wof and living 120 years

I owe you thanks for this...this was really well done.

I wish I had this for my classes back in the day. You've actually proved my point, though, I hope you realize. I can't go through the list, but, as with the Brits, the Americans, the Aussies and around the world, different words were chosen to describe different objects, the grammar...therefore the language itself...remains the same.

Brits wear trousers. Americans wear pants...Pants for the brits are your underwear. Total misunderstanding. That's why when Americans were to be debriefed after we came back from a campaign, the Brits asked if they could watch the debriefing! It made for hilarious and totally comprehensibly deliberate misunderstanding. In West Virginia, they're still wearing britches...because they still wear what was once called breeches, and mispronounced.

In France, we wear "socks", chaussettes, but the Québecois (never Canadians!!), wear bas or "stockings". The French ladies will wear des bas, but they are nylon and require garters.

Each of the examples they bring up have a story that is delightful behind them. I was smiling the whole time. So grateful.

(Let me add...when my Québecois kids chose to speak of their "bas" when they described their clothing, they were correct. Word choice is regional, not right or wrong. They did not fail French because they wore stockings and trousers. They did fail, though, because they did not learn the necessary grammatical structures, and they could not read their own language...in short, they did not do the necessary work to gain the required skills. It was funny when they used to correct me, because certain constructions very common in the language were never used in their home, and therefore "Were not French." I actually learned a lot of Québecois from them...and learned to imitate their accent to the point where I can appear Québecois in Québec. That was fun in class, and why we're still friends to this day.)
 
Last edited:
And your point?

What I am saying is that is not really a point.

What is your point?

Unless your point is to ask everyone to die.

That being said, you are an evangelistic type.

So what, you can ask me to die .....
Sly, you will clearly not understand.

I'm sorry. You're over the top bizarre for me. For you...there is no point. As Harry Nilsson once said, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."
 
Sly, you will clearly not understand.

I'm sorry. You're over the top bizarre for me. For you...there is no point. As Harry Nilsson once said, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

Pete. ...... first off don't call me sly.

As you meant that as a derogatory term.

Which means what?

That you meant that as a derogatory term.

Secondly ...... I do not appreciate you trying to evangelize me.

It ends up being a 'my faith is better then your faith' type of thing.
 
Last edited:
Pete. ...... first off don't call me sly.

As you meant that as a derogatory term.
I never did, never have...and I apologize that you take it as such. As I'm often called "Beachie" I have names I call those with whom I'm familiar. I will never refer to you in that way again, Sir (Is it "sir"? I have no idea).

Which means what?

That you meant that as a derogatory term.

Secondly ...... I do not appreciate you trying to evangelize me.

It ends up being a 'my faith is better then your faith' type of thing.
I do not "evangelize" anyone. I have conversations. If there is good news in the conversation, that's good. I don't remember recent conversations with you where anything has been good.

Trust me...this is not me "evangelizing". It's me...puzzled. No...baffled.
 
I owe you thanks for this...this was really well done.

I wish I had this for my classes back in the day. You've actually proved my point, though, I hope you realize. I can't go through the list, but, as with the Brits, the Americans, the Aussies and around the world, different words were chosen to describe different objects, the grammar...therefore the language itself...remains the same.

Brits wear trousers. Americans wear pants...Pants for the brits are your underwear. Total misunderstanding. That's why when Americans were to be debriefed after we came back from a campaign, the Brits asked if they could watch the debriefing! It made for hilarious and totally comprehensibly deliberate misunderstanding. In West Virginia, they're still wearing britches...because they still wear what was once called breeches, and mispronounced.

In France, we wear "socks", chaussettes, but the Québecois (never Canadians!!), wear bas or "stockings". The French ladies will wear des bas, but they are nylon and require garters.

Each of the examples they bring up have a story that is delightful behind them. I was smiling the whole time. So grateful.

(Let me add...when my Québecois kids chose to speak of their "bas" when they described their clothing, they were correct. Word choice is regional, not right or wrong. They did not fail French because they wore stockings and trousers. They did fail, though, because they did not learn the necessary grammatical structures, and they could not read their own language...in short, they did not do the necessary work to gain the required skills. It was funny when they used to correct me, because certain constructions very common in the language were never used in their home, and therefore "Were not French." I actually learned a lot of Québecois from them...and learned to imitate their accent to the point where I can appear Québecois in Québec. That was fun in class, and why we're still friends to this day.)
Let me add...a good novel or movie made in Quebec has the effect of homogenizing the language...because the colloquialism gets picked up and popularized with the popular art form. Arabic is the same...Egyptian Arabic is the Arabic of movies and song, and so the whole Levant, though they have their regional forms, read, understand and expect Egyptian in the movies and in broadcast.
 
