Sometimes a speaker must adapt to their audience rather than wait for the audience to adapt to them. This has come to a real threshold the last couple of months. There is no vigilance by scholars or lay people on the topic of holy - the ability to hold a topic in the attention span long enough for it to make a difference. So this is one of those times that I must adapt to my audience and start equipping them further back in the process.
As I have dealt with holiness, I have noticed that Christian minds especially are not well-equipped to handle the topic. Their emotions and thinking are sloppy. I don't say this to insult anyone. But "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom". So in this case, the fear that our thinking may be sloppy is the right place to begin. So I am taking a new approach.
I'm narrowing my focus in TEACHING AND MINISTRY (down from holiness) due to emotional aimlessness and due to a lack of mental focus or over-focus among Christians. So the solution, I figure, is to focus on the first health the US and Christians in the US need - mental health. I'll deal with world mental health later, since the issues are different across the globe. I'll also go back to other health areas under holiness later.
Please don't think that I have lost my vigilance on holiness. I am not at all distracted from the topic, but there comes a time as a teacher when adaption is your only option. Even my supervisor at my current seminary didn't seem to get what I was accomplishing. So I believe that there are basics that are missing. I need to provide those to those I teach.
If you go to my communication basics blog, I will be producing much more there than here for the time being. I am also under a self-imposed deadline to finish the transcript for my book by the end of July - "Mental Health for Everybody". It will focus on the mind and how it is supposed to work and how we should equip our minds as opposed to the current approach. That will then form a basis both emotionally and logically for what holiness means by definition, by implication and by significance.
Go there for more. Thank you for your understanding. I will say this, I have more and more reasons to believe from the biblical text and not from etymology or cognate languages that holy as translated from words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek means ethical or moral wholeness. Have a blessed day.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label hale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hale. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better According to Genesis 1:1-2:4a (Transfer - Day/Step 2 of 5)
PREFACE
When dealing with relationships it is important to orient oneself through the transfer of place and time. Far too often an interpretation of a text can be off the mark, because the person doing the interpreting is not understanding either their place and time or worse yet the place and time of others. This is also where context can be either very important or very distorted. Our task is to find the where and when of the past and transfer its story into our this place and time. We need to understand its relevance to us, but also not at the expense of a prior generations place and time. We have to stay oriented, true and humble, in the face of place and time.
This need to be oriented and not disoriented begins at a young age with a child asking their parents, while they are driving, "Where are we going?" and "Are we there yet?" It all boils down to: 1) "Where?" and 2) "When?". We also see this in the adult question for any relationship as to whether another person is "there" for you "when" you need them.
Genesis is a book that begins with the where and when. It begins with "In the beginning, God created the heaves and the earth". It begins not just with a time - "in the beginning", but also with a place - "the heavens and the earth". It orients us for our travel through the history of who we are and who others were, who came before us, - the "generations".
There are three broad places where we can be and there are three broad times where we can be. For place, we can be either "there, or here, or elsewhere". For time, we can be either "before, during, or after". The places fit well with the real estate advice and mantra: "location, location, location". The time fits well with the decision makers rule that "timing is of the essence".
We see too the tragedy of their neglect. Think of the sad story of Amelia Earhardt, who likely perished in the middle of the Pacific Ocean maybe less than 100 miles from her destination. There are four basics to flying: 1) calculate (ex. fuel needs), 2) navigate (ex. by the stars and maps), 3) aviate (ex. know how to fly a plane), and 4) communicate. The experts believe that she and her navigator got somewhat off course due to the errors of maps they were using and the invisibility of celestial markers during bad weather. Only then it appears that they likely exceeded her calculations for fuel due to extra time required to reach their destination. It was also true as well that they had not realized the kind of communication equipment needed on board to communicate with those on the island they were attempting to reach. But all would likely have been OK, if only their navigation got them to the right place and the right time.
I'm afraid that too often Genesis 1:1-2:4a, is not used for its primary purpose to orient us in place and time to help us navigate as in Genesis 1:1, but rather is used to calculate (how old is the earth), or how to aviate (how does God create), or how to communicate (what are things it says we are to eat). All these things are not invalid concerns, but the primary questions of where and when are often lost in terms of focus by the device called distraction.
OPENING
So to begin, let me say this about transfer from one place and time to another. The best way to discover the relevance of the past is to lay out the connections that are made explicit in a passage. Below you will see a diagram that does just that. It highlights not the measures, not the actions, not the things or persons, but the connections by placing each line in a context where the connecting words come first.
I have found over many years of its use going back to 1979, that it is a very helpful tool for the one purpose of highlighting the connections between things, people, etc. I will later this week be adding what is a more detailed way of seeing the connections, but let me say this at this point. The break up of sentences below, should help you see the bonds and breaks between things better. That is my goal in helping us be oriented to the actual context.
