Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here.

[Rick Sterling]

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

@ Musicman1228 and Rick Sterling:   Why don't you fellows start your own thread on a topic you'd like to discuss, rather than take over this one?  And hopefully that topic will be one where the Adventist church is not denigrated, made to look foolish, or otherwise disrespected.

I have no intention of "taking over this thread". I was of the mistaken impression that this was a discussion on the topic of "a wolf in sheep's clothing". Jesus warned us to beware of such, so would it not be expedient to discuss a way/ways to ascertain a wolf in this disguise.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, Rick Sterling said:

I was of the mistaken impression that this was a discussion on the topic of "a wolf in sheep's clothing"

You got part of the topic correct....you're missing the rest of it:  "Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here. -- meaning, to this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why wolves-in-sheep's-clothing feel the need to come to this forum.  I would find that interesting.  (And no, I'm not saying you, in particular, are one of those costumed wolves.)

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In a post above, Life mentioned The Church of Jesus Christ of the Golden Rule:  If you did not know, such a church exists in Willits California.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis:  Some people do come to Club Adventist who believe that they are charged with the task to Presenting truth here in this forum. What some fail to understand is that their task, if it is to present truth, involves much more.  On a fundamental basis, their task requires that they present truth in a cogent manner  To present a thesis in a cogent manner involves many aspects.  these will include, among others, logical, convincing, and importantly, easy to read.

I think that I found a book posted on the Internet in which I think your thesis is presented.  But, I am not certain.  That is very important.  If I am not certain it should be clear that it was not presented in a cogent manner.  I did not find it easy to read.  Your thesis was not clear and convincing.

Perhaps if I had devoted more energy to an in depth study of the material it would have become clear?  All in all, I suspected that it was less clear than I would have found the thesis on XENON RYDBERG ATOMS  which I previously cited.

 

 

[Rick Sterling]

7 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

You got part of the topic correct....you're missing the rest of it:  "Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here. -- meaning, to this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why wolves-in-sheep's-clothing feel the need to come to this forum.  I would find that interesting.  (And no, I'm not saying you, in particular, are one of those costumed wolves.)

 

Thank you Pam for the clarification. What my intended point is the critical importance of recognition. The religious establishment in Jesus day recognized Him as a wolf, why, because He did not fit the paradigm of their expectation. Here on this forum the perception of another on this forum will depend solely on whether or not they fit the standard accepted paradigm. Jesus informed the scribes and Pharisees that the reason they could not "hear" (understand Him) was that they were not His sheep (see John 10:25-30). I am not judging anyone on this forum or anywhere else, it is not for me to judge. My point is this, we are all sheep, and as such belong to one of two sheepfolds. One fold belong to the Good Shepherd, and the other to the wolf (devil). It is the clothing that makes the difference. The clothing the words that proceed from the mouth of the shepherd. This is why Jesus said "My sheep hear My voice, and behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hear My voice...". The post on this forum are words which convey thought and understandings: the only way one would know if there is a wolf in disguise is what the words convey. Jesus testified to the truth, and His testimony is the way one determines whether a wolf or a sheep is posting.     

[Gregory Matthews]

I strongly disagree with the quote below.  Each of us has formulated in our minds what it takes to convince us that something is true.  Regardless of whether or not that formulation is a good one, it is what we judge by.  When one comes here and presents a thesis, we use  our formulation to  judge that presentation.  Whether or not that presentation fits a previous paradigm may be of some interest but it may not be of major importance.  What you, or any other, must do, is to meet us on the level that we are and present (argue) your position within the framework of our formulation of what we will accept as a valid argument.  As we here in CA are a collection of individuals, anything you present may be convincing to some, but it is unlikely that it will be convincing to all.  In any case, whether or not it is accepted will likely depend more on the Holy Spirit than on you

 

Here on this forum the perception of another on this forum will depend solely on whether or not they fit the standard accepted paradigm.

[Rick Sterling]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I strongly disagree with the quote below.  Each of us has formulated in our minds what it takes to convince us that something is true.  Regardless of whether or not that formulation is a good one, it is what we judge by.  When one comes here and presents a thesis, we use  our formulation to  judge that presentation.  Whether or not that presentation fits a previous paradigm may be of some interest but it may not be of major importance.  What you, or any other, must do, is to meet us on the level that we are and present (argue) your position within the framework of our formulation of what we will accept as a valid argument.  As we here in CA are a collection of individuals, anything you present may be convincing to some, but it is unlikely that it will be convincing to all.  In any case, whether or not it is accepted will likely depend more on the Holy Spirit than on you

 

 

 

You are correct, I should have said "their standard accepted paradigm".

