- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 10 2014,07:08) Hi KW,
No long theological terms needed
Paul wanted to die.
Rom 7
Nick,I assume the word you have trouble chewing is so much is “soulical” which is from the Diaglott version of Scripture. Soulical is the literal translation of Koine Greek word that the translator translated as soulical and shorter that the word spiritual and it is no more or less a theological word than spiritual.
So it seems you have a problem with Paul using long theological terms as he uses them both.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 10 2014,07:08) Hi KW,
No long theological terms needed
Paul wanted to die.
Rom 7
Nick,I have trouble suffering willful ignorance and what you wrote sounds like an anti-intellectual remark dressed in your religious beliefs. God does not support “hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits” as it is a philosophy based on the principles of men. Instead God's teachings are based on godliness.
Note: Anti-intellectualism
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 09 2014,23:56) Soulical is the literal translation of Koine Greek word………
The “literal translation”, Kerwin?The Greek word is a synonym for “fleshly/fleshy”, and most translators render it as “natural” – not “soulical”.
My spell-correct program doesn't recognize the word “soulical”, and places a red line under it every time you or I write it.
Dictionary.com doesn't list it as a word – and so I can't look up a definition of it.
I seem to remember that you once found a definition of that word. Would you be so kind as to post it for me?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 11 2014,00:08) Hi KW,
Theology is not of God but of men.
We can know Him.
Nick,Theology is the study of God and can either be of man or of god depending on the principles that study is based on. Everyone on this board, including you, are engaged in theology as we seek God. Perhaps you are trying to use the word theology to mean elements of reasoning about God that are theoretical and not practical.
The Diaglott version was first published in 1864 and so has been around for 150 years. It is a unitarian translation and was written by a co-founder of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. It is the only version I have found that literally translated the Koine Greek word in 1 Corinthians 15:44 to the adjective form of soul. Some people are misled by the synonyms or completely erroneous words used in other versions. If it does nothing more a more clear translation removes excuses from those that seek destruction.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2014,06:10) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 09 2014,23:56) Soulical is the literal translation of Koine Greek word………
The “literal translation”, Kerwin?The Greek word is a synonym for “fleshly/fleshy”, and most translators render it as “natural” – not “soulical”.
My spell-correct program doesn't recognize the word “soulical”, and places a red line under it every time you or I write it.
Dictionary.com doesn't list it as a word – and so I can't look up a definition of it.
I seem to remember that you once found a definition of that word. Would you be so kind as to post it for me?
Mike,Both are the adjective form of soul. Your spell checker does not include every word. There is another adjective form of soul and that is soulish. Merriam-Webster still has that in its online dictionary though my spell checker does not recognize it. Soulical is a more rare and perhaps dated though I do find it used with a google search.
In some contexts the Koine Greek adjective form of soul is a synonymy of the same languages adjective form of flesh but as far as I have seen there is no case when it is saying something it literally composed of flesh.
Daniel Denison Whedon(1808-1885), a Methodist, actually used an argument similar to mine in his book Commentary on the New Testament, Intended for Popular Use: I Corinthians-II that is no in ebook form and is free. He states that as “a soulical body is not all pure soul so a spiritual body is not all pure spirit. For a pure spirit is not a body at all.”
Kerwin,
1 Corinthians 15
15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.15:48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly.
15:49 And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.
It seems to me that by using “dust of the earth” to describe the body of the first man, and the bodies of all of us who are now like that first man, Paul was indeed teaching about the physical make up of our bodies, and not about either living by spirit or not living by spirit.
But explain to me what “dust of the earth” has to do with your idea of “soulical” versus “spiritual”.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 12 2014,01:27) Hi KW,
Theology is a vanity.
We can KNOW God but the natural mind is an obstruction
Nick,Those are the words you voice does not say them. If you instead are saying that discussions that are theoretical but have no point in practicality then I might agree with you since that is the meaning of vain.
Hi KW,
Why stand around with the philosophers of Athens discussing God. ACTS 17
The door to salvation is still open.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2014,06:13) Kerwin, 1 Corinthians 15
15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.15:48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly.
15:49 And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.
It seems to me that by using “dust of the earth” to describe the body of the first man, and the bodies of all of us who are now like that first man, Paul was indeed teaching about the physical make up of our bodies, and not about either living by spirit or not living by spirit.
But explain to me what “dust of the earth” has to do with your idea of “soulical” versus “spiritual”.
Mike,1 Corinthians 15:47-49
American Standard Version (ASV)47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.Notice that the American Standard version like the Koine Greek original does not have the word made in it.