I never did, never have...and I apologize that you take it as such. As I'm often called "Beachie" I have names I call those with whom I'm familiar. I will never refer to you in that way again, Sir (Is it "sir"? I have no idea).

I do not "evangelize" anyone. I have conversations. If there is good news in the conversation, that's good. I don't remember recent conversations with you where anything has been good.

Trust me...this is not me "evangelizing". It's me...puzzled. No...baffled.

I farted yesterday.

Not the best fart, as far as farts go.

But decent ........ not that pungy.
 
Last edited:
BTW BA, both "covenant" and "testament" are legal terms... not ecclesiastical terms. Both terms are used in the bible to speak of legal binding conditions between party's or in regard to testimony of a party or party's. Ecclesiastical means used by the Christian church, both terms are used before there was any ecclesiastical form of the Christian church.

A covenant is a binding legal agreement between at least two party's with both negative and positive conditions on the party's involved.

A testament is a legal term used in regards to a will or distribution of property.

My 2 cents. 😉
My two cents came from searching them out over time, and especially recently to confirm what I remembered.

When these words are used biblically they generally are used for specific words out of the Hebrew and the Greek. The Hebrew is quite specific. Further, there is no Greek word that completely means the same as the Hebrew. In short, because of all this they simply are not interchangeable at all times, although in general it doesn't really hurt. So in the Hebrew, spoken of in English, God made a Covenant with Abraham. He did not at all make a testament.

Although I don't remember this article from my past leanings (having never really cared for Sproul) I did find this one on this recent tour of the words. I lifted what I knew from the past from here, the Hebrew and Greek words and the understanding that the Greek was not a great word use for the Hebrew berith. Please enjoy: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/terms-covenant
 
No. Mario. Mikey was not Greek.
Ah yes, Marios. Loved Marios' contributions.

I taught French for four decades. I've had folks from...wait for it...Quebec, who spoke French exclusively when they left school and went home. There is no such thing as "a dialect" of French.
You are tiring. https://www.cia-france.com/blog/culture-french-traditions/french-dialects/

The language is ruled by a body called L'Académie Française.
So what you talk about here is the official, adopted (second article of the French Constitution) language for France. This does not mean there are not dialects spoken.

And what does any of this have to do with 120 years???
 
Ah yes, Marios. Loved Marios' contributions.


You are tiring. https://www.cia-france.com/blog/culture-french-traditions/french-dialects/
From the site, "Even linguists can’t reach agreement on this one! " He is right. I've lived all over France and in Montreal. I roomed with a man from French Guyana, and I've been to Brittany, where Breton is spoken, and in areas of Switzerland where Romanche is spoken, and I've traveled through the regions where Basque and Catalan and Provençale are spoken. None of these are dialects. They are languages, unless you go with the author and claim that "French is a dialect of Latin." That's another boring linguistic debate.

If you want "American" to be a dialect and "British" to be a dialect, you have to redefine dialect to meet your standards, and you've proven quite capable of doing that, as has this one you've cited. Creole, spoken in the Caribbean, is a dialect of French. It's not the same language. Pidgin in Hawaii is a dialect of English...I learned to speak it when I lived there. You were reproved for speaking pidgin in English class. It's not the same language, and it often divorces itself from the grammar of the mother tongue.


So what you talk about here is the official, adopted (second article of the French Constitution) language for France. This does not mean there are not dialects spoken.
If there are dialects, they are not French...The West Virginians do not speak a "dialect" of English. Neither do those of us up nawth.

And what does any of this have to do with 120 years???
Your French friend who didn't speak French "properly." If he was speaking Creole, he wasn't speaking French...if he was from a French speaking country, and had attended classes in that land, all his classes were conducted in French. It stemmed from my own arrogance to judge my thirty-five years with the koine Greek to be sufficient to make humble observations when the "doctors" err egregiously.
 