[Musicman1228]

22 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I strongly disagree with the quote below.  Each of us has formulated in our minds what it takes to convince us that something is true.  Regardless of whether or not that formulation is a good one, it is what we judge by.  When one comes here and presents a thesis, we use  our formulation to  judge that presentation.  Whether or not that presentation fits a previous paradigm may be of some interest but it may not be of major importance.  What you, or any other, must do, is to meet us on the level that we are and present (argue) your position within the framework of our formulation of what we will accept as a valid argument.  As we here in CA are a collection of individuals, anything you present may be convincing to some, but it is unlikely that it will be convincing to all.  In any case, whether or not it is accepted will likely depend more on the Holy Spirit than on you

This presumes that you believe that there is only one spirit that people can claim to be 'holy', and THAT spirit is always infallibly true. If the previous paradigm that you believe to be true indeed came from this Holy Spirit then you can be sure that the information given IS truth. But WHAT IF that spirit that you believe to be the Holy Spirit is actually a demon masquerading as the  Holy Spirit? This puts a different identity to what you believe. In  1John 4:1-6 John states the requirements for testing the spirit that is in the words of someone that claims to 'come from God'. And that test is that unless the words of the person claiming to 'have' the Holy Spirit agree completely with the words of Jesus Christ that He spoke while He was here on earth 'in the flesh' then those words CANNOT be from God. It is THIS framework the must formulate our understanding. It is this framework that shows whether a person is an actual sheep of the flock of Jesus Christ, or an impostor disguised as sheep but in reality is a wolf. 

 

 

 

 

[Musicman1228]

10 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

You got part of the topic correct....you're missing the rest of it:  "Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here. -- meaning, to this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why wolves-in-sheep's-clothing feel the need to come to this forum.  I would find that interesting.  (And no, I'm not saying you, in particular, are one of those costumed wolves.)

 

Pam, the words "that come here" presumes that what is shared here by the club members CANNOT be anything but the truth. It presumes that you believe that because your belief in the SDA church perspective on truth insures that belief is true, and by this very fact you cannot be fooled. Please share with me your thoughts on what Jesus said to His own disciples in Matt.24:4-5, 11. If it was impossible for His own disciples to be fooled (after Jesus returned to His Father) then why did Jesus give this teaching. If it was impossible for His very disciples to 'not be deceived' then there would be no reason for Jesus to have made this statement. Why do you not feel in jeopardy of being deceived?

[Stan]

Please I want to make it clear, there are places to discuss theology etc etc. and everyone should be be able to have a voice. but the "I TALK AND EVERYONE BETTER LISTEN" attitude done by drive by shooters etc. just does not go over well.

 

No one is afraid of new light, and reviewing it. Let's discuss, just be civil about conversations.

[8thdaypriest]

Have you defined "wolf"?  I didn't read thru all five pages. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis:  When I use the term Holy Spirit, I use it in reference to Christ's comment I use it in the Biblical context of John 14: 26.  In that passage, at least in some translations, the Words Holy & Sp0irit are capitalized.

You reference to 1 John 4:1-6, never uses the term Holy Spirit.  Rather it simply uses the word "spirit" and does not capitalize it, at least in some translations.   Further, the test in your passage states that the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is the test.  It does not say complete (total) agreement.  You have clearly mis-represented what the Bible actually says.

You well may ask me if I am saying that God would send someone who is in disagreement with Jesus Christ on some points.  Well, look at the context.  The context is also that of a human prophet.  No human prophet can ever be attributed to having reached 100% knowledge of God.  God may not send error.  But that does not make God's messengers to be totally without error in every aspect of their lives.

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis, not one here in CA believes what you have stated below, unless you believe it.  If you do believe it, you are alone in your belief.  Pam, certainly does not believe it.  Neither do I.

Pam, the words "that come here" presumes that what is shared here by the club members CANNOT be anything but the truth. It presumes that you believe that because your belief in the SDA church perspective on truth insures that belief is true, and by this very fact you cannot be fooled.

[Musicman1228]

On 6/11/2016 at 3:17 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Dennis:  When I use the term Holy Spirit, I use it in reference to Christ's comment I use it in the Biblical context of John 14: 26.  In that passage, at least in some translations, the Words Holy & Sp0irit are capitalized.

