tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139587082024-03-19T00:26:36.525-07:00Foster's Theological ReflectionsSporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger2502125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-23811784389164815502024-03-17T22:53:00.000-07:002024-03-17T22:53:26.966-07:00Quick Response Concerning Quotations of Christopher Stead in My Thesis<p>I have been accused of mishandling the words of scholar Christopher Stead from his book, Divine Substance. This accusation caused me to look at my Th.M. work to see if this charge is true: IMO, it is not. I found six occurrences of Stead's name, checked them all, and I find no merit for the accusations. At no time did I say or imply that Stead agreed with my worldview or theology. Those interested can see for themselves: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71906/1/10395258.pdf<br /><br />For example, here is one citation/quote from my thesis (page 23): <br /><br />"Adv Prax 8. George C. Stead, in his magisterial study concerning the notion of divine substance,<br />points out that Tertullian has no problem applying substantia to God. He notes that Tertullian uses<br />substantia in Adv Prax 9 to refer to uncreated spiritus, which is differentiated from created finite<br />spiritus by its inherent 'purity, subtlety and power, which was at first concentrated in the Father, then<br />distributed to the Son and Spirit,' see <i>Divine Substance</i> (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1977), 161."<br /><br />Please tell me how this cite gets Stead wrong.<br /><br />Here is another example (page 70 of my thesis):<br /><br />"Stead further discerns that Tertullian depicts God as a Mind (nous) containing Word in the sense of 'plan' or 'thought' within it. Moreover, he further states: 'This latter is sufficiently distinct to be addressed as a 'partner in dialogue .' Yet this Sermo does not become Son until God utters the words, 'Let there be light' (<i>fiat lux</i>) as recorded in Gen 1:3. Stead writes that it is only at this point that one can speak of Discourse (<i>Sermo</i>) as Son in the fullest sense. It might, therefore, be inaccurate<br />to argue that Tertullian thinks the Son is a timeless <i>res et persona</i> internal beside God."<br /><br />Again, one has to be careful to distinguish my words and beliefs from those of Stead: I did not conflate the two. I likewise discuss Stead on page 74 of my thesis.<br /><br />For the record, my training is in ecclesiastical history, so I am technically a church historian, which the YT video gets wrong.<br /><br />What about the claim that Tertullian is a Trinitarian? Did I get Tertullian wrong? I've actually been over this point many times on this blog, but I can cite numerous scholars who fault Tertullian's doctrine for not being fully Trinitarian. Here are some examples:<br /><br /><b>Church historian Gerald Bray writes:</b><br /><br />"In his counterblast to Praxeas, Tertullian came as near as he could to trinitarianism, without abandoning his fundamentally monotheistic and, to our minds, unitarian position. The Father always remained God in a way which did not apply to the other two persons, however much he might share his power and authority with them."<br /><br />See Bray's <i>The Doctrine of God</i>, pages 130-131_ for the full details. <br /><br />Concerning Tertullian's fuller statement of God's existence prior to the generation of His Son, A. Harnack perspicuously notes that although the <i>ratio et sermo dei</i> existed within God since "he thought and spoke inwardly," God the Father was still "the only person" subsisting prior to the temporal generation of the Son (Harnack, <i>History of Dogma</i>, 2:259). Edmund Fortman also concludes that the preeminent Son of God: "was generated, not from eternity but before and for creation, and then became<br />
a second person." Antecedent to his generation, however, the Logos was not "clearly and fully<br />
personalized" (Fortman 111). It therefore seems erroneous to think that the Son was eternally a <i>res et<br />