Part 2...It is error and faulty theology. Sorry. We've been through this on this board, but since you want to go at it again, let's go:And that's the equivalent logic of MacArthur's "Historic principle of biblical exegesis." If it hasn't happened for one thousand plus years, it cannot be expected." Because one translator missed the point, every translator misses the point until it becomes sacred tradition to miss what Jesus is saying.
Theou "of God", is genitive of quality...not ownership. "Divine" or "God-like" is what Jesus is clearly saying. His point is "You can do this too...if you believe as God believes." On this board, shorts got twisted, because there is denial that God actually has faith! Now that was a discussion worth having!
And that is not the most egregious error of the NIV...since everyone makes the same traditional error. (BTW, Mario, the Greek speaker, pointed out here that there "...was no other way to read that verse so that it made sense." Strange that I was the only participant in the discussion agreeing with the one who spoke Greek as his first language, and was raised reading Koine. The non-Greeks insisted that the language had changed to allow their misrepresentation centuries ago, and there was no way Mario could know that.
First off: I agree with most of what you say here.

Second: the phrase I bolded. You were the only one agreeing?? How narcissistic. Why in the world do you think I went to Dr. Wallace to get R.T Robertson confirmed?? It was because I read this "of God" and wanted to get a non-WoF opinion to agree. He did, but didn't want to get pulled into our discussion so he allowed me to quote very little from our discussion. "Ubiquitous understanding" was the key phrase he wanted me to relay. But I must digress since YOU were the ONLY one agreeing with Marios. I seem to remember we had a number of people arguing for "of God." Marios rose to the top since he actually spoke Greek. Then he got lambasted because the critics wanted to make such a ruckus between modern Greek and Koine Greek. Marios was a gem.

But it is this type of post that is how you are simply annoying sometimes. But here Pete, have the highest soapbox. Because I simply DO NOT CARE about this crap any more -- and I'm not talking about the forums; I'll be here a while, I guess. No, this whole Christianity thing. Inbred fights between pastors and teachers and scholars and mere peasants simply have worn on me. And when God breaks his own promises, and of course the people who believe in promises then turn on you and say that your wife must not have had faith, then it simply gets boring. And these types of one-upmanship arguments with soapbox fighters (of which I admittedly am one -- and don't try to say you aren't because you would either be lying or delusional) gets old really, really quickly. So take the highest seat. You're right. I'm wrong. The four people who are reading this can go to bed tonight amused. But, in the end, you're wrong. :ROFLMAO: (Just in case you think I'm writing this with any drop of anger.)

Get off the hobby horse, Bob. Cope isn't even here.
 
First off: I agree with most of what you say here.
Good for you...The truth won't change either way, but you're always better off when you agree with the truth.

Second: the phrase I bolded. You were the only one agreeing?? How narcissistic. Why in the world do you think I went to Dr. Wallace to get R.T Robertson confirmed?? It was because I read this "of God" and wanted to get a non-WoF opinion to agree. He did, but didn't want to get pulled into our discussion so he allowed me to quote very little from our discussion. "Ubiquitous understanding" was the key phrase he wanted me to relay. But I must digress since YOU were the ONLY one agreeing with Marios. I seem to remember we had a number of people arguing for "of God." Marios rose to the top since he actually spoke Greek. Then he got lambasted because the critics wanted to make such a ruckus between modern Greek and Koine Greek. Marios was a gem.
I apologize...My memory from at least a decade ago is not sharp...I'm sure there were others, Jehu and the "apostate" VW. "Ubiquitous understanding" is a specious excuse for lazy scholarship, in my opinion. I seem to remember you bringing in your research. But, the grammar is not complicated, and Jesus' challenge is so timely, you may have discovered the root cause of the impotence of the church. Faith comes by hearing...well, so does unbelief...and the choice is always up to the individual. It's one of the many times here where I was charged with arrogance because I went with the Greek, and ignored the "ubiquitous scholars". If you've been in a degree program, you know you only progress, not by original thinking, but by citing the scholars in whose path you follow. The Rabbis quote the Rabbis as lawyers quote precedent, and become reputable.

But it is this type of post that is how you are simply annoying sometimes. But here Pete, have the highest soapbox. Because I simply DO NOT CARE about this crap any more -- and I'm not talking about the forums; I'll be here a while, I guess. No, this whole Christianity thing. Inbred fights between pastors and teachers and scholars and mere peasants simply have worn on me.
Folks come here to fight, because it's easier to criticize WoF than go to Afghanistan to rescue the widow and the orphan...and after all...we all have a self-important call in our lives. Some have the ministry of criticizing strangers and their doctrine which is wrong as a sine qua non. Even if they're right, the ministry of criticism will find something to criticize. I hang here, because it's important to know there are more important things to fight about. And I don't care either...except this whole Christianity thing is life and health to all the flesh of all who come to believe. My kids in school first...and then anyone driven by something other than Jesus' sole new commandment. I can't quit when the church is worse than Ezekiel's Samaria and Judah. It's time to review the gospel Paul preached.

