaries worth of ideas on it's content). I am also aware of the old testament scriptures, but left them out A in order to give you less room for some smart joker words of hebrew greek blabla etc... and B because the context is entirely sufficient to CONNECT the touching of a women in our passage to such as has an effect (:-) on her... and it can hardly be presumed that Paul would suggest such outside of a Christian wedding. May I ask what leads you to the assumption that I did not know the context? Sure, I'd be happy to explain. The fact that: (a) you believe 'touch' was the appropriate translation, when the infinitive requires 'marry'. (b) That you believed the statement logically implied that 'touching' leads to 'fornication' which leads to Christian marriage, when Paul was teaching that 'ascetic singleness' places one at risk of sexual immorality. And, (c) that you harped long and hard on the definition of the verb as 'to touch in a physical sense', when the construct of the clause was discussing a 'state' rather than an action, i.e. marriage.

How's that?

Ian

Your answer is pleasing and saddening at the same time,

Pleasing, because the majority of readers can see quite clearly how cunning you are and distort whatever is necessary, rather than making concessions.
Sad, because I do not rejoice in anybody abasing themselves publicly in such a manner.

I only used 'to touch' as this is the word chosen by the translator. My further research of the context (and some slight backup of Greek dictionaries) clearly established that this is in regard to a marriage relationship to a woman, rather than the touch of her hand etc... I did not attempt to find a better word, but a deeper understanding of the passage. I will leave it to you to correct the translator. I did notice the present infinitive, but refrained from jumping to conclusions, as Luke 6:19 also uses the Present Middle Infinitive and I did not picture the multitude seeking a mass-wedding with the Lord as a result of the poewer going out from Him. Me being not an expert of NT Greek and seeing another use of the same form being clearly not a marriage would not allow me to make such verdicts. This should be a point for me using a dictionary - not against it. How do you account for Luke 6:19 απτεσθαι not being marriage... if I may ask?

My point was clearly that utilising a Greek dictionary helps - and is not useless in non-acedemical hands.

I never asserted that touching a woman leads to fornication, which leads to marriage... but then.. we all know that don't we?

That we are talking about marriage as a state, rather than a one-night-stand is quite apparent - don't you think?

I entirely sign up to it being 'Paul was teaching that 'ascetic singleness' places one at risk of sexual immorality'. Now that I have pasted your own words... this is probably the only chance of not getting at least a few consecutive words twisted and wrested.

Ian: How's that?
Pilgrim: Thats male cow dung my dear favorite pharisee.

Torben,

Ah, so now I'm a Pharisee too? Well, clearly you're far too smart for the likes of simple ol' me ;)

By the way, I'm just loving your conspiracy theories.

Goose.

Ian

Ian, I revised my latest answer... you may want to revise yours?

Torben

Why would I want to revise my response?

Ian

It was just a 'fair making aware' to notify you that I edited a post that preceeded your latest answer. You do not have to.
The added remark was:

I did notice the present infinitive, but refrained from jumping to conclusions, as Luke 6:19 also uses the Present Middle Infinitive and I did not picture the multitude seeking a mass-wedding with the Lord as a result of the poewer going out from Him. Me being not an expert of NT Greek and seeing another use of the same form being clearly not a marriage would not allow me to make such verdicts. This should be a point for me using a dictionary - not against it. How do you account for Luke 6:19 απτεσθαι not being marriage... if I may ask?

Pilgrim

Torben,

'Yes', I noted your revision, but I'll ask again: why would I want to edit my previous response?

Ian

You might have wanted to answer because you made three incorrect statements in order to keep up your view that my (and any non-academic's) usage of greek dictionaries is inapproriate (not that I cared too much for my own sake only - but I would like to demonstrate to readers that have swallowed the pill that this is in fact not the case):

(a) you believe 'touch' was the appropriate translation, when the infinitive requires 'marry'.

The possibility that Paul wrote 'to touch' is not yet completely out of the window, (despite the fact that he obviously implied more than just touching). It is also still possible that he had intimacy (not marriage) in mind in this particular wording, but the context of course immediately moves to marriage (it cannot be outwith marriage). My point on the other usage of the infinitive form not being translated as marriage (even though in entirely different context) goes unanswered. And beside all this... I never claimed that 'to touch' was the correct translation, but used a dictionary to gain further inside as to what could be implied ... this not being the ordinary touch 'handling' of an object. So your statement about my findings appers to be incorrect?

(b) That you believed the statement logically implied that 'touching' leads to 'fornication' which leads to Christian marriage, when Paul was teaching that 'ascetic singleness' places one at risk of sexual immorality. And,

I never believed anything to that extent, but you do not seem to mind?

(c) that you harped long and hard on the definition of the verb as 'to touch in a physical sense', when the construct of the clause was discussing a 'state' rather than an action, i.e. marriage.

my 'harping along the usage of the greek verb' seems part of a proper approach and resulted only in a clear indication that all examined uses of the former confirmed the dictionary's point of it being more than the ordinary touch of an object, and it was therefore not strange to the context. I do not see how this can be interpreted to show my miscomprehension of the context (which was your charge). If I did indeed fail to see that the infinite form requires the translation 'to marry' despite it's other use in the same form not being 'to marry'(I am not necessarily contending this... but waiting for your answer), then I still got further insight by using the tools available to me, even should I not have arrived at your final expert conclusion (which would still leave me in common error with the great majority of bible translations)

So three slightly incorrect or overbearing statements don't you think? Why you would want to answer? I wouldn't know...