persona</i> internal beside God. Tertullian makes this point clearer in <i>Adv Prax</i> 5.<br /><br />See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/lonergan-on-tertullian.html<br /><br />By the way, the video criticizes me for citing/quoting Harnack. Guess they've never read much church history where such "old guys" are quoted. <br /><br />Here is what Mark Smith actually wrote about my thesis, which became a book: See https://books.google.com/books?id=yvWlC0kUlkYC&pg=PA297&dq=edgar+foster+angelomorphic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cs7FUu_KDobqkQfYtIHQAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edgar%20foster%20angelomorphic&f=false<br /><br />He does not put it down there.<br /><br />Overall, the video doesn't "get" my thesis.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-79360359971423300782024-03-17T15:00:00.000-07:002024-03-17T15:00:57.776-07:00Do Writers of the Christian-Greek Scriptures (NT) Quote the Hebrew Bible Verbatim?<p><b>The answer is complicated.</b><br /><br />See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Quotations-NT<br /><br />https://repository.westernsem.edu/pkp/index.php/rr/article/download/233/245<br /><br />http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/02/ecclesiastes-and-new-testament.html<br /><br />https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=second_person<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-33688678883487188512024-03-17T10:48:00.000-07:002024-03-17T10:48:27.900-07:00Interesting Quote From Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles I.4)<p><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">"</span>owing to the infirmity of our judgement and the perturbing force of imagination, there is some admixture of error in most of the investigations of human reason" <b>(Thomas Aquinas, <i>SCG</i> I.4)</b>.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-28334188457427553722024-03-16T16:21:00.000-07:002024-03-16T16:21:32.884-07:00Ephesians 4:6 and the One God of "All"<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Ephesians 4:6:</b><br /><br />εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.<br /><br />πᾶς is not used absolutely or in an unqualified sense here: it is utilized relatively. The apostle has the Christian congregation in mind, for it is this <i>ecclesia</i> that the one God and Father of all (εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων) especially rules "over" (ἐπὶ πάντων), works "through" (διὰ πάντων), and is "in" (ἐν πᾶσιν) by means of his holy spirit (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 2:19-22). Nevertheless, Paul is not espousing pantheism or panentheism in this account--his inspired counsel for the Ephesians strictly applies to the first-century Christian assembly composed of anointed ones, not to the cosmos as a whole.<br /><br /><b>William Larkin (<i>Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text</i>, page 71):</b><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ.</b> Nominative subject of an implied equative verb. The combination of titles occurs consistently in Ephesians in formal or liturgical contexts: salutation, 1:2; doxology, 1:3; prayer, 1:17; thanksgiving, 5:20; benediction, 6:23 (cf. 3:9, 14).</span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>πάντων.</b> Genitive of subordination. The fourfold πᾶς in this climactic statement probably all have the same gender, whether neuter or masculine (Best, 371). There is not enough in the context to distinguish the use of different genders with different items. Paul’s frequent cosmic focus in Ephesians, particularly with the use of πᾶς (1:10, 22, 23; 3:9, 15; 4:10), would be congruent with neuter gender. The term πατὴρ, however, denotes personal relationship, and the theme of church unity here (4:4) followed by a focus on individual church members (4:7) suggests that the gender is masculine and thus personal (contra Lincoln, 240; Best, 371).</span></div></blockquote><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-66578370443103989672024-03-15T11:07:00.000-07:002024-03-15T11:07:54.017-07:00"Nobody" and Matthew 24:36<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Matthew 24:36 <b>(YLT)</b> is rendered: "And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only"; But the <b>NWT</b> translates this passage "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>NWT's</b> rendering "nobody" is a perfectly fine translation. The Greek word in question (an adjective) has the forms OUDEIS, OUDEMIA, and OUDEN (grammatically masculine, feminine, and neuter forms). Matthew 24:36 has the masculine OUDEIS whereas 2 Corinthians 12:11 has the neuter OUDEN. <b>BDAG Greek-English</b> notes that when these forms are used as substantives (i.e., they function as nouns), then one may translate OUDEIS as "no one, nobody" or render the neuter OUDEN as "nothing." See page 735 of this lexical resource.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com87tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-10490591707638867972024-03-15T10:00:00.000-07:002024-03-15T10:00:53.040-07:00The Hearer of Prayer (Jehovah) Deserves To Be Praised (Modified Talk)<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Praise Jehovah, The Hearer of Prayer</b><br /><br />We have many good reasons to praise Jehovah, the hearer of prayer (Psalm 65:2). Through prayer, we gain the needed power to serve Jehovah faithfully, and prayer helps us to develop a close relationship with God as we see divine promises fulfilled in our personal life and organizationally. Tonight, we’ll examine three comforting aspects regarding Jehovah, the hearer of prayer.