And when God breaks his own promises, and of course the people who believe in promises then turn on you and say that your wife must not have had faith, then it simply gets boring.
Anybody who has grieved with Ezekiel knows that is idiocy. His wife was taken in a day, and he wasn't allowed to grieve...and there were no "comforters" around him to be silent for seven days before making idiots of themselves. No the mystery of iniquity is such that when Epaphroditus was spared, Paul was relieved...and jubilant, lest he have sorrow upon sorrow. He didn't celebrate like Faithman. He thanked God because the grief would have been overwhelming. Hebrews eleven is our story. We just do not know but what He has said...and for those who remain and continue in patience and perseverance to believe, there is better to come, until we all come together in the end. Your wife is leading cheers in a cloud of witnesses according to Hebrews 12...and that's all we're allowed to ever know. Never the why. And she took a courageous stand that has taught all here who are listening. I'm grateful for your story. And that's all that need be said. BTW...it's not your wife's choices right or wrong, they stand. But it's our choices in light of the gospel and our neighbors in need of that gospel. The questions you have raised here in that light are far more valuable than binging Netflix. I'll hang here because good questions get raised...even by the critics.

And these types of one-upmanship arguments with soapbox fighters (of which I admittedly am one -- and don't try to say you aren't because you would either be lying or delusional) gets old really, really quickly. So take the highest seat. You're right. I'm wrong. The four people who are reading this can go to bed tonight amused. But, in the end, you're wrong. :ROFLMAO: (Just in case you think I'm writing this with any drop of anger.)
I don't manufacture your arguments, and I don't attack your beliefs...I give answer to the hope that is within me, because it helps me verbalize what I have learned. You're free to believe or not...I don't go to a Calvinist board to correct them. In fact, I don't correct those with whom I'm working. I'm better with a basin and a towel than I am with a bludgeon.

And I'm good at languages.
 
Last edited:
I apologize...My memory from at least a decade ago is not sharp...I'm sure there were others, Jehu and the "apostate" VW. "Ubiquitous understanding" is a specious excuse for lazy scholarship, in my opinion. I seem to remember you bringing in your research. But, the grammar is not complicated, and Jesus' challenge is so timely, you may have discovered the root cause of the impotence of the church. Faith comes by hearing...well, so does unbelief...and the choice is always up to the individual. It's one of the many times here where I was charged with arrogance because I went with the Greek, and ignored the "ubiquitous scholars". If you've been in a degree program, you know you only progress, not by original thinking, but by citing the scholars in whose path you follow. The Rabbis quote the Rabbis as lawyers quote precedent, and become reputable.
To a great degree, I agree. There of course was much more explanation than just "ubiquitous understanding," it's just that this is where it fell. I asked if I could quote our conversation; he told me which parts I could and which he preferred me not to because it could pull him into the conversation. I honored his wishes.

To the lesser degree, there is the following concept. I don't think you'll agree with me here, and this one I won't (hopefully) chase if you don't, but here goes:

1 Cor 8:11-13
So by your knowledge the weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed. 12 If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 For this reason, if food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause one of them to sin.​
The "ubiquitous understanding" is "Have faith in God." Generally people don't think of God as having faith. So to the general (weak) reader the two are quite synonymous, albeit not exact. But if Dr. Wallace and a small number of scholars come out and compete with or otherwise challenge the "ubiquitous understanding" WHEN THE RESULT is not great, then all they are causing is division and in-fighting (as if we don't have enough of that). To truly understand this as "of God" you'd have to tilt the stage so dramatically toward a "charismatic faith" style of understanding that the majority would simply growl and bite. And all of the ways of thinking and understanding that would have to change for that paradigm shift to occur in the church would be too great a change to occur at once.

In the end, I'm not sure that "ubiquitous understanding" is that far off of something like "transliteration," or "translator's choice" to really be that large of a thing in the grand scheme of things. It certainly does not destroy Christianity, salvation or faith.

Folks come here to fight, because it's easier to criticize WoF than go to Afghanistan to rescue the widow and the orphan...
You went to Afghanistan this time around? No, that is not our calling, necessarily. But to argue that people fight on forums instead of going outside and helping the homeless, etc., well, then, why are we on the forums at all?

