Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

[BigV]

Yes, I made up the context for this scenario, and your choice to ignore context made you run face first into it. What you should learn from this exercise is that context actually matters, and should not be ignored even in present circumstances.

You are using an old trick and there is even a video on it. Your 'context' effectively turned the Bible into a meaningless gibberish.

 

[Sanoy]

The problem is, that you can never know then what Jesus means. If you can wiggle out of John 14:12, how can you be sure you are understanding John 3:16 and John 3:18 correctly?

You (and @Sanoy) are using 'context' as a magic wand to twist the text into what benefits you at the moment. This is never done with texts promising eternal life, because they are not testable like the promise of John 14:12 or any other promise that applies to this life and fails.

All I am saying is that context matters, and determines whether a singular possession can be made into a plural possession. You claim it does, so you need to make that case while considering context. Or you can continue to ignore it, break all your teeth in against the "wall" you voluntarily ignore, while claiming Christians are at fault, and God's claims are defeated.

I'm going to go ahead and jump to that conclusion. I have my mat, my jumping shoes, I've stretched, and I'm ready for that jump. You are more interested in putting God away from your thoughts, than discovering the truth about Him and all that entails. Such a statement is easily dismissed by words, but deeds are sustained.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is, that you can never know then what Jesus means. If you can wiggle out of John 14:12, how can you be sure you are understanding John 3:16 and John 3:18 correctly?

You (and @Sanoy) are using 'context' as a magic wand to twist the text into what benefits you at the moment. This is never done with texts promising eternal life, because they are not testable like the promise of John 14:12 or any other promise that applies to this life and fails.

BigV, if you've noticed, I haven't in the least been concerned with this discussion that you and @Sanoy are presently in. My contextual "abberations" have lain elsewhere and thus far, only @Sanoy has even bothered to address my other contextual LEVEL, and I say level because not only are there contexts, there are different levels or kinds of context. And this fact is inherent to ALL human communication; it's just a part of human reality and you seem dead set on ignoring that fact. In doing so, it kind tells those of us around there that .................... well, I don't want to jump to that conclusion just yet, so I'll refrain, for now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are using an old trick and there is even a video on it. Your 'context' effectively turned the Bible into a meaningless gibberish.

I'll see your video and 'raise' you one, and this isn't even specifically a 'Christian' video:

 

[BigV]

You are more interested in putting God away from your thoughts, than discovering the truth about Him and all that entails. Such a statement is easily dismissed by words, but deeds are sustained.

You have nothing left. Either you are purposely ignoring that fact or unable to understand that if you are doing with the rest of the Bible what you have just to the 'context', you have nothing. I'm not even sure what God you are interested in discovering the truth about, when you have a book that is for all intents and purposes worthless when 'context' is applied to it.

What promise of this God applies to you? No promise applies to you, unless you suspend your John 14:12 acrobatics.

 

[Sanoy]

You have nothing left. Either you are purposely ignoring that fact or unable to understand that if you are doing with the rest of the Bible what you have just to the 'context', you have nothing. I'm not even sure what God you are interested in discovering the truth about, when you have a book that is for all intents and purposes worthless when 'context' is applied to it.

What promise of this God applies to you? No promise applies to you, unless you suspend your John 14:12 acrobatics.

If I have nothing it is because you have provided me nothing for your claim. In that sense you are absolutely correct, as all any of us have received from you is ad hominems against conclusions derived from Christians

 

[cloudyday2]

@BigV , I had a thought on your opening post. There is more to intellectual honesty than choosing the correct standard of truth - there is also the issue of applying that standard uniformly to all possible truths. I have been annoyed on CF when some Christians sneer like the snarkiest of atheists at claims of UFOs and ghosts, but they will indignantly defend Christian claims tooth and toenail. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

 

[BigV]

If I have nothing it is because you have provided me nothing for your claim. In that sense you are absolutely correct, as all any of us have received from you is ad hominems against conclusions derived from Christians

I'm glad you see the error of your ways. You have likely realized that any verse you quote as a promise from God will be picked apart just as John 14:12 was picked apart, and you will be left with.. NADA, which is what you have now. Has nothing to do with me or Atheism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@BigV , I had a thought on your opening post. There is more to intellectual honesty than choosing the correct standard of truth - there is also the issue of applying that standard uniformly to all possible truths. I have been annoyed on CF when some Christians sneer like the snarkiest of atheists at claims of UFOs and ghosts, but they will indignantly defend Christian claims tooth and toenail. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