The Koine Greek allows “out of” instead of “of” and some translations do indeed use it.
The man is from out of Egypt, Egyptian, and his friend is out of Israel is an example.
In this case you are going from a version that added the word made to the passage so that it agreed with their doctrine.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 12 2014,09:39) Hi KW,
Why stand around with the philosophers of Athens discussing God. ACTS 17
The door to salvation is still open.
Nick,Are you one of those philosophers?
Why did Paul reason with them?
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 11 2014,22:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2014,06:13) Kerwin, 1 Corinthians 15
15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.15:48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly.
15:49 And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.
It seems to me that by using “dust of the earth” to describe the body of the first man, and the bodies of all of us who are now like that first man, Paul was indeed teaching about the physical make up of our bodies, and not about either living by spirit or not living by spirit.
But explain to me what “dust of the earth” has to do with your idea of “soulical” versus “spiritual”.
Mike,1 Corinthians 15:47-49
American Standard Version (ASV)47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.Notice that the American Standard version like the Koine Greek original does not have the word made in it.
The Koine Greek allows “out of” instead of “of” and some translations do indeed use it.
The man is from out of Egypt, Egyptian, and his friend is out of Israel is an example.
In this case you are going from a version that added the word made to the passage so that it agreed with their doctrine.
Kerwin,The definition of the word translated as “earthy” in the ASV, and as “made of dust” in the NET, is: made of earth. So the word “made” isn't an “addition” if “made of earth” is the definition of the Greek word.
And I'm not sure what difference there is between “made of” and “made out of” – so I assume that is just another of your diversions.
The bottom line is that Paul was teaching about the DIFFERENT bodies we'll have after the resurrection, right?
And YOUR idea is that he was saying our current bodies are led by “soul”, while our new bodies will be led by “spirit”.
But if that is the case, why did Paul mention a distinct difference between the bodies of those who are “made of earth”, and the bodies of the “heavenly”?
Doesn't that show you that Paul was indeed speaking about the PHYSICALITY of the old and new bodies?
We HAVE borne the likeness of those whose bodies are “made of earth”, but we WILL bear the image of those whose bodies are “heavenly”.
Can you see it now?
Mike,
Quote The definition of the word translated as “earthy” in the ASV, and as “made of dust” in the NET, is: made of earth. So the word “made” isn't an “addition” if “made of earth” is the definition of the Greek word. You claim that and yet the ASV did not use it. There are two Koine Greek words. The first that can be translated to the “earth” part of “out of the earth” has the root of gē. The “out of part is translated from the word ek and a summary of its definitions is “from out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards.” The second word is choikos and literately means of the dirt. It does not necessary mean some is made of the dirt.
Quote 5517 xoikós (an adjective, derived from xoos, “made of earth, dust”) – properly, earthy, dusty (made of dust); (figuratively) temporal, passing away; transient, “earthly.” All four occasions of 5517 /xoikós (“of dust, earthly”) occur in 1 Cor 15:47-49. 1 Corinthians 15: “The earthly” . . . incomplete without “the heavenly”
The English word earthly has many of the same meanings.
.
of or pertaining to the earth, especially as opposed to heaven; worldly.Primary Source for earthly and some inspiration. Source of English meaning of earthly.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 13 2014,06:47) Hi KW,
He was a servant.
And God got a small harvest but not from them.
Nick,The response in the Areopagus seemed pretty normal according to the ASV. Some mocked him while others wanted to hear more. Right from the start that was the case as some called him a babbler while others took him to the Areopagus to hear more. A certain number are said to have become believers.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,11:42) The second word is choikos and literately means of the dirt. It does not necessary mean some is made of the dirt. Quote 5517 xoikós (an adjective, derived from xoos, “made of earth, dust“) – properly, earthy, dusty (made of dust); (figuratively) temporal, passing away; transient, “earthly.”
There you have the facts………… once again. And once again, you have an “answer” for those facts. And as usual, your answer is weak, argumentative, and basically amounts to nothing more than willful ignorance.As you've pointed out, verse 47 has two terms. The first, “ek gē”, means “out of the ground/earth/land”. So the initial part of verse 47 teaches us that the first man was “out of the ground”, ie: made from the earth/dust – or as some translations word it, made from the dust of the earth.
Now, just consider who the “first man” was, Kerwin. Was that first man “Adam”? YES. He was mentioned by name just two verses earlier, right?
And was “Adam” literally made from the dust of the earth? YES.