Torben,

Three 'slightly incorrect' or 'over bearing' statements? 'No',  I don't so actually. If your explanation of where you think I've erred is the extent of your reasoning/defence on the matter, then all I can suggest is that you try a little harder and dig a little deeper ;)

Now, if I may 'harp' on a matter I'm still awaiting your response to the following question: do you believe the CAI is part of the Christian Church/Body of Christ or not?

Ian

But I do not know the answer Ian, I hoped you could help :)

And I am entirely happy to rest the 'Greek dictionary' discussion as it stands. Don't add anything further.. then neither need I. I believe the point is sufficiently clear.

Greetings, Pilgrim

Hi Biblianut,

I agree with everything you wrote. I feel though that your post bypasses the actual subject of the discussion at hand. None of the posts above are essentially dealing with any level of knowledge already reached, but with an obvious quiete differend view on as to how one may increase in the knowledge of God and scripture and by what means.

More precisely the discussion focussed on the use of greek dictionaries and beneficial entry level understanding of Greek grammar. Your pointed out requirement for knowledge of the OT is selfexplanatory. Regarding 'church history' and 'church fathers'; if you are with these terms adressing the early curch history as found in the book of the acts of the Apostles and the writings of the New Testament and with the church 'fathers' the apostles, then I would agree that they are absolutely essential. If you however had the subsequent bishops, renown church men of the subsequent centories and or the reformers in mind, then I would submit that knowledge about these would be beneficial but in no wise required.

Again, starting to listen to others and realising that we know very little are essential to a christian, regardless of state of walk and understanding. On a discussion forum you will rarely find people nicely dwelling in harmony and agreement and the tone and manner when they converse in other environments would probably quite different. The very nature of a 'discussion' forum such as this is that people coe here to 'thrash out' matters of doctrince. Despite this not looking 'nice lovely christian' it more resembles the sharpening of stones and I believe there is indeed benefit for the oponents as well as for the audience. I feel it would be almost unrealistic to expect that everybody nicely accepts the other's belief for himself, without some serious saber ratteling :) and logical persuasion. There is even the possibility for the one or the other participant to click to one or two things eventually, even without publically admitting this here (even though this would be very nice and commendable... if not even actually required, but such is the nature of a discussion forum).

So, besides agreeing to all your comments on humility and realising that I do not know much at all - I would like to let you know that it is not a matter of arrogance that leads me into confrontation with Ian's views. I have purchased a better dictionary on his advice, started to lern Greek grammar on his advice, repented of 'baptism HG tongues' partially due to his work (even though the gutfeeling had been lingering there for quite a while God had made me ' ready' for it). I will also purchase BDAG in the near future. Unfortunately I cannot limit my sources of persuasion by the truth to Ian... and moreover I feel the more we are discussion it appears he is dead-wrong on a few very essential matters. So - what you will not find me doing on this discussion forum is saying amen to error - If you define this as arrogance, then what difference is there to CAI - where all the 'clergy' is always right by divine appointment and any difference or critic by the 'subordinates' is immediately and automatically perceived as arrogance and pride?

When it comes to anything like taking the Word of God from the common believer and hide it in dead languages, forbid access to it, state that they are dependent on an interpreter/priest, when you create the impression it is 'to high' for them to fully grasp it rather then encourage them to move ahead with all means, when you distort the biblical image of the ekklesia and introduce an unscripural clergy, when you compell christians to join commonly recognised religeous bodies and forbid them to assemble outside of these entirely on your own authority, in fact when you engage in any activity or discussion that 'deminishes' the standing, priveliges and liberty of the believer for whom Christ died on the cross, when you pilosophise (contrary to scriptures - as we are warned not to be deceived by the vain philosophy of man and beguiled of our reward) and seek to ensare the believers into institutions that outwardly apparently comply with some basic points of doctrine and create the erroneous illusion that membership and fulfilment of a ticklist or sacraments leads them to God... instead of leading them out of the and unspotted by the world into an intimate living relationship with God and fervent love towards the brethren, that by such a display we can that they are the recognisable disciples of Christ....

....when you do any thing to that extend then I am affraid you will further find me 'arrogantly' resisting you with the word and reason. In such a case my error can only be corrected with scriptural and logical persuasion. I would submit that I have submitted to all persuasive arguments and stand fully persuaded in my own mind - and that not being persuaded of being error free - not at all.

So it is not a matter of what we know at all, but how we go about striving until we all come to the full meaure of the stature of the knowledge of Christ and what means are 'allowed' us by the 'church' to achieve these. And nobody is arguing against being taught by other teachers in the congregation or body of Christ - by being persuaded with scripture and reason.

I have used 'you' throughout this answer  - please do not feel wrongly charged for anything stated that you do not represent. The 'you' is a general for .. whoever feels addressed.

I sincerely hope that this makes sense.

Love and greetings, Pilgrim

CAI = White trash. But in som years they will be passed by skillful Chinese and Indies for example. CAI belongs to the history, a dark history. 

The Cai-leaders are just cowardly psychopaths, who false blame other people. Put them into jail, so you get rid of them. They will only poisoning the world.

Cai - you´re out of your minds. Can´t you understand that.