You reference to 1 John 4:1-6, never uses the term Holy Spirit.  Rather it simply uses the word "spirit" and does not capitalize it, at least in some translations.   Further, the test in your passage states that the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is the test.  It does not say complete (total) agreement.  You have clearly mis-represented what the Bible actually says.

You well may ask me if I am saying that God would send someone who is in disagreement with Jesus Christ on some points.  Well, look at the context.  The context is also that of a human prophet.  No human prophet can ever be attributed to having reached 100% knowledge of God.  God may not send error.  But that does not make God's messengers to be totally without error in every aspect of their lives.

Greg, I don't know which version of the Bible you are using, but in the several that I have on my computer (NASB, WEB, ASV, NIV, KJV) all have "Spirit of God" in 1John 4:2, which indicates the HOLY SPIRIT. The spirit that is being tested is the spirit that motivates someone to either speak truth or lies (ref. v.1). If a prophet speak lies that prophet is false and is not from God. You seem to think that simply because a prophet is human that they should receive a pass from God if they don't speak 100% of the truth all the time. I suppose this is in reference to some of the outrageous things that Paul wrote, and even EGW. If you want to believe that it is OK with God that people that call themselves apostles or prophets and demonstrate by their words that those words did not come from God, but they still claim that they did come from God, you are welcome to it. I am frankly not brave enough to call God a liar to His face.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you." "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many." Matt. 14:4-5.

Mat 24:11  "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Musicman 1228:  Your questions/comments are fair.  I will respond.  Thank you for asking:

In responding to you, I have decided to quote your comment, in BOLD and to number it as I have divided   it into parts.  I will enclose my response in brackets [. . .] immediately under your comment.  

 

1)       Greg, I don't know which version of the Bible you are using, but in the several that I have on my computer (NASB, WEB, ASV, NIV, KJV) all have "Spirit of God" in 1John 4:2, . . .

[NIV:  Spirit of God; Living Bible:  Holy Spirit; NKJV; Spirit of God; KJV: Spirit of God.

 

I have multiple versions of the Bible, to include translations that you have listed above but, I have not cited.  Those that tend toward a so-called Formal Translation tend to have the term “Spirit of God.”  Those that tend toward the so-called Dynamic Translation tend to have the term “Holy Spirit.”]

 

2)      . . . which indicates the HOLY SPIRIT. The spirit that is being tested is the spirit that motivates someone to either speak truth or lies (ref. v.1).

[When you tell us that the term “Spirit of God” indicates the Holy Spirit, you are stating an  interpretation of the Biblical passage.  You may be correct in your understanding.  But you also may not be correct.  There might be an alternative understanding of that term.  I will give you  one example of an alternative understanding.

 

Biblical teachings may reflect truth about the very nature of God.  As we go to the Bible for an understanding of what the Bible is teaching, we should consider what it is saying about God’s nature.  We should seek for Biblical understandings that present a consistent, coherent, teaching about God’s fundamental nature and how He relates to humanity.

 

As to 1 John 4:2:  Yes, I happen to believe that it references the Holy Spirit.  But, I think that the translation “Spirit of God” is the better translation and that “Holy Spirit” is an interpretation.  When it comes to in-depth Bible study,  I prefer that we accurately cite and label the Biblical translation that we reference and that we accurately call our understandings for what they are.]

 

3)      If a prophet speak lies that prophet is false and is not from God.

[To speak a lie is to say something that one knows is false, at least in part, and that the one speaking intends to deceive another.  Absent the knowledge that it is false and the intent to deceive, one is only making a false statement but one is not telling a lie.  Of course  one who intends to deceive another is not coming from God.  That is clear both from the teaching of the Bible and from common sense based upon a knowledge of God’s character.]

 

4)      You seem to think that simply because a prophet is human that they should receive a pass from God if they don't speak 100% of the truth all the time.

[Musicman, I do not want to be unfair to you and put words into your mouth that you are not saying.  It may be that I do not fully understand what you have said here.  But, no rational person can reasonably believe that a prophet called by God speaks 100% truth all of the time.

 

To begin, God has had to adapt His message to our human (not divine) condition and to what we can understand.  On every level, to include theological, we will have much to learn in eternity that is beyond our ability to understand now.