This is not the only reason that is important, but the meaning of words can be greatly enhanced by understanding the context or the connections and disconnections far better. It orients us and that is part of what makes up meaning. So whether you think holy means "moral wholeness", or "purity", or "set apart"; pay attention to context.
Genesis
1-2:4
New King James Version (NKJV)
The
History of Creation
1 In the beginning God
created the heavens and the
earth.
2 The
earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was[a] on the face
of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the
waters.
3 Then
God said,
“Let
there be light”;
and
there was light.
4 And
God saw the light;
that
it was good;
and God
divided the light from the darkness.
5 God
called the light Day,
and the
darkness He called Night.
So
the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said,
“Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters
from the waters.”
7 Thus God made the firmament,
and
divided the waters
which
were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the
firmament;
and
it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven.
So
the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said,
“Let
the waters under the heavens be gathered together
into one place,
and
let the dry land appear”;
and
it was so.
10 And God called the dry land
Earth,
and
the gathering together of the waters
He
called Seas.
And
God saw
that
it was good.
11 Then God said,
“Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb
that yields seed,
and the fruit tree that yields
fruit according to its kind,
whose
seed is in itself, on the earth”;
and
it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass,
the herb
that yields seed according to its kind,
and
the tree that yields fruit,
whose
seed is in itself according to its kind.
And
God saw
that
it was good.
13 So the evening and the morning were
the third day.
14 Then God said,
“Let
there be lights in the firmament of the heavens
to divide the day from the
night;
and
let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and
years;
15 and let them be for lights in the
firmament of the
heavens
to
give light on the earth”;
and
it was so.
6 Then God made two great lights: the
greater light
to rule the day,
and
the lesser light to rule the night.
He
made the stars also.
17 God set them in the firmament of the
heavens
to
give light on the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over
the night,
and
to divide the light from the darkness.
And
God saw
that it was good.
19 So the evening and the morning were
the fourth day.
20 Then God said,
“Let
the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,
and
let birds fly above the earth across the face of the
firmament of the heavens.”
21 So God created great sea creatures
and every living
thing
that
moves,
with
which the waters abounded, according to their kind,
and
every winged bird according to its kind.
And
God saw
that it was good. 22 And
God blessed them,
saying,
“Be
fruitful
and
multiply,
and
fill the waters in the seas,
and
let birds multiply on the earth.”
23 So the evening and the morning were
the fifth day.
24 Then God said,
“Let
the earth bring forth the living creature according to
its kind:
cattle
and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each
according to its kind”;
and
it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth
according to its
kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that
creeps
on the earth according to its kind.
And God saw
that it was good.
26 Then God said,
“Let
Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness;
let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and
over the cattle, over all[b] the earth
and over every creeping thing
that
creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own
image;
in
the image of God He created him;
male
and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them,
and
God said to them,
“Be
fruitful
and
multiply;
fill
the earth
and
subdue it;
have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of
the air, and over every
living thing
that
moves on the earth.”
29 And God said,
“See, I have given you every herb
that yields seed
which is on the face of all
the earth,
and every tree
whose fruit yields seed;
to you it shall be for food.
30 Also, to every beast of the earth,
to every bird of the
air, and to everything
that
creeps on the earth,
in
which there is life,
I
have given every green herb for food”;
and
it was so.
31 Then God saw everything
that
He had made,
and
indeed it was very good.
So
the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2 Thus
the heavens and the earth, and all the host of
them, were finished.
2 And on the seventh day God ended His
work
which He had done,
and
He rested on the seventh day from all His work
which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day
and
sanctified it,
because
in it He rested from all His work
which
God had created
and
made.
4 This is the history[c] of the
heavens and the earth
when they were created, in the day
that
the Lord God made the earth and
the heavens,
Footnotes:
Genesis 1:2 Words
in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original
Hebrew or Aramaic.
Genesis 1:26
Syriac reads all the wild animals of.
Genesis 2:4
Hebrew toledoth, literally generations
I will be returning to this yet this week (as early as tomorrow) to put the passage into context. Thank you for your patience and make sure you re-visit this post because its value will expand immensely.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 24, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Translation - Day One of Five)
PREFACE
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
"God" is not his name
any more than my name
is "man".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now it is important to no longer
assume that it [holy] has to be
1 of 3 meanings.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 03, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding the Arrangement of my Blog Entries
I am sure you came to this blog looking for the definition of holy. Since that is the case, I will begin by saying that I recommend not letting go of the three top possibilities. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, and 3) set apart. That is what I recommend until you dig deeper and read more. But to do either the digging or reading on this blog, it will be helpful for you to know how my entries are arranged or organized. You can have the biggest library in the world, but if it is disorganized, it is worth less than a smaller one tightly organized.
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, February 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Persuasion Better
We can all be really gullible sometimes. The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger. This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole. When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions. I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts.
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
