The fiscal cliff that we are told will arrive at the beginning of this next year is causing a lot of jitters and volatility in the markets. But even now it is wrecking havoc due to the uncertainty of whether it will happen or not. The main concern of the financial experts is that what is weighing on things now is the uncertainty that exists until this issue is addressed. People are waiting until all the uncertainty is out of the market. So it is not just the fiscal cliff that is harmful, it is also the uncertainty associated with it. This is also true for the uncertainty about the meaning of holy. It can be paralyzing. It can make things volatile. It can cause people to wait and to wait and to wait, when action is needed. So why not address it?
I have tried to address the issue of uncertainty on the topic of what holy means, yet still the issue is pushed off to the future based on the scholarly activity that is not happening to address the uncertainty. Some Christians are unwilling to commit to any course until the uncertainty is removed. It is not just financial markets that function this way. It is also influencing the spiritual atmosphere as well.
There is a time for concealing and there is a time for revealing. I have chosen to see our time as a time for revealing and removing the uncertainty that exists about the meaning of holy rather than concealing it.
Many books cover the topic of holy and conceal the uncertainty by default. But in many ways this is like pushing the fiscal cliff further out there. Spiritually, Christianity is being faced with its own dire spiritual cliff. The uncertainty can't be concealed once it is let out the hat and yet some scholarship by default conceals the uncertainty of the meaning of holy by trying to push back into the pandora's box after it has been opened.
People are waiting for the uncertainty involved in the meaning of holy to be addressed and removed. They can see the attempts to push it back into the box as a failure. The point is they are waiting for a solution. So they are not committing, not acting and not choosing. That is harmful. We cannot ask people to wait forever. When will scholars get together instead of forcing onto others an endless waiting game where uncertainty itself is dangerous?
We cannot afford to endlessly wait anymore than an economic system can keep pushing back a fiscal cliff. At some point that is sooner rather than later, a solution must be drawn up that eliminates at least a good measure of uncertainty and volatility among those who hold to differing views. Can we afford to not know the meaning with certainty for the second most important word in the entire biblical text?
I don't think we can do this endlessly and yet how different is our situation from that of the economy in relation to an uncertain fiscal cliff? Can we say that 7%, 25%, 55%, etc. certainty is good enough? Would it not be better to remove the uncertainty, when it can be done in fairly quick order? That is what I wish I could do and yet so often I see the uncertainty of the situation lead to delays rather than fast action. Endless, endless, endless delays without and end in sight.
When will the uncertainty end? When will we have exhausted the many days of that are given to us? I don't know, but I think it best to think of today as the day to at least commit to end the uncertainty and not tomorrow. Tomorrow might be too late and waiting and waiting and waiting is not the thing to do, when tomorrow may be just that. It is not wise in the area of economics. Is it any wiser in the area of spiritual salvation?
Do you enjoy the idea of maybe falling off a cliff? I don't. I'm out to avoid it. I want not only to know what holy means, but to also end the effects of the weight of uncertainty. I want to end it as soon as possible. Let's join together and get it done. Thank you for taking the time to read this entry on my blog.
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label clarity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clarity. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Answering the Question "Why?"
So why does the definition of holy matter? There are fundamentally two answers to that question. The first is the life-relevant answer. The second is the teaching-relevant answer. I have generally spent more time on the second than on the first in this blog. I have a second blog that answers more the first question, but it depends a great deal on answering the teaching-relevant question that this blog focuses on the majority of the time. Today, I want to expand more on both answers to the why questions you might have.
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better from ALL Lexicons
Your primary reason for visiting my blog is most likely that you want to know the meaning of the word holy in English as a translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. (The latter is important, even if person does not recognize the importance of the New Testament, because the Old Testament was translated into Greek also.) I wish I could give you the stock answer of "set apart", because one possibility is simpler than multiple possibilities. But that would make me dishonest. Based on my reading of the lexicons and dictionaries out there, I think there are three great possible answers. The first is "pure", the second is "set apart", and the third is "whole" (listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias). The reason for that is that I am basing my research on "all" the dictionaries and lexicons that are available. I will further explain what I mean by "all", so I don't appaer unrealistic.
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Holy: Understanding Better Where I am in Studying This Key Word
I want at this point to give all of my readers a better idea of who I am. The internet provides unmatched ability to give you a better sense of who I am personally without my having to travel to where you are today. So today I am providing to you a video to watch that sums up where my project on the definition of holy is and where it is going.