Jesus ate at dinners where there were people begging for crumbs. Why wasn't he out feeding the homeless instead? We all have a call in a particular time to do a particular thing. His was far greater at all times, of course. Mine, perhaps not so much. I gave $5 to a kid on a corner near University; he likely was not homeless, but I've been to University and spent many a day with no money and no food. I know his world. $5 would come in handy.

and after all...we all have a self-important call in our lives. Some have the ministry of criticizing strangers and their doctrine which is wrong as a sine qua non. Even if they're right, the ministry of criticism will find something to criticize. I hang here, because it's important to know there are more important things to fight about.
Nah. You hang here just like the rest of us...we think we're right and we have to pass it on. But in reality, none of us are right on everything we say we are right about. We're just throwing mud at the wall to see what will stick.

And I don't care either...
Atta boy!

except this whole Christianity thing is life and health to all the flesh of all who come to believe.
Darn, there is that, isn't there?

My kids in school first...and then anyone driven by something other than Jesus' sole new commandment. I can't quit when the church is worse than Ezekiel's Samaria and Judah. It's time to review the gospel Paul preached.
You say the church is worse. God's likely just shaking his head and wondering why it has always been in the cesspool. But then again, he wrote the narrative so if the story has a setting.....

Anybody who has grieved with Ezekiel knows that is idiocy. His wife was taken in a day, and he wasn't allowed to grieve...and there were no "comforters" around him to be silent for seven days before making idiots of themselves. No the mystery of iniquity is such that when Epaphroditus was spared, Paul was relieved...and jubilant, lest he have sorrow upon sorrow. He didn't celebrate like Faithman. He thanked God because the grief would have been overwhelming. Hebrews eleven is our story. We just do not know but what He has said...and for those who remain and continue in patience and perseverance to believe, there is better to come, until we all come together in the end. Your wife is leading cheers in a cloud of witnesses according to Hebrews 12...and that's all we're allowed to ever know.
No, we are to know that she picked up Psalm 91 and climbed up under the wing of God where the disease and pestilence cannot touch her -- and it touched her and it killed her. The only conclusion: God lied. Because if he didn't, then your next statement is a lie.

Never the why. And she took a courageous stand that has taught all here who are listening.
And those who were listening watched for Psalm 91 to be true. But alas, God has a different meaning and we don't get to know that until we are wrong. Deadly wrong.

BTW, it is these nuances of understanding that render "of God" or "in God" moot.

I'm grateful for your story. And that's all that need be said. BTW...it's not your wife's choices right or wrong, they stand. But it's our choices in light of the gospel and our neighbors in need of that gospel. The questions you have raised here in that light are far more valuable than binging Netflix.
Ahh, but it could be said that while I was here telling the story, and you were listening, and Billy Bob was binging on Netflix, six more people died in Afghanistan. Why are you here?

I'm here because God screwed me over. And now I have no idea what his Word says. Nor do I have any idea that I can trust it. There will be many who come by and tell me that "of course, you can trust it." But my wife won't be one of those. Why? Because I trusted it to the level that you are asking me to trust it. That's unfair, though true. She trusted it to the level that she was taught to trust it by people I told her she couldn't trust -- but she didn't trust me.

I'll hang here because good questions get raised...even by the critics.
I'll hang here because the debate is fun. That's all. No higher meaning than that. You know why? Because none of us are right. And God has it all going the way that he wants it go and there is nothing that our understanding is going to change about that. He simply wants us to try and play the game as correctly as we can try. It's like 1 Cor 8 above. For by our knowledge other brothers and sisters are destroyed. That's what we do here.

I don't manufacture your arguments, and I don't attack your beliefs...I give answer to the hope that is within me, because it helps me verbalize what I have learned. You're free to believe or not...I don't go to a Calvinist board to correct them. In fact, I don't correct those with whom I'm working. I'm better with a basin and a towel than I am with a bludgeon.

And I'm good at languages.
You think you are better with a basin and a towel. I refute this as I stand here bleeding. You wield all of the above well enough to get your point across .... usually.

And French does have dialects. 😜
 
Good for you...The truth won't change either way, but you're always better off when you agree with the truth.

I apologize...My memory from at least a decade ago is not sharp...I'm sure there were others, Jehu and the "apostate" VW. "Ubiquitous understanding" is a specious excuse for lazy scholarship, in my opinion. I seem to remember you bringing in your research. But, the grammar is not complicated, and Jesus' challenge is so timely, you may have discovered the root cause of the impotence of the church. Faith comes by hearing...well, so does unbelief...and the choice is always up to the individual. It's one of the many times here where I was charged with arrogance because I went with the Greek, and ignored the "ubiquitous scholars". If you've been in a degree program, you know you only progress, not by original thinking, but by citing the scholars in whose path you follow. The Rabbis quote the Rabbis as lawyers quote precedent, and become reputable.