 

Within this context, one can only believe that a prophet called by God speaks truth as it pertains to the message that God inspired the prophet to proclaim.  All human prophets, to include those called by God comment on the human experiences of their lives.    If a human prophet were to comment on quantum physics one should not believe that they were correct unless one believe that God had inspired them to comment on quantum physics.

 

Examples of this include Biblical prophets who probably believed that the Earth was a flat plate and never considered it to be a sphere.  That view is reflected in the Biblical (inspired) record as their personal belief but not the inspired message of God.]

 

5)      I suppose this is in reference to some of the outrageous things that Paul wrote, and even EGW.

[To suggest that Paul and/or EGW wrote “outrageous things is interesting.  I am uncertain as to exactly what you are saying.  But, this comment is probably tangential to the main questions that you raise and I do not want to put words into your mouth.  So, I will leave it at that.]

 

6)      If you want to believe that it is OK with God that people that call themselves apostles or prophets and demonstrate by their words that those words did not come from God, but they still claim that they did come from God, you are welcome to it.

[In the heat of the moment, you seem to be putting words in my mouth.  Well, all of us can get carried away at times, to include me.  So, I will not be to hard on you.  You and I probably both agree that it is not O. K. with God for one to falsely proclaim that they are either an apostle or a prophet.  And, of course you know that EGW never called herself a prophet.  NOTE:  That is a factual statement about her and is NOT to be taken as a denial on my part that she is properly called a prophet.]

 

7)      I am frankly not brave enough to call God a liar to His face.

[Rather than calling God a liar, a better way might be to decide that you need to understand more clearly what you believe God has said.]

[Gregory Matthews]

Musicman, In the post above, I am commenting on the 2nd verse of 1 John 4.  I am not commenting on other verses in the 4th chapter.  In my quotation below I was commenting on the  1st six verses of 1 John 4.  So, some of what I saind in the comment below does not apply to the 2nd verse.

 Dennis:  When I use the term Holy Spirit, I use it in reference to Christ's comment I use it in the Biblical context of John 14: 26.  In that passage, at least in some translations, the Words Holy & Sp0irit are capitalized.

You reference to 1 John 4:1-6, never uses the term Holy Spirit.  Rather it simply uses the word "spirit" and does not capitalize it, at least in some translations.   Further, the test in your passage states that the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is the test.  It does not say complete (total) agreement.  You have clearly mis-represented what the Bible actually says.

[Musicman1228]

Greg, thank you for your thoughtful response to my comments. It shows a quality of thought process that is refreshing. I will copy and paste various comment you have made and respond in kind.

#2) "When you tell us that the term “Spirit of God” indicates the Holy Spirit, you are stating an  interpretation of the Biblical passage.  You may be correct in your understanding.  But you also may not be correct."

I agree that there are various interpretations of Scripture (ref. the Bible contains Scripture, but the entire Bible is not Scripture), and many are based on personal preference. I do use Strongs lexicons (Hebrew and Greek) to try to isolate meanings rather than simply use those afforded me in the various versions of the Bible both of us use. However, there does come a time to commit to a meaning rather than let a definition simply float in the wind. I believe that this is one of those instances where making a determination is necessary to further a consistent understanding of (particularly) a process. The term "Spirit of God" (Strong's G4151-pneuma, and G2316-theos) actually mean Holy Spirit, because God is Holy, therefore Their/His/Her Spirit must also be holy. 

#4) "To begin, God has had to adapt His message to our human (not divine) condition and to what we can understand.  On every level, to include theological, we will have much to learn in eternity that is beyond our ability to understand now."

Many people believe as do you, that God must adapt TRUTH in order to make it fit for human consumption, because humans are innately stupid (I am not questioning this as a fact, there is too much evidence in support of this concept), and are incapable of understanding God on HIS/Their terms. If this is true the what Jesus said to His own eyewitness disciples is actually a lie, and cannot be relied upon to lead us to salvation:

Joh 14:26  "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Here Jesus is speaking to His own disciples, and referencing what the Holy Spirit will accomplish in them in their testimony about what HE said while here on earth. Either Jesus meant this or He didin't. If is was going to be impossible for His disciples to understand those words, and remember them later, then Jesus was being very cruel in giving those words in the first place.