<br /><br /><b>1) </b>The inspired psalmist David shows there is an important connection between prayer and our personal relationship with Jehovah in Psalm 61:1, 8:<br /><br /><b>Hear, O God, my cry for help. Do pay attention to my prayer. (verse 1)<br /><br />Then I will sing praises to your name forever, As I pay my vows day after day. (Verse 8)</b><br /><br />There may be times when we make certain promises to Jehovah while praying. We may promise him that we’ll exert ourselves to overcome some weakness or we may vow to develop a Christian quality. We also might vow to increase some aspect of our theocratic service. How can we demonstrate seriousness regarding these vows? We can make them a regular matter of prayer, maybe even praying about these vows on a daily basis. Praying incessantly about promises that we have made to Jehovah will likewise help us to keep our vows.<br /><br /><b>2)</b> Prayer to Jehovah gives us an opportunity to show that we trust him.<br /><br />Trust in him at all times, O people. Pour out your hearts before him. God is a refuge for us. (Selah)-Psalm 62:8<br /><br />All of God’s people know that we should manifest unwavering trust in him at all times. Should we not also pour out our hearts to him in prayer? However, there may be times when it becomes difficult to pray and leave matters in God’s hands. Why might that be the case? One reason is that Jehovah doesn’t always reply to our prayers overnight. It may take time for him to respond, and that will require trust on our part. The 4/15/2015 WT uses the example of a child to illustrate why we need to exercise patience when we pray to Jehovah:<br /><br />“A child cannot rightly expect a parent to grant every request or to do so right away. Some of a child’s requests may be mere passing whims. Others must wait till the time is right.”<br /><br />Some requests may not be in a child’s best interests. That may also be the case when we approach Jehovah in prayer. Yet the scriptures promise that Jehovah knows our limitations; he remembers that we are dust. God promises that along with trials, he will make a way out. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13).<br /><br /><b>3) </b>We can be confident that Jehovah hears the prayers of all right-hearted ones.<br /><br />Psalm 65:1-2: Praise awaits you, O God, in Zion; We will pay our vows to you.<br /><br />O Hearer of prayer, to you people of all sorts will come.<br /><br />Before Jesus became human, he witnessed Jehovah being the Hearer of prayer. Later, when carrying out his earthly ministry, Jesus prayed all night to his heavenly Father (Luke 6:12). Prayer was not just a psychological crutch for Jesus, but he truly believed that God listened to his prayers. Jehovah was real to Jesus, and if we follow his example, Jehovah will be real for us too.<br /><br />Psalm 65:2 says that all sorts of people will come to the hearer of prayer. Therefore, we also learn that Jehovah is not partial (Acts 10:34-35). Even in the days of King Solomon, foreigners could prayerfully approach Israel’s God at the temple in Jerusalem, and offer sacrifice (1 Kings 8:41-42). Jehovah listens to the prayers of all those who fear him and work righteousness. The important factor is our heart condition, and what our hearts motivate us to do.</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-80885370520971231082024-03-10T15:46:00.000-07:002024-03-11T11:13:25.549-07:00Epaphroditus and Depression (Philippians 2:26)<p><span style="font-size: medium;">If you compare Philippians 2:26, where it says Epaphroditus "is depressed because you heard he had fallen sick" with Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33, you'll see that it's the same Greek verb in all three verses, translated as "was full of heaviness" or "very heavy" in the <b>KJV</b>. <br /><br />Matthew and Mark use the infinitival form of the word, but Philippians 2:26 has the participial morphology with the point being that Epaphroditus and Jesus both had moments where they felt distressed or depressed.<br /><br />The Greek grammarian Bill Mounce defines ἀδημονέω as "to be depressed, or dejected, full of anguish or sorrow." On the other hand, we equally learn that Paul and others were there for Epaphroditus, and Jehovah's angel comforted Jesus in his time of need. The same thing can happen for us when we feel depressed.<br /></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-21477233687992305512024-03-09T18:32:00.000-08:002024-03-09T18:41:14.610-08:00Proverbs 4:23 (Modified Talk)<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Proverbs 4:23:</b> מִֽכָּל־מִ֭שְׁמָר נְצֹ֣ר לִבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־מִ֝מֶּ֗נּוּ תֹּוצְאֹ֥ות חַיִּֽים׃<br /><br /><b>HCSB:</b> "Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life."