Folks come here to fight, because it's easier to criticize WoF than go to Afghanistan to rescue the widow and the orphan...and after all...we all have a self-important call in our lives. Some have the ministry of criticizing strangers and their doctrine which is wrong as a sine qua non. Even if they're right, the ministry of criticism will find something to criticize. I hang here, because it's important to know there are more important things to fight about. And I don't care either...except this whole Christianity thing is life and health to all the flesh of all who come to believe. My kids in school first...and then anyone driven by something other than Jesus' sole new commandment. I can't quit when the church is worse than Ezekiel's Samaria and Judah. It's time to review the gospel Paul preached.

Anybody who has grieved with Ezekiel knows that is idiocy. His wife was taken in a day, and he wasn't allowed to grieve...and there were no "comforters" around him to be silent for seven days before making idiots of themselves. No the mystery of iniquity is such that when Epaphroditus was spared, Paul was relieved...and jubilant, lest he have sorrow upon sorrow. He didn't celebrate like Faithman. He thanked God because the grief would have been overwhelming. Hebrews eleven is our story. We just do not know but what He has said...and for those who remain and continue in patience and perseverance to believe, there is better to come, until we all come together in the end. Your wife is leading cheers in a cloud of witnesses according to Hebrews 12...and that's all we're allowed to ever know. Never the why. And she took a courageous stand that has taught all here who are listening. I'm grateful for your story. And that's all that need be said. BTW...it's not your wife's choices right or wrong, they stand. But it's our choices in light of the gospel and our neighbors in need of that gospel. The questions you have raised here in that light are far more valuable than binging Netflix. I'll hang here because good questions get raised...even by the critics.

I don't manufacture your arguments, and I don't attack your beliefs...I give answer to the hope that is within me, because it helps me verbalize what I have learned. You're free to believe or not...I don't go to a Calvinist board to correct them. In fact, I don't correct those with whom I'm working. I'm better with a basin and a towel than I am with a bludgeon.

And I'm good at languages.

Errrr Pete ...... excuse me, but I have a question.

So no farting? 🙄

Unless I convert.

Con ..... vert ........

Con ...... I already knew what that meant.

vert ....... had to look that up on google.

green, as a heraldic tincture.
"three piles vert"

Welcome to fun with words.
 
Last edited:
BTW, it is these nuances of understanding that render "of God" or "in God" moot.
I'll chime in again on this one... knowing it will be immediately rejected, as it was so many times in the past.

The translation can be either have faith in God or have faith of God... it can't be, as Hagin taught, "have the faith of God".

Of and in can be synonymous, at times, if we understand that it is "used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun."

For instance, "love of nature" doesn't mean that a person has the love of nature, as nature doesn't have love. It means, a person has a love, an appreciation in nature. Same with faith of God, it doesn't mean that a person has the faith of God..., and doesn't need God to have faith or not, not even part of the Apostles point,... it does mean, that we have faith in God.

There are many, many instances of this in the Greek scriptures. 😉
 
Last edited:
This was like a breath of fresh air. Thanks! And it turns into two parts again. I like any dialog where humor is central. I was smiling the whole time.
To a great degree, I agree. There of course was much more explanation than just "ubiquitous understanding," it's just that this is where it fell. I asked if I could quote our conversation; he told me which parts I could and which he preferred me not to because it could pull him into the conversation. I honored his wishes.
And that is right.

I don't say anything to you that I would not say to him. I've published my views where I could, because scholarship demands it. The discerning eye is opened for discernment. I was walking away from a class in Seminary, where we'd been discussing eschatology...and I had apparently gotten as carried as I do when I'm intrigued. As I walked away with a discerning friend, he said, "I don't know, Pete. It looks like you want to teach the teacher." I was convicted and went to the professor to apologize. (It was J. Rodman Williams, who authored the systematic theology of the Charismatic Movement. He was using us to bounce off his draft manuscript.) He said, "No...I'm still thinking about what you said. I'd never seen it like that before." It was a good school...but even appearing to "teach the teachers" is wrong. Presentation is everything. I'd love to know his response to my polite and humble observations.