Joh 17:20  "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;

The 'these alone' Jesus was referring too were His own disciples to whom He gave instruction while in the flesh here on earth, and NOT just anyone that claims authority as either an apostle or prophet of God. The 'those also' in the next phrase refer to people that will read the words of the eyewitness disciples, KNOWING that they heard the words that the wrote down first hand from the very lips of Jesus Christ IN PERSON, so those (and only those) words can be trusted to contain the truth. There is a chain of evidence that Jesus established for transferring the knowledge HE brought from His Father in Heaven to earth, and which He gave His own disciples, to tell those that want to know how to achieve salvation. Just as there is a chain of evidence in how God confirmed TRUTH from lies by authorizing ONLY His own words through His own eyewitness disciples, but also how God authorized prophecy, and that is found in Rev. 1:1-3.  The Father gave the Revelation (prophecy) to His Son (after He ascended to Heaven); the Son gave it to His angel; the angel gave it to his eyewitness disciple, John; John gave it to the bondservants of Jesus that are alive at the time that the prophecy will see fulfillment. God, Son, Angel, eyewitness disciple (John), Bondservants.

Anyone that says they got their information about prophecy or salvation in ANY other way CANNOT POSSIBLY be telling the truth. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have in my library both Strong';s and Young's.  What I have is their concordance. 

There is a major difference between a concordance and a lexicon.  A concordance is not an authority as to the meaning of a word.  It is not a dictionary.  A concordance is  a listing of the manner in which a word has been translated from one language into another language.

A lexicon, to a greater or lessor extent is an authority as to the meaning of a word.  IOW, it is like a dictionary.

I acknowledge that you stated that you used Strong's lexicons and Strong did publish with his concordance a dictionary (lexicon)   in the back.  I will only say that Both Strong and Young are dated and so old that they cannot be thought to have the  greatest value as to the meanings of words.  There are better lexicons which make use of our expanded knowledge of the language in the time of Christ.  The value of both Strong & Young, in my thinking lies their being a concordance.

 

Quote

I do use Strongs lexicons (Hebrew and Greek) to try to isolate meanings rather than simply use those afforded me in the various versions of the Bible both of us use.

[Musicman1228]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I have in my library both Strong';s and Young's.  What I have is their concordance. 

There is a major difference between a concordance and a lexicon.  A concordance is not an authority as to the meaning of a word.  It is not a dictionary.  A concordance is  a listing of the manner in which a word has been translated from one language into another language.

A lexicon, to a greater or lessor extent is an authority as to the meaning of a word.  IOW, it is like a dictionary.

I acknowledge that you stated that you used Strong's lexicons and Strong did publish with his concordance a dictionary (lexicon)   in the back.  I will only say that Both Strong and Young are dated and so old that they cannot be thought to have the  greatest value as to the meanings of words.  There are better lexicons which make use of our expanded knowledge of the language in the time of Christ.  The value of both Strong & Young, in my thinking lies their being a concordance.

 

Would you mind directing me to these new lexicons that are more up to date than Strong's? I would love to work with them. Are the available in electronic media?

[Gregory Matthews]

I will get back with you.  Please remind you    if I do not do it later today.

 

[Musicman1228]

On 6/10/2016 at 11:36 PM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

You got part of the topic correct....you're missing the rest of it:  "Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here. -- meaning, to this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why wolves-in-sheep's-clothing feel the need to come to this forum.  I would find that interesting.  (And no, I'm not saying you, in particular, are one of those costumed wolves.)

 

Pam, the reason I am back here on this particular forum is that here now and in the past I have found kindred spirits, from the standpoint that people here seem to want to understand and know the truth about God, and are willing to risk putting their thoughts 'out there' for others to look at and discuss, with the view of learning about truth. What your statement "that come here" does, to the casual observer, would SEEM to indicate that maybe my previous statement does not hold true for some; that there are those on THIS forum that simply want to circle the wagons and defend themselves against anything that does not fit the current model for truth for the SDA church. Therefore, I have a question that goes to the heart of this thread; IF it is true that you (Pam) and others on the Adventist Forum are only interested in topics and discussions that confirm what you already believe, THEN why would you need to have a discussion about 'Wolves in sheep's clothing' in the first place?  Under this structure there would be no need for a discussion because a 'wolf' would automatically be defined as someone that differs materially with any specific concept that is identified as a 'non-Adventist' concept. This, of course, has nothing to do with TRUTH; it has everything to do with what Adventists believe and perceive as truth. As Rick pointed out in an above comment, Jesus came to Ancient Israel and was perceived to be a 'sheep in wolves clothing', because the understanding of Scripture He delivered was 180 degrees out of phase with what the leadership of Israel NEEDED to believe as truth.  