<br /><br />Why is it so important to safeguard our figurative heart? The Bible book of Proverbs mentions the heart almost 100 times, and in this context, the heart refers to the "inner person." As the January 2019 WT notes, the inner person refers to our private thoughts, feelings, motives, and desires; it's who we genuinely are--not who we appear to be (1 Peter 3:3-4).<br /><br />When contemplating the history of ancient Israel, we find that most members of the nation did not safeguard their hearts (Hebrews 3:7-13); even King Solomon allowed his heart to be led astray by a harem of pagan wives (Nehemiah 13:26-27). Therefore, how can we safeguard our hearts today?<br /><br />Play the video and ask the questions.<br /></span><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Some Ways that Satan Tries to Mislead Us Today:<br /><br />A) False Religion<br />B) Greed and love for material things<br />C) Sexual Immorality<br />D) Discouragement<br />E) Discontent<br />F) Doubt</span><br /></b><br />We can safeguard our heart by studying, meditating on, and applying the Bible. Prayer, the Christian ministry and meetings are essential too. Also, work hard to fight fleshly desires.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-50242449710076023862024-03-08T13:03:00.000-08:002024-03-08T13:03:21.023-08:00Limping Upon "Two Crutches"? (1 Kings)<span style="font-size: medium;">1 Kings 18:21<br /><br />Hebrew: וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלִיָּ֜הוּ אֶל־כָּל־הָעָ֗ם וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ עַד־מָתַ֞י אַתֶּ֣ם פֹּסְחִים֮ עַל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַסְּעִפִּים֒ אִם־יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְכ֣וּ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְאִם־הַבַּ֖עַל לְכ֣וּ אַחֲרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־עָנ֥וּ הָעָ֛ם אֹתֹ֖ו דָּבָֽר׃<br /><br />The part that has long fascinated me about this verse is why Elijah spoke of Israel "limping" on two different opinions or being "paralyzed by indecision" (<b>NET Bible</b>).<br /><br /><b>NET Ftn:</b> tn Heb “How long are you going to limp around on two crutches?” (see HALOT 762 s.v. סְעִפִּים). In context this idiomatic expression refers to indecision rather than physical disability.<br /><br /><b>William Barnes (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary):</b> "How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? This is not a conscious reference back to Obadiah, but not entirely incidental to him either. The Hebrew idiom here is akin to our English expression 'sitting on the fence.' Obadiah had finally come down publicly on Elijah’s side in 18:16, but the people here would still remain publicly uncommitted until after the fire fell from heaven (18:39)."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-40499040487830799222024-03-05T10:52:00.000-08:002024-03-05T10:52:01.388-08:001 Corinthians 13:1--"I have become"<p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Greek verb γέγονα is a form of γίνομαι: γέγονα is the perfect indicative active first-person singular form of γίνομαι, which means it signifies completed action performed by an agent. Notice how 1 Corinthians 13:1 has "I have become" for γέγονα or "I am become" (<b>KJV</b>). So the action is completed, it really happens (hence, the indicative), and it's first person singular ("I). Compare 1 Corinthians 13:11.<br /><br /><b>HCSB: "</b>If I speak human or angelic languages but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Paul Gardner (1 Corinthians, ZECNT):</b> "Love, as Paul describes it here, is not an extra special grace-gift but is what marks all who are possessed by the Spirit. Gifts being exercised in a context where this is not present, where self is first and God and neighbor second or third, where status is sought rather than humility seen, make the person simply irrelevant spiritually. The person has become like random noise, which has no purpose or meaning. The verb meaning 'to become' or 'to be' (γέγονα) is in an intensive perfect. The present results are what matters to Paul. If this person spoke in this way, without love, then he or she has become or simply is a noisy gong. What Paul is saying is clear thus far."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Intensive Perfect Definition (Daniel Wallace, <i>GGBB</i>, page 574):</b> "The perfect may be used to emphasize the results or present state pro-duced by a past action. The English present often is the best translation for such a perfect. This is a common use of the perfect tense."