...Well then, let it be known throughout the kingdom from this day forward that 2PhiloVoid is "admitting" to being dishonest-------------if being skeptical about UFOs and Ghosts is indeed an act of dishonesty. Ok. I'll CLAIM the low ground! NOW, join ME! And together WE will RULE the universe! (...fill in with multiple breath-mask sounds, rasping one after another...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm glad you see the error of your ways. You have likely realized that any verse you quote as a promise from God will be picked apart just as John 14:12 was picked apart, and you will be left with.. NADA, which is what you have now. Has nothing to do with me or Atheism.

One could still be left with ... a figure of speech that still points to some other, more subtle aspect of Christianity in reality. So, let's not be too hasty in declaring the body dead and dumping it over the cliff. Maybe we just need to get it to the hospital, pronto!

 

[Silmarien]

I am specifically concerned with ὁ. The ὁ is still singular and sets the scope of the statement. I don't see how John 11:25 needs be translated as whoever, and so I don't see what weight it carries on John 14:12. It is still translated here "the one", and singular in YLT. If the sentence was intended to establish a normative law rather than pertaining to individuals we should see Whosoever instead. But we don't get that, that isn't used here, instead we get a sentence focused on singular individuals. Using "whoever" is fine for simplification, but to make a precise theological point the actual grammar is what we should start with. We cannot derive a normative law based on a simplified translation of whoever, especially when we know it is focused on singular individuals.

I wouldn't say that either verse needs to be translated as "whoever," since English is more flexible than that. I would do so just because "he who believes" is strange in modern English, and in other languages like Spanish where that construction still shows up, "whoever" is the go-to English translation. I'm not really sure why you're focused on the fact that ὁ shows up in the singular, though, since that doesn't always imply a singular individual. My expertise is in Spanish whereas my Greek is at best intermediate, but there you see the singular article used regularly in generic constructions like this. (El que tenga honra, que me siga. He who has honor, follow me. Whoever has honor, follow me.)

I tried to do a search for this sort of construction in Greek, and the only thing I managed to come across was "ὁ βουλόμενος εἰς τὴν πατρίδα ἀπιέναι," over on the wikipedia page here: Participle (Ancient Greek) - Wikipedia It literally means "the wanting to go off to the fatherland one," but you see it translated there as "whoever (= any man or soldier who) wants to go home…"

These constructions exist, and "whoever" is a very normal way to translate them, specifically because of the Greek grammar.

(Philo brought up a good point later on, that Jesus spoke figuratively. That is not to say that Jesus meant that figuratively, but rather that the language he uses was not plain but takes some consideration rather than being for immediate normative harvest.)

Oh, I agree. I think we also need to keep in mind the use of exaggeration to illustrate a point, which is common in the New Testament (and in Mediterranean culture more broadly). I am just commenting on the linguistic aspects, here, not the theological ones. If I were to address the theology, my first point would be that we need to consider what John as the author was intending to convey before we can even approach the question of what Jesus meant. There's a lot of debate on how to even start reading the Gospel of John.

 

[BigV]

There's a lot of debate on how to even start reading the Gospel of John.

I think there may have been several authors of the Gospel of "John".

 

[Sanoy]

I'm glad you see the error of your ways. You have likely realized that any verse you quote as a promise from God will be picked apart just as John 14:12 was picked apart, and you will be left with.. NADA, which is what you have now. Has nothing to do with me or Atheism.

I never said those things, are you hallucinating? What are you talking about?

 

[BigV]

Are you hallucinating? What are you talking about?

You have to review what I said in the 'context' mate.

 

[Sanoy]

I wouldn't say that either verse needs to be translated as "whoever," since English is more flexible than that. I would do so just because "he who believes" is strange in modern English, and in other languages like Spanish where that construction still shows up, "whoever" is the go-to English translation. I'm not really sure why you're focused on the fact that ὁ shows up in the singular, though, since that doesn't always imply a singular individual. My expertise is in Spanish whereas my Greek is at best intermediate, but there you see the singular article used regularly in generic constructions like this. (El que tenga honra, que me siga. He who has honor, follow me. Whoever has honor, follow me.)