To the lesser degree, there is the following concept. I don't think you'll agree with me here, and this one I won't (hopefully) chase if you don't, but here goes:

1 Cor 8:11-13
So by your knowledge the weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed. 12 If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 For this reason, if food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause one of them to sin.​
I get this...when someone is "led" to eat only vegetables, I will not seek to dissuade them. I will not second guess your experience. Paul taught with a goal: Love from a pure heart, a clear conscience and an unfeigned faith. That's mine. A prophet has a single goal: To edify, exhort and comfort. Do you see that "persuade" is not top on the list?

The "ubiquitous understanding" is "Have faith in God." Generally people don't think of God as having faith. So to the general (weak) reader the two are quite synonymous, albeit not exact.
This is a different principle: If Jesus is teaching us that WE CAN, independent of Him, that our faith, fully developed, is capable of changing topography, then "Have faith IN God" is entirely non sequitur to the point of distracting. He has equipped us to act in His Name independently. (Randomly...and for no apparent reason but that he was hungry and disappointed...he cursed a fig tree that was not in season to bear fruit. Spiritualize it as the commentators do, the act makes no sense. No husbandman will come and ask the vinedressers for grapes in the springtime, and punish vinedresser and vine when they have not born fruit.)

But if Dr. Wallace and a small number of scholars come out and compete with or otherwise challenge the "ubiquitous understanding" WHEN THE RESULT is not great, then all they are causing is division and in-fighting (as if we don't have enough of that). To truly understand this as "of God" you'd have to tilt the stage so dramatically toward a "charismatic faith" style of understanding that the majority would simply growl and bite. And all of the ways of thinking and understanding that would have to change for that paradigm shift to occur in the church would be too great a change to occur at once.
In short, they would act like scribes and pharisees, and the critics here, and twist their shorts into a knot, in fulfillment of Jesus' own observation: 51"Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.…"

If I've been translating badly for decades, I'm grateful to the one who proves me wrong. I had the privilege of sitting under Marcel Nicole, France's leading Reform Scholar, teaching in a Bible School in Nogent, France since 1928. His son was Professor for Decades at Gordon Conwell, in Boston. He used his own book to teach from, and we were discussing the twelve "disciples" of Ephesus, he admitted that Luke "never uses the term 'disciple' unless they are already disciples of Jesus, but the 'ubiquitous understanding' is that these are disciples of John." When I pointed out to him that Apollos had passed by in the end of the previous chapter, and made disciples despite only knowing "the baptism of John," he paused, looked it up, sat for a minute...Then he looked up and said, "It is true that there are some unfortunate chapter divisions." I learned so much from that one comment. In sixty years he'd never seen the connection between Apollos and the disciples of Ephesus.

In the end, I'm not sure that "ubiquitous understanding" is that far off of something like "transliteration," or "translator's choice" to really be that large of a thing in the grand scheme of things. It certainly does not destroy Christianity, salvation or faith.
Unless my observation is correct and it strips the church of expectation, making us impotent. That passage is faith defining, and this discussion is one of the most weighty.

You went to Afghanistan this time around? No, that is not our calling, necessarily. But to argue that people fight on forums instead of going outside and helping the homeless, etc., well, then, why are we on the forums at all?
For this...and to encourage giving to those who do have boots on the ground.

We remind ourselves here that we are one body...and there is a persecuted church that faith is designed reach.

Jesus ate at dinners where there were people begging for crumbs. Why wasn't he out feeding the homeless instead?
You're presuming. Judas had the purse, and the disciples thought Jesus was sending him to give to the poor. Apparently that was something that the purse holder did on a regular basis.

We all have a call in a particular time to do a particular thing. His was far greater at all times, of course. Mine, perhaps not so much. I gave $5 to a kid on a corner near University; he likely was not homeless, but I've been to University and spent many a day with no money and no food. I know his world. $5 would come in handy.
And I walked by a guy in Paris on my way to a picnic with my picnic lunch. His sign said, "I'm hungry." I'm a missionary. I had food. I walked by. I've never stopped regretting or forgotten or stopped praying for that guy.
Nah. You hang here just like the rest of us...we think we're right and we have to pass it on. But in reality, none of us are right on everything we say we are right about. We're just throwing mud at the wall to see what will stick.
But the fellowship is sweet.
Atta boy!
Some things matter. I'm not one of them.
 
