I'd recommend interviews done with 'the 2,000 year old man' (Mel Brookes, Carl Rhiner) He knew (knows) it all.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: December 26, 2004 09:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech > I don't have Bullinger's book, but I think it might be a good this to add. > There is another book to consider as well.... "Idioms in the Bible Explained > and A Key to the Original Gospels" by George M Lamsa ISBN 0-06-064927-5 > (14.00 USD, $20.00 Can) > > However, Lamsa comes from the idea that Aramaic was the original language of > the Gospels... a point to which I disagree. He has some valid points > nonetheless. I also disagree with some of his interpretations of the > Biblical idioms, but in some circles I would be heretical because (after > all) how DARE I disagree with a man who transalted (I mean translated) the > New Testament from his own language. This is point he makes in his > translation of the whole Bible and he seems to hang a lot of importance on > this fact. > > However, as anyone knows, the meanings of both idioms and words change > through time and the man is not 2,000 years old. > > --slade > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Taylor > Sent: Sunday, 26 December, 2004 02.06 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech > > > "but it does shift some additional burden upon those claiming it is a figure > of speech" > > No, David, it does not. That would be the case only if Bullinger had set out > to identify every use of figurative language in the Bible. But that is not > Bullinger's intent. By the way, I've got that book too, and I must say that > it has been immensely helpful over the years. Nowhere does he state an > intent to set forth every occurrence of figurative language: His is not to > give every reference to a particular figure of speech; instead he attempts > to address every figure of speech by referencing examples of its use in the > Scriptures -- a rather significant distinction. > > Hebrews 1.5 is structured chiastically (A>B-B>A). The first and last lines > concern sonship and frame the second and third lines, which speak of > paternity. > > A -- You are my Son; > B -- today I have become your Father > B -- I will be his Father > A -- and he will be my Son > > David, do you deny my assertion concerning the chiastic structure of this > verse? Chiasm (sometimes called Chiasmos or Chiaston) is a figure of speech. > Bullinger addresses Chiasm on pages 374-384, citing many examples of this > structural form in Scripture. Yet he does not include Hebrews 1.5 in this > set of examples. > > Should his lack of inclusion under Chiasm, cast dispersions on a further > lack of inclusion as it relates to this verse in other figurative forms? > Certainly it should not. > > When one statement (and that is what this is: a statement, with multiple > quotations of that statement elsewhere) casts dispersions on the greater > narrative of Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suspect firstly that the > statement was not written with literal intent; hence the assertion that Ps > 2.7 et al is to be taken figuratively. > > Of this verse, William Lane writes: "There is a certain degree of unresolved > tension in the writer's designation of Jesus as Son, since the title can be > applied to the pre-existent Son (v3a-b), to the incarnate Son (v 2a), and to > the exalted Son. It was apparently the writer's conviction that although > Jesus was the pre-existent Son of God (cf. 5.8, "although he was the Son"), > he entered into a new dimension in the experience of sonship by virtue of > his incarnation, his baptism, his sacrificial death, and his subsequent > exaltation. This new dimension finds expression in THE LEGAL FORMULA OF > RECOGNITION, "You are my Son" (emphasis mine). A possible explanation for > the figurative thrust of this verse is as follows: If Lane is correct in > identifying this pronouncement a legal formula, then it is a figure of > Speech by definition and the Hebrew culture would have recognized it as > such. Hence we see that the day of that pronouncement came not once but on > several occasions throughout the course of the Son's earthly appearance: at > his baptism, at his transfiguration, and after his resurrection (cf. Acts > 13.13), to name a few. "On this day" then is not a statement in reference to > a point in time which introduced the "Son's" ontological existence, it > refers to points in time which established the legal designation or > recognition of Sonship to the Son's eternal existence. > > Bill > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:47 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech > > > > I should point out that some scholars have attempted to be very thorough > in > > cataloging and identifying figures of speech. I have a volume by E.W. > > Bullinger called, "Figures of Speech used in the Bible." It is more than > > 1100 pages, but it does not list "This day have I begotten thee" as a > figure > > of speech. It does list the idea of "begotten" from Psalm 2:7 as being an > > anthropopatheia. The question posed in Heb. 1:5 of "Unto which of the > > angels said he at any time, thou art my son" also is listed as a figure of > > speech, but the phrase, "This day have I begotten thee" is not discussed. > > The volume has a good Scripture index so I am confident that I have looked > > at all the relevant places in this extensive volume. Of course, not > listing > > it as a figure of speech does not mean that it was not a figure of speech, > > but it does shift some additional burden upon those claiming it is a > figure > > of speech to explain what actual meaning is meant to be conveyed by this > > alleged figure of speech. > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller. > > > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