I tried to do a search for this sort of construction in Greek, and the only thing I managed to come across was "ὁ βουλόμενος εἰς τὴν πατρίδα ἀπιέναι," over on the wikipedia page here: Participle (Ancient Greek) - Wikipedia It literally means "the wanting to go off to the fatherland one," but you see it translated there as "whoever (= any man or soldier who) wants to go home…"

These constructions exist, and "whoever" is a very normal way to translate them, specifically because of the Greek grammar.



Oh, I agree. I think we also need to keep in mind the use of exaggeration to illustrate a point, which is common in the New Testament (and in Mediterranean culture more broadly). I am just commenting on the linguistic aspects, here, not the theological ones. If I were to address the theology, my first point would be that we need to consider what John as the author was intending to convey before we can even approach the question of what Jesus meant. There's a lot of debate on how to even start reading the Gospel of John.

yeah, I think that is what's going on, that it's "translated" whoever because it's simple to read. The purpose of my statement was to confirm what another poster was remembering about the grammar. The purpose in substantiating that thought, is that for a theological point of normative law we should use the original text construction, rather than the present simplified construction. (Further explained in the logical experiment of 191)

(If I ever speak on Greek and you see something wrong please challenge me on it. I do not want to convince someone speciously, and there is potential for me to do that because there is much I am ignorant of.)

 

[Sanoy]

You have to review what I said in the 'context' mate.

I was considering it in context, I never said those things, that is why I asked if you were hallucinating. Am I wrong? or is this further self congratulation?

 

[Silmarien]

yeah, I think that is what's going on, that it's "translated" whoever because it's simple to read. The purpose of my statement was to confirm what another poster was remembering about the grammar. The purpose in substantiating that thought, is that for a theological point of normative law we should use the original text construction, rather than the present simplified construction. (Further explained in the logical experiment of 191)

(If I ever speak on Greek and you see something wrong please challenge me on it. I do not want to convince someone speciously, and there is potential for me to do that because there is much I am ignorant of.)

I am challenging you on the Greek, since I think "whoever" is a perfectly acceptable and perhaps even preferable translation here. It's not simplified just because it's more modern, and I think it captures the original sense better than other options.

But commenting on your logical experiment:

Consider this.
He who throws a dart at the bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.

Are all three statements logically equivalent in regards to the consequence?

In the absence of further information, I would consider these sentences logically equivalent. The second one is reinforced in its meaning, but the first isn't really different in its meaning. This is a generic usage of the word "he"--it isn't limited to a specific person. You would need to specify further and say something like, "The first person who throws a dart at the bullseye will get a free meal on me" to eliminate the universal nature of the first sentence, and this is doubly true in languages where such a sentence wouldn't be stilted and antiquated.

We do see πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (all who believe) and ὁ πιστεύων (he who believes) used somewhat interchangeably in the Gospel of John as it is, and both are technically in the singular. I think the first one is mostly just an added emphasis--whosoever vs. whoever. Look at the difference between John 11:25 and John 11:26. Logically, there isn't really one. So if there's something in the context of this particular scene that makes it look like it applies specifically to the disciples, it's not in this grammatical element itself. I wouldn't trust my skills enough to try a linguistic analysis on the entire passage, though.

 

[Sanoy]

I am challenging you on the Greek, since I think "whoever" is a perfectly acceptable and perhaps even preferable translation here. It's not simplified just because it's more modern, and I think it captures the original sense better than other options.

But commenting on your logical experiment:



In the absence of further information, I would consider these sentences logically equivalent. The second one is reinforced in its meaning, but the first isn't really different in its meaning. This is a generic usage of the word "he"--it isn't limited to a specific person. You would need to specify further and say something like, "The first person who throws a dart at the bullseye will get a free meal on me" to eliminate the universal nature of the first sentence, and this is doubly true in languages where such a sentence wouldn't be stilted and antiquated.

We do see πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (all who believe) and ὁ πιστεύων (he who believes) used somewhat interchangeably in the Gospel of John as it is, and both are technically in the singular. I think the first one is mostly just an added emphasis--whosoever vs. whoever. Look at the difference between John 11:25 and John 11:26. Logically, there isn't really one. So if there's something in the context of this particular scene that makes it look like it applies specifically to the disciples, it's not in this grammatical element itself. I wouldn't trust my skills enough to try a linguistic analysis on the entire passage, though.