[Musicman1228]

5 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I will get back with you.  Please remind you    if I do not do it later today.

 

Thanks, will do.

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, Musicman asked me to comment on more up to date lexicons.  I will response in a general sense and in amore specific sense.

To set the context:  I do not generally claim to be an expert in much of anything.  But, of all the ares of knowledge of which I have some understanding, I am probably weakest in Biblical languages.  It is clearly not my strongpoint.  It is for this reason that when I comment, it is typically in general terms and not specific ones.  In the study of Biblical languages, I consider the following to be of some importance:

1) Biblical languages may be have some differences both with their modern language and with the language typically spoken in the time of the Biblical writers.   The Greek of the Bible is known as Koine Greek.  So, if one is going to study Biblical Greek, on must make certain that it is Koine Greek that they study.  Biblical Hebrew existed well into the 1st century.  I t was replaced by Mishnaic Hebrew which lasted for about 100 years.  The Biblical languages were in fact the common languages of the people in the time and place in which they were   written.  But, they typically had some differences in both grammar and word meaning with other versions of the language that may have been used elsewhere and in communication between nations.  It is due to these differences that it is important that one actually study the actual Biblical language.   

2) Because the Biblical languages were the common language of the common people in the time and place where they were written, it is of value to study other non-Biblical writings  form the same time and place in an attempt to learn how the common people would understand a Biblical passage  For this reason a lexicon of Biblical Hebrew will often include a study of Aramaic understandings of a Biblical passage. [NOTE:  if you see the word "Chaldee" read it as Aramaic.  This may be a simplification, but it works for us, I believe.].  In the study of Koine Greek, Arndt & Gingrich [later] give study to word  usage in the Bible and also in what we have learned from extra-Biblical writings. [NOTE: Arndt is written A r n d t.]

3)  It is because all quality lexicons pay attention to word usage in the extra Biblical writings of the time and place of the Biblical writer that older lexicons become dated.  Our knowledge of the language has expanded in the time that ahs passed since those older works were published.

4) A quality lexicon is going to give one much more that a simple difination such as what Strong might have  in his concordance.  I am looking at what Arndt & Gingrich says about the simple word transliterated from Greek to the English "eis."  That is a simple word, a preposition that can be translated as "of, "into" and "toward."  But such simplicity does not begin to do justice to the word.  Arndt & Gingrich devote 68 column inches of text to telling us how it is used in both the Bible and in extra-Biblical literature.  Looking at another Greek word Arndt & Gingrich tell how it is used in baptism, foot washing, bathing, ritual cleansing and more.  All of this can increase our understanding of the Biblical message. 

5) I will suggest that the student who wants quality references can write to the Biblical language department of a Seminary and/or college and ask for a recommendation.  It might be nice to include a stamped envelope.

6) Keep in mind that the beginning student probably does not need that depth and quality of the graduate student and/or the academic.

For specific comments see the next post.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will recommend a couple of works that I have in my library.  It should be noted that my present command of the Biblical languages means that I really am not able to get full value out of them.  Further while they are much newer that Young and Strong, the versions that I have are clearly out of date.  We have learned much more since they were published.

1)  W. F. Arndt & F.W. Gingrich, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THENEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, University of Chicago Press.

This is a translation and adaption of a work in German by Walter Bauer.

This work is been revised with new material several times in an effort to keep it up to date.  My version has slightly over 900 pages.

2)  Robert W. Funk, A GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE,  University of Chicago Press.

This is a translation of a work in German by F. Blass & A. Debrunner.

My version has some 325 pages.

3)  B. Davidson, THE ANALYTICAL HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON:... Universitiy of Edenbrugh..

This work is an analytical lexicon  A work of this type concentrates on the grammatical form of the Biblical word.  This is very important in Hebrew and Aramaic.  One really can not understand the meaning of the word in these languages unless one is aware of the grammatical form in which they are written.

Frankly, I have to assume that there are probably much better books available today than this one.  But I do not have one to recommend.

Musicman, I have attempted to respond to your question.  I probably have not given you a good, current answer.  but, it is what I have to give you.  It it stimulates you to look beyond what I have said, in perhaps new directions, great. 

 

Perhaps there are others here who can give you better answers.

 

 

 

[Rossw]

Musicman, although I don't agree with your understanding of Scripture, even those who identify as conservative SDA are considered wolves in sheep's clothing here.