</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-13923575448334973212024-03-01T09:03:00.000-08:002024-03-05T10:41:49.876-08:00Words of the Month (March 2024)<p><b>1.</b> <b>Naufragous</b> has been defined as "causing shipwreck." See https://www.wordnik.com/words/naufragous<br /><br />The word reminds me of 1 Timothy 1:19-ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν·<br /><br /><b>2. Prolegomenon-(Oxford Languages)-</b>a critical or discursive introduction to a book. The plural form is prolegomena.<br /><b><br />3. Catachresis-From the <i>Oxford English Grammar</i>, page 58:<br /></b></p><blockquote>(Plural catachreses.) The (perceived) erroneous use of a term applied to a concept.<br /><br />1926 H. W. FOWLER Wrong application of a term, use of words in senses<br />that do not belong to them.<br /><br />An old-fashioned term, originally rhetorical. Examples given by Fowler<br />were the ‘popular’ use of chronic = ‘severe’, asset = ‘advantage’, conservative<br />(as in conservative estimate) = ‘low’, annex = ‘win’, and mutual =<br />‘common’.<br /><br />1589 G. PUTTENHAM Catachresis, or the Figure of abuse . . . if for lacke of<br />naturall and proper terme or worde we take another, neither naturall nor<br />proper and do vntruly applie it to the thing which we would seeme to expresse.<br /> catachrestic, catachrestically.</blockquote><b></b><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-33117434745958334822024-02-28T05:31:00.000-08:002024-03-01T19:09:36.578-08:00Summary and Expansion of Michael Molloy's Final Chapter for "Experiencing the World's Religions" (Notes)<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I used to teach a world religion class and used a book written by Michael Molloy: these notes summarize and expand on the last chapter in that work. This is a skeleton version/outline of the lecture I would give for that section of the book.<br /><br />Religion and the Advent of Contemporary Technology:<br /></b><br /><b>1)</b> Advent of current technology that includes the Internet<br /><b>2) </b>Advent of telephones<br /><b>3)</b> Scientific Revolution with Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton<br /><b>4)</b> Advent of Multiculturalism<br />5) Women's Rights Movement<br />6) The Reassessment of Human Sexuality<br />7) Einstein developed special and general relativity in 1</span><span style="font-size: medium;">905 and<br />1915-1916</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">8) The proliferation of secularism/globalism<br />9) Environmental Challenges<br />10) Religion and War<br />11) The cosmos evidently is finite in age but enormous. It could be approximately 13.7 billion years old, and there are some 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone.<br />12) Speed of light is 300,000 km/sec or 9.5 trillion km/year<br />13) Milky Way-100,000 years to cross its 600 quadrillion miles in diameter<br />Why so enormous? We could ask the same about other celestial phenomena.<br />14) Billions and billions of galaxies<br />15) Clusters and Superclusters<br />16) Evolution and the Diversity of Life?<br />17) Four Basic Forces, proteins and amino acids<br />18) Quantum Physics/Mechanics/Particle Physics-Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac. Particle physicist Stephen Barr (professor emeritus, University of Delaware).<br /><br /><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-31570356648361923352024-02-27T22:09:00.000-08:002024-02-27T22:09:21.634-08:00The Proper Referent of 1 John 4:8 (Wash, Rinse, Repeat)<p>Our heavenly Father is the referent of ὁ Θεὸς in 1 John 4:8. Let's not forget that point. For example, 1 John 4:9 reads: "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him" (<b>NIV</b>). The "God" mentioned in that verse is the Father: not the Son or the Holy Spirit/holy spirit. So the old line of argumentation that tries to identify <b>the Trinity</b> with "God is love" (see Augustine of Hippo for one) is just mistaken. "God" in this verse clearly refers to the Father only. Thanks for your time.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-22645325504415253432024-02-26T13:56:00.000-08:002024-03-08T18:18:11.262-08:00Song of Solomon 5:11 and Canonicity<p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"></span></p><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven" (<b>Song of Solomon 5:11 KJV</b>). </span></div></div><p></p><div><div dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":r25c:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto" style="font-size: medium;"><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">It has been said that the Song of Solomon almost did not make the biblical canon because Jews and Christians both had trouble making sense of the work. This book was eventually given an allegorical interpretation by readers in Judaism and Christianity, so that we now have this great sacred work in the scriptural canon, which Jehovah inspired by means of his holy spirit.