Foolishness or fact?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

When many people talk about understanding these things, I think they mean experiencing them. Rational discussion suppresses emotional experience I think, and vice versa.

I don't think this is necessarily true (although I do agree that some things can only be understood through experience). Ideally, rational discussion and emotional experience can complement each other. Perhaps the challenge of integrating the two is an important part of spiritual growth.

Originally posted by castlerook
You're quite welcome. This would perhaps be an appropriate moment to say that I have found your posts helpful in my own journey for a while (I would browse these boards for some time before doing any posting), so thank you too.

Regarding your axioms for theological discourse, which I find quite interesting, it occurs to me that all of them, not just ...[text shortened]... ut the assumption of a supernatural category.

So much for restricting myself to poetry. 🙂

I agree with your observation about a pantheistic framework. It seems to me that some of the things we have learned about the "natural totality" are far odder than any "supernatural" musings.

Originally posted by castlerook
Regarding your axioms for theological discourse, which I find quite interesting, it occurs to me that all of them, not just A4, are for "strict theism." For example, I think one can have theological discourse within a pantheistic framework (God being immanent throughout the universe), without the assumption of a supernatural category

Yes, you are quite right (as No.1 also points out); I should have been more precise.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"The mystical" is nothing more than an emotional state and those things which evoke that emotional state. How much time can most people spend intelligently discussing any emotion? Love? Courage? Terror?

When many people talk about understanding these things, I think they mean experiencing them. Rational discussion suppresses emotional experience I think, and vice versa.

The word “mystical” is used in a lot of different ways. I do not use it to refer either to an emotional state or for any kind of supernaturalism.

How strange it is to read all of your posts and see that not a one of you understood at all the meaning of what was said.

But it was no surprise.

You see, if you were to compare the two references, you would have noticed a change between what was previously written by Isaiah and then later by Paul.

The point is that at the time when Isaiah wrote that "men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him", no one had any idea what God has prepared for those who believe.

Then along comes Paul and declares that "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:"

A little further along in 1Corinthians 2:16 you'll read " But we have the mind of Christ."

For the one who places their trust in what was accomplished for us at the cross God gives His Holy Spirit to indwell and reveal the things that were previously unknown.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. It's some kind of magic decoder ring thing. But it's really not. You think it is, but that's because you don't have the spirit of Christ.

Why don't you try to at least examine the context to see what the concepts are about so we can discuss/debate what it says instead of focusing on an argument that clouds the issue in a maze of intellectual jargon.

Originally posted by josephw
How strange it is to read all of your posts and see that not a one of you understood at all the meaning of what was said.

But it was no surprise.

You see, if you were to compare the two references, you would have noticed a change between what was previously written by Isaiah and then later by Paul.

The point is that at the time when Isaiah wrote th d of focusing on an argument that clouds the issue in a maze of intellectual jargon.

Okay, okay. 😉

The Isaiah passage seems subject to different readings. I give several English translations below:

____________________________

KJV Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

NIV Isaiah 64:4 Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.

NRS Isaiah 64:4 From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who works for those who wait for him.

NJB Isaiah 64:3 Never has anyone heard, no ear has heard, no eye has seen any god but you act like this for the sake of those who trust him.

And from two Jewish translations—

JPS Isaiah 64:3 Such things had never been heard or noted. No eye has seen [them], O God, but You, Who act for those who trust in You.

STONE Isaiah 64:3 [People] had never heard, never observed, no eye had ever seen a god—except for You—that acted for those who trust in Him. (This is an Orthodox Jewish translation.)

____________________________________

Apparently the text can be read either way: (1) no one has seen such a God, or (2) only God has seen these things [KJV and JPS].

Given the context, I would lean toward (1). Your distinction depends on (2). Now, did the Israelites see such things as mentioned by Isaiah in verse 2, or verse 3, depending on the numbering (at Sinai, for example)? Did Isaiah not see them?

______________________________________

Further, the Hebrew word asah means to do, fashion, accomplish, work—not “prepare” as the Greek has it in Paul’s letter, and the KJV puts into Isaiah’s mouth. Nor does Paul quote from the Greek Septuagint here, which also uses the Greek word for “work” to accurately translate asah. Somebody, it appears, mistranslated.

EDIT: "Prepare" can, of course, be taken in the sense of "to prepare a meal", in which case one does not have to take the NT Greek as meaning anything oriented toward an otherworldy future; and the whole thing could be taken as a rather free rendering.

Nevertheless, the Greek word used in Corinthians does not correspond with that used in the Isaiah verse. It is not a direct quote of either the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, okay. 😉

The Isaiah passage seems subject to different readings. I give several English translations below:

____________________________

KJV Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

NIV I ...[text shortened]... used in the Isaiah verse. It is not a direct quote of either the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

That's the problem with translations. And they can even distort the meaning. But in order to get a copyright enough of the text has to be changed.

Nevertheless the meaning is clear. Except maybe Stone's translation.

Paul did change the reading at the end of the verse. And for a specific reason. From "...for him that waiteth for him." To, "...for them that love him."

Men were looking forward in Isaiah's time, and so "waited for him." But now we know him because he has already come, and "we love him", and are subsequently filled with his spirit so that we can now say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"

Originally posted by josephw
That's the problem with translations. And they can even distort the meaning. But in order to get a copyright enough of the text has to be changed.

Nevertheless the meaning is clear. Except maybe Stone's translation.

Paul did change the reading at the end of the verse. And for a specific reason. From "...for him that waiteth for him." To, "...for them t ...[text shortened]... st, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"

Paul did change the reading at the end of the verse. And for a specific reason. From "...for him that waiteth for him." To, "...for them that love him."

Wow: I can’t believe I missed that. I’ve always said that I think Paul was a brilliant midrashist. One of my study Bibles showed in its footnotes where sometimes he would quote directly from the Hebrew text, sometimes (maybe most often) from the Greek Septuagint, sometimes from the Targum (an older Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures)—and sometimes apparently his own rendering of the text.

I shouldn’t have said “mistranslation”—I agree, I think he purposely altered the text to make his own theological point. That is perfectly in line with his own Jewish midrashic tradition; I suspect he purposely changed to word for “worked” to the word for “prepared” as well—although I think it was a mistake for the KJV translators to go back and change it in their translation of Isaiah as well...

Originally posted by josephw
How strange it is to read all of your posts and see that not a one of you understood at all the meaning of what was said.

But it was no surprise.

You see, if you were to compare the two references, you would have noticed a change between what was previously written by Isaiah and then later by Paul.

The point is that at the time when Isaiah wrote th ...[text shortened]... d of focusing on an argument that clouds the issue in a maze of intellectual jargon.

Joseph,
I read your post and was more interested in a conversation with Visted.
Sorry.

Visted,
Your responses kind of remind me of Albus Dumbledore.

Originally posted by josephw

Why don't you try to at least examine the context to see what the concepts are about so we can discuss/debate what it says instead of focusing on an argument that clouds the issue in a maze of intellectual jargon.

But you didn't ask us to discuss what the quotes said, you asked us state whether they were "foolishness, or fact."

I answered the question with a question. Or rather, I was trying to illustrate why the question is meaningless.

Originally posted by mdhall
Joseph,
I read your post and was more interested in a conversation with Visted.
Sorry.

Visted,
Your responses kind of remind me of Albus Dumbledore.

Gee, I don't know if that's good or bad...