And have we all borne the image of that first man Adam? YES. We are “of the earth”, as the ASV words it, right? And it makes the most sense that “of the earth”, when you put the first man Adam into the context, refers to being literally made from earth, right? Adam was “of the earth”, ie: made from the earth. All of us are also “of the earth” in that we were also made from the earth.
“For dust you are, and to dust you shall return”, right?
And then, as if that was not enough, Paul ALSO used the Greek word “choikos” – which you say literally means “of the dirt”. So Paul not only said the first man was “of the earth”, but reinforced that thought by also saying the first man was “of the dirt”. By writing “of the earth, of the dirt” together like that, Paul was clearly talking about the first man Adam being LITERALLY made from the dust of the earth.
Now naturally (or should I say “soulically”
), you will have an “answer” for this – like you do for everything else. You will try to guide me to other English definitions of “earthy” – as a distraction. You will do this even though YOU are the one who listed the “literal definitions” of the two Greek terms Paul used. And just as naturally (soulically), you will completely ignore the fact that “made of the dust/earth” is BY FAR the most logical and sensible meaning to the words Paul wrote – especially when taken in the context of verses 35-54.I know you will have an “answer” to all I've just written, because you've had an “answer” to everything else.
You've had an “answer” about why God would have let the disciples see Jesus in such a glorified state during his transfiguration – even though you say Jesus will never exist in that glorified state.
And you've had an “answer” about why John would say he didn't yet know what he would be, because he hadn't yet seen Jesus “as he is”……… to which you say John HAD already seen Jesus “as he is”.
And you've had an “answer” to Paul's and Jesus' teachings that flesh can neither enter, see, nor inherit God's heavenly kingdom.
But despite the fact that I already expect an “answer” from you, I continue my job of leading you to the water. I do this knowing full well that I will never be able to make you drink it.
So, the first man was “ek gē, choikos” – “of the earth, of the dirt”. Then Paul clearly CONTRASTED this first man from the second man, who was “ek ouranos” – “out of heaven”.
So the second part of verse 47 teaches us that the second man is NOT “of the earth, of the dirt” like the first man, right?
Paul was clearly contrasting the PHYSICALITY of the bodies of flesh human beings from the bodies of those who dwell in the heavenly realms.
Of course, you don't WANT that to be the case, so I will look forward to your forthcoming “answer” that will “explain it all away”.
Mike,
I tend to believe the correct definition is “temporal, passing away; transient” and not the literal “made of the dirt” you favor. Heavenly is similar to earthly and the Koine Greek word means “of heaven”
Quote 2032 epouránios (an adjective, derived from 1909 /epí, “on, fitting,” which intensifies 3772 /ouranós, “heaven”) – properly, heavenly, referring to the impact of heaven's influence on the particular situation or person. [The prefix (epi) shows this always “fits” – from the standpoint of heaven.]
I am tired and will thing about these definitions. I hope to get back with you soon.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,17:44) Mike, I tend to believe the correct definition is “temporal, passing away; transient” and not the literal “made of the dirt” you favor.
Of course you do!
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,17:44) I am tired and will thing about these definitions.
Okay. And while you're thinking about them, remember to do it in the context of the first man Adam.Think of what it means for Adam to have been “of the earth, of dirt”. Because that's who Paul was talking about.
Was Adam made “of the earth, of dirt”? Yes, literally.
Was Adam made “temporal”? Not according to you, who thinks Adam was originally made eternal.
Was he made “passing away”? Not according to you.
Was he made “transient”? Not according to you.
Kerwin, think long and hard about what you do in these situations. You see that the words mean “made of the earth, made of dirt” – but then the first thing you must do is eliminate the “made” part of the definition……. leaving only “of the earth, of dirt”.
Then, when those definitions, even without the word “made”, still lean towards a meaning of “literally comprised of dirt” – you throw them away and opt for the only remaining thing that you can. And in doing so, you show a complete disregard for the most logical meaning of the words Paul wrote.
It's like you don't care what the most sensible and most used definition is. You don't care what the context dictates. All you care about is that there is some rarely used alternate meaning listed in that definition box – and even if that alternate meaning is completely nonsensical in the context, you opt for it because you don't WANT the most sensible definition to be the truth.
So, Paul said that the first man Adam was made a living soul. And Paul said that first man was “of the earth, of dirt”.
And according to you, Adam was definitely not made as a “temporal, passing away, transient” being……. so your choice of definition doesn't fit.
But we all know that Adam WAS literally “made of the earth, made of dirt”, right?
So which better fits the context?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