Part II

Darn, there is that, isn't there?
Keeps me coming back.
You say the church is worse. God's likely just shaking his head and wondering why it has always been in the cesspool. But then again, he wrote the narrative so if the story has a setting.....
Not always...There have been heroes. We are the sequel to Acts...with our Demetrius the silversmiths and our Pauls.
No, we are to know that she picked up Psalm 91 and climbed up under the wing of God where the disease and pestilence cannot touch her -- and it touched her and it killed her. The only conclusion: God lied. Because if he didn't, then your next statement is a lie.
My only conclusion is the end of Hebrews 11...36Still others endured mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
37They were stoned, they were sawed in two,f they were put to death by the sword. They went around in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, oppressed, and mistreated. 38The world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and hid in caves and holes in the ground. 39These were all commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. 40God had planned something better for us, so that together with us they would be made perfect.[/quote]I commend her for her faith...and I still like God's plan because it has something better for you. For the rest...I just do not know.
And those who were listening watched for Psalm 91 to be true. But alas, God has a different meaning and we don't get to know that until we are wrong. Deadly wrong.
God has a time...night...where "no man can work." The night passes, and the day dawns and the church at last arises. The days of which the author of Hebrews spoke are at hand, or they're now one day closer to being at hand. That's called hope, of which faith is the substance.

BTW, it is these nuances of understanding that render "of God" or "in God" moot.
We disagree...God-like faith makes me as confident in my words as Jesus was in His. And as careful. Faith in God means I cannot make a difference.
Ahh, but it could be said that while I was here telling the story, and you were listening, and Billy Bob was binging on Netflix, six more people died in Afghanistan. Why are you here?
Well...because you keep responding, and there is little else challenging me right now. I'm working on the next assignment wherever the takes me.

I'm here because God screwed me over. And now I have no idea what his Word says. Nor do I have any idea that I can trust it.
That puts you in a position of strength in Paul's reckoning.
There will be many who come by and tell me that "of course, you can trust it." But my wife won't be one of those. Why? Because I trusted it to the level that you are asking me to trust it. That's unfair, though true. She trusted it to the level that she was taught to trust it by people I told her she couldn't trust -- but she didn't trust me.
Those are the conversations that need to be healed. Hebrews 11 makes me know I cannot know...only believe.

I'll hang here because the debate is fun.
Only when it's friendly. Cantankerous, rancorous debate is damaging.
That's all. No higher meaning than that. You know why? Because none of us are right.
We're right when we do what's right. Not when we say what's right...because there's a time to just not say, where saying what's right is out of season.
And God has it all going the way that he wants it go and there is nothing that our understanding is going to change about that. He simply wants us to try and play the game as correctly as we can try. It's like 1 Cor 8 above. For by our knowledge other brothers and sisters are destroyed. That's what we do here.
He wants you to love your neighbor.


You think you are better with a basin and a towel. I refute this as I stand here bleeding. You wield all of the above well enough to get your point across .... usually.

And French does have dialects. 😜
I do not want to get any point across with a bludgeon. And I want to go with you to where there are "French dialects". Anywhere French is taught, there is no "dialect" taught. Only French.
 
I'll chime in again on this one... knowing it will be immediately rejected, as it was so many times in the past.
Not rejected, Ted...just debated. Your points are all well made.

The translation can be either have faith in God or have faith of God... it can't be, as Hagin taught, "have the faith of God".
You're trying to apply English grammar to Greek. It doesn't work this way. English requires the word "the" in the construction, because "Have faith of God" cannot be twisted to make sense, and here's why: of God is a genitive construct that doesn't exist in English. But its use here is not as you say. It becomes, actually, an adjective that modifies "faith". It's a qualitative genitive. Have the quality of faith that God has. Not His faith...but "Be godlike in your faith." (In this context, "When you speak, know that your words have powerful impact on the life and even the molecules around you.")

Of and in can be synonymous, at times, if we understand that it is "used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun."

For instance, "love of nature" doesn't mean that a person has the love of nature, as nature doesn't have love. It means, a person has a love, an appreciation in nature.
You're going a little off the rails here. "Love of nature" is not the same as "Love in nature." The latter sounds like a spicy video...and that's a different use of the genitive in any case.

Same with faith of God, it doesn't mean that a person has the faith of God...,
It's not possessive. I agree. It's quality not possession.
and doesn't need God to have faith or not, not even part of the Apostles point,...
You're correct. and this is profound. (The concept that you do not need God to have faith is very controversial. And not all faith is salvific, even when you move a mountain with it.) He does not have God's faith. But in quality...like that of God. And again, think of the point Jesus is making: "What I just did, you can do also...if your faith matches this that you saw." That's the whole point. Godlike...divine faith. Your words matter and create and move.

it does mean, that we have faith in God.
Not in this instance.

There are many, many instances of this in the Greek scriptures. 😉
This is true...and never as much fun as here. I'm glad you posted.
 
Back
Top