Here it is (simply click on the link below):
http://youtu.be/BV0p9aJs_QU
I hope viewing the video gave you a little more personal insight into who I am and that it also communicates where I am in the process of studying the meaning of holy in the Biblical text. My goal from my studies is to be qualified to also teach on the subject from the Biblical text. Remember from what I said in the video that being a knower is not the same as being a teacher or vice versa. It takes both.
If you have insights, questions, or comments; then feel free to respond to this blog entry and my video. It is my humble wish that this entry is an encouragement to all who need it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Here it is (simply click on the link below):
http://youtu.be/BV0p9aJs_QU
I hope viewing the video gave you a little more personal insight into who I am and that it also communicates where I am in the process of studying the meaning of holy in the Biblical text. My goal from my studies is to be qualified to also teach on the subject from the Biblical text. Remember from what I said in the video that being a knower is not the same as being a teacher or vice versa. It takes both.
If you have insights, questions, or comments; then feel free to respond to this blog entry and my video. It is my humble wish that this entry is an encouragement to all who need it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Staying on Course
"There is no shortcut. But there is a
path. The path is based on principles revered throughout history. If there is
one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is
not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and
why you do it than how fast you get it done." This quote on wisdom and method is from Stephen R. Covey. I quote it, because the path to understanding holy is filled with pitfalls that can be described as shortcuts. But also I am convinced that there is a very reliable path to understanding holy that will raise the level of certainty about its meaning to a new level.
In this entry, I will outline the five steps in that process and follow up with short descriptions. I have mentioned these steps before, but I now understand them better and I have a new commitment to this method after hearing and then reading Covey's quote. They are: 1) Translating, 2) Transfering, 3) Totaling, 4)Training, and 5) Teaching.
Please don't get overly hung up on terminology. These five could also be called the following names, based on terminology drawn from biblical study and linguistics: 1) Comparing translations, 2) Textual displaying, 3) Exegesis 4) Action and Post-Action charting, and 5) Universal classifying of words. I have tried to use the most everyday language and the most principle centered language that I found in the literature of biblical exegesis and interpretation or in the literature of linguistics (the scientific study of languages). To varying degrees, the steps are universal to all the major books on exegesis.
Let me use one book as a specific example from the field of linguistics. It is: Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow. On the contents page (p. 7), they outline their principles of translation. I would like to grade their book like a teacher does an assignment based on each of the five steps above.
1) Translating: C+ (reason why: they do not balance both meaning and clarity as equals)
2) Transferring: B+ (reason why: they add to the traditional science of sentence diagramming)
3) Totaling: C+ (reason why: this is largely left implict rather than explicit, but they do practice it)
4) Training: C+ (reason why: this is not covered in any real depth in this book)
5) Teaching: A (reason why: the analysis of the universal classes of meaning is superb)
The book's overall score is: B. It has for years been a very valuable addition to my library. I could even upgrade it's overall score to B+, based on the fact that the teaching portion could be given an A+ (if I added that to my scale).
Let's look again at the purpose for this entry on my blog. It is to clarify and commit to how I am going to approach the meaning of holy. It is only fair that my readers understand the principles of the method that I am using to get the results that I will arrive at.
There are many tempting short cuts to avoid. The first is reading a greater volume of contemporary lexicons on Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be sure the meaning of holy is correctly understood. The second is to read the greats of church history to make sure that the meaning of the word holy has not been lost in moving from a period of revival to a period of decline. The third is to keep digging deeper into the etymology of the word for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These are all good, but they can become the enemy of the best method for determining the meaning of holy.
So going forward, even while I will use these other methods on occasion, I have to make sure that my focus is on the 5 step method that I proposed at the beginning. Again, the terminology may differ, but the method is universal. This method may also be better in some books than others. Again, what matters most is staying with the method rather than getting side-tracked. I feel like I could have used my blog entries better in the past with the 5 steps being more of a primary focus. Again, this does not say the other methods are bad, though it may still mean they are enemies of the very best. So while I will still use these methods, I hope to use them more sparingly.
In addition, I think each passage I write about will have to be broken up into each of these 5 steps, so that my each of my entries is not too long. That is one of the limitations in communicating by blog rather than by article or book. So please be aware that in the near future that I may be dividing my entries up in this way in order to keep things short enough for those who want a quick answer, but also long enough through labeling for the person who wants to go into greater depth.
Returning to part of my earlier quote: "If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done." Reading lexicon entries is fast, dictionaries entries are even faster; but I am in this to solve the problem of a fair level of uncertainty, and not to gloss over any uncertainty. Here we go in embarking on a path, rather than on a short cut!
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
