- Jun 12, 2009
- 5,244
- 1,767
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
One can always HOPE 'that'. But my experience is that those you are most 'hopeful' for, aren't here to 'seek the truth', they are here 'seeking to win' because they think they already know the truth.Yes and it does appear that our cessationist friends have withdrawn for a time where I hope that they wlll take a good look at the material that we've been supplying.
See, now I can only 'hope' for you too then.I will have to hold to the accepted position regarding the use of S/spirit especially as it relates to Rom 8:26 as there is simply far too much Biblical and lexical evidence to change.
Read the bold. I'll 'hope' for them also. Because, that's the problem I have with translations. What grammatical base do they 'attempt to' do it by? Or is it Pretext-context-biblical TEXT? I honestly don't know. Bullinger does a lot with the presence of the definite article. If 'the' is in the Greek it's Him/Spirit. If it's not, then it's our/spirit generally speaking. Nothing is ever 100% though, and I think that just makes God just at us. Reminds me of a seminar where Jack Taylor was speaking in Dallas.The Tyndale NT (1534) and the Bishops NT (1595) certainly both have Spirit in the lower case as does the KJV (1611) but not the KJV (1769). The Bishops NT seems to only use spirit and not Spirit when it refers to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. The Tyndale appears to be the same where maybe this was symptomatic of the period where they seemed to know and experience little of the Holy Spirit in their meetings. It's interesting how the revisers of the KJV (1769) moved away from this earlier 1611 convention to where they have attempted to capitlise S/spirit appropriately.
Jack said; "When man decided to 'INVENT THEOLOGY'...or, 'the study of God', I'm pretty sure that God just, sit back, breathed out (His Spirit?), and said to Himself; "Oh Boy, this ought to be good."
(His Spirit?) above, was me.
But as I shared last time, Bullinger feels that in the book of Romans, and particularly 8:26, the definite article litmus kinda changes with the new nature of a born again spirit, in the Romans story line..(my opinion of his thinking...uh, I think). Our spirit becomes one with the Lord's which is of the same essence as The Spirit. I'm confused earlier in Romans though with;
ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Concerning "his Spirit" at the en of verse 11, the interlinear says "the indwelling OF HIM Spirit."
I'm of the persuasion that this is not talking about The Spirit of God, but the spirit of the Jesus. The same spirit which vivified his body, and in which he went and preached to the spirits of them who died in the pre-deluvian age.
When it comes to an lexical study of the Holy Spirit, even though the afore mentioned books by Keener and Thiselton are indespensable, I probably need to add in a third book by Fee titled God's Empowering Presence which has becom a virtual standard for any study on the Holy Spirit, both from a lexical and a theological perspective.
Fee applied 7 pages to Rom 8:26 and due to copyright limitations I will only provide one page of his material which is contained in the 'spoiler'. I enjoy using this BBcode option as it allows a long post to look reasonably short, or where people can easily pass the material by if it doesn't interest them.
God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Gordon D. Fee (1996) pgs.612-13
2. The present sentences, in fact, correspond remarkably with what Paul elsewhere calls “praying with/in the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:14-15; Eph 6:18).326 These correspondences occur at two crucial points: (a) the Spirit is the subject of the verb “interceding,” that is, the Spirit himself is seen as praying from within us and (b) the persons involved do not understand what the Spirit is saying—or not saying, as the case may be.
A dichotomist's dilemma maybe, but not for this trichotomist.When we turn to Paul’s other notations about prayer, especially private prayer, besides the prayer reports of various kinds (which describe intelligible praying), we have especially the description of his own prayer life in 1 Cor 14:14-15, that it is of two kinds: praying with his mind and praying with his S/spirit. Although this text is too allusive for us to know for sure what “praying with his mind” meant,
OR they weren't Pentecostal and didn't have the Spirit's presence in their life, to help 'more' in their translational endeavors. Thereby leaving them to lean more on their own soul-ish abilities to translate....IMO. And, in being honest with themselves they knew that 'they really didn't know' whether it should be capitalized or not.The Bishops NT seems to only use spirit and not Spirit when it refers to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. The Tyndale appears to be the same where maybe this was symptomatic of the period where they new and experienced little of the Holy Spirit in their meetings.
Not even a journey I want to take, but do love to hear about your view from the tip of the informational iceberg.The reason for this is probably two-fold in that as contemporary scholarship has far surpassed that of old and where the newer better commentaries are highly peer-reviewed, this allows me to encounter the 'best-of-the-best' where I am able to consider all the options so to speak.
I'm impressed and overwhelmed. I'm in the IT dark ages and simply big on, a heart for God. And a heavy dependence on him for that same reason. The 'true' depths of God will never be plumbed any deeper with the 'mind of man' than the man that has not, 'the mind' but 'a heart for' God.As I also use BibleWorks 9, this program provides me with about six Greek lexicons and upward of about 30 Bible translations so this gives me the benefit of being able to obtain a lot of raw data regarding a specific Greek word. Of course the free www.biblehub.com is a superb resource as well.
It's also easy to drown when you can't swim. Even if someone 'shows' you how. Sorry, old dog dialogue kicking against the IT goad.Thankyou. For my paper editions of my commentaries I use ABBYY FineReader 12 Pro to scan them into an electronic format and I use the free Logos utility 'Shibboleth' which allows me to correctly format any Greek (and Hebrew) words that can often be lost in transition. So all I have to do is to pick an appropriate article, scan it and check any Greek references and paste it into the forum - it's easy once someone shows you what tools are availble.
All this quote needs to be perfect, is an IMO at the end. IMO anyway.For me, both the Dichotomist and Trichotomist positions had me confused for years where I tended to switch sides every so often. Now that I am a functional-Dichotomist the world now makes sense for me!
PS If you respond, please try to be short. It took me til now to get through this one post. And it hasn't even been that busy at the office. I'm just that slow.
Upvote
0