I think whoever is fine as a translation with the reader in mind, on that we agree, but it's not a precise translation for theological exposition.

If one wanted to make a straight forward normative law one would say whoever. That isn't used here, and that isn't intended here, something else is. And you can see from the three logical points that you cannot logically make a universal possession from a singular possession without context. That is why whoever is okay as a translation, but not for normative theological rules. The saying in question was said specifically as a response to Philip, and privately among the disciples. Does that mean everyone in the bar, or just those at the dart board? You don't know, so you don't use a universal possession until you do know. It's fine as a translation, few take this to mean every Christian will be raising people from the dead because they are thinking contextually, but the translation is not good enough for theological exposition because whoever and he are not logically equivalent or exchangeable.

Verse 25-26 Is a great example of the difference because Jesus is speaking one on one to a woman, and uses a singular construction, and then follows it with a universal construction, this may be because the latter is not expected from the former.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think whoever is fine as a translation with the reader in mind, on that we agree, but it's not a precise translation for theological exposition.

If one wanted to make a straight forward normative law one would say whoever. That isn't used here, and that isn't intended here, something else is. And you can see from the three logical points that you cannot logically make a universal possession from a singular possession without context. That is why whoever is okay as a translation, but not for normative theological rules. The saying in question was said specifically as a response to Philip, and privately among the disciples. Does that mean everyone in the bar, or just those at the dart board? You don't know, so you don't use a universal possession until you do know. It's fine as a translation, few take this to mean every Christian will be raising people from the dead because they are thinking contextually, but the translation is not good enough for theological exposition because whoever and he are not logically equivalent or exchangeable.

Verse 25-26 Is a great example of the difference because Jesus is speaking one on one to a woman, and uses a singular construction, and then follows it with a universal construction, this may be because the latter is not expected from the former.

Personally, I'm not really seeing the overall relevance of being hog-tied on this lexical and semantic problem involving just one or two words that happen to sit in the middle of a phrase or statement within the biblical verses presently being beaten to death.

Furthermore, I'm not going to name names and stir up trouble, so if you, @BigV and @Silmarien could just quiet it down for the rest of us, I'm sure we can all proceed here in a more useful, peaceful, and mutually congenial fashion that will perhaps get to the actual root of the problem ........

.....or not.

 

[Silmarien]

I think whoever is fine as a translation with the reader in mind, on that we agree, but it's not a precise translation for theological exposition.

If one wanted to make a straight forward normative law one would say whoever. That isn't used here, and that isn't intended here, something else is. And you can see from the three logical points that you cannot logically make a universal possession from a singular possession without context. That is why whoever is okay as a translation, but not for normative theological rules. The saying in question was said specifically as a response to Philip, and privately among the disciples. Does that mean everyone in the bar, or just those at the dart board? You don't know, so you don't use a universal possession until you do know. It's fine as a translation, few take this to mean every Christian will be raising people from the dead because they are thinking contextually, but the translation is not good enough for theological exposition because whoever and he are not logically equivalent or exchangeable.

Except that neither "whoever" nor "he" is used in the original version, since it's obviously not in English. There are languages where the singular article does in certain cases have the force of "whoever" in English, and Greek is one of them. You are taking assumptions derived from the English construction and then applying them back to the Greek, and that doesn't work. You can't simultaneously appeal to the original Greek while focusing on sentence construction in English.

Verse 25-26 Is a great example of the difference because Jesus is speaking one on one to a woman, and uses a singular construction, and then follows it with a universal construction, this may be because the latter is not expected from the former.

They are both singular constructions. πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων is every bit as singular as ὁ πιστεύων. Honestly, my suspicion would be that "πᾶς" is being used in the second because the full clause is "πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων" (all who live and believe), which would be kind of disjointed without a pronoun of sorts to join the two participles, though it does certainly serve to reinforce the universal nature of the first sentence.

I will defer to @2PhiloVoid and drop it, though. I don't agree with the theological argument being made anyway, but you can't invoke the Greek original and then just talk about the difference between "he" and "whoever" in English. The question is how the Greek participle should be understood, not what the word "he" means in English.