</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com59tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-44687055589586957622024-02-26T13:41:00.000-08:002024-02-26T13:41:14.215-08:00Writing Out Arguments and Logical Forms Facillitates Understanding<p> Thhe following could apply to learning a language too.<br /></p><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":rlv:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">It seems that the logical memory device known as "<b>Cesare</b>" goes like this:<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>1)</b> No P are M</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>2)</b> All S are M</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>3)</b> Ergo, no S are P <br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The argument's validity can be demonstrated by means of a <i>reductio ad aburdum</i> argument (also known as<i> reductio per impossibile</i>):<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>1a)</b> No P are M</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>2a)</b> Some S are P</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>3a)</b> Ergo, some S are not M<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><b>3a)</b> contradicts <b>2)</b> and <b>2a)</b> contradicts <b>3)</b>. Notice the false conclusion as well in the <b>reductio</b> example.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">So, it helps to write these things out and clarifies what's happening in arguments and language. Consulting Aristotle's square of opposition might shed some additional light on what's happening in these arguments. <br /></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-60775356669259889232024-02-25T11:33:00.000-08:002024-02-25T11:33:51.974-08:00The Bible—A Book of Fact, Not Fiction (Modified Talk)<p><b>Play Introduction to 1 Chronicles (4:50)</b><br /><br />The first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles are mainly genealogies; that might make us wonder why this book was included in the Bible canon. <br /><br />As our video noted, whenever the Israelites returned to Judah in 537 BCE, the lists in 1 Chronicles helped them to know who rightly belonged to the line of Davidic kings and it helped to establish the line of priestly descent, but are there other benefits we can derive from 1 Chronicles?<br /><br />1 Chronicles 1:1 (<b>read</b>)-Adam was a real person whom Ezra counts as part of the ancestral line for restored Israel. <br /><br />1 Chronicles 1:4-Noah was a real person.<br /><br /><b>Show and discuss the picture<br /></b><br />Knowing that people in the Bible actually lived and went through experiences like ours can help to build our faith (James 5:17). It will make the Bible live for us as we study and work hard to apply the things we learn. As with other books of the Bible, 1 Chronicles gives us good reason to believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word.<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: pre;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: pre;"></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15889226754343371772024-02-24T08:50:00.000-08:002024-02-24T08:50:48.600-08:00When Was 2 Peter Written?: Some Scholars Speak<p><b>Michael Green (2 Peter and Jude, TNTC):</b> "The external evidence is inconclusive. No book in the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers, yet 2 Peter has incomparably better support for its inclusion than the best attested of the excluded books. It is not cited by name until Origen, at the beginning of the third century, who six time quotes it as Scripture. In short ‘Peter blows on the twin trumpets of his own Epistles’.2 Yet it was used in Egypt long before this.3 Not only was it contained in the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the New Testament, dating from (?) the late second and fourth centuries respectively, but we are told4 that Clement of Alexandria had it in his Bible and wrote a commentary on it. This takes us back at least to the middle of the second century. The Apocalypse of Peter, written somewhere between AD 110–140, makes much use of 2 Peter,5 which throws the date of our Epistle back further still. Furthermore, there are possible or probable traces of 2 Peter in 1 Clement (AD 95), 2 Clement (AD 150), Aristides (AD 130), Hermas (AD 120), Valentinus (AD 130) and Hippolytus (AD 180)."<br /><br />Green thinks a date of 68 CE is possible for the epistle, but likewise thinks we cannot be sure yet.<br /><br /><b>Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callahan (<i>First and Second Peter</i>, pages 136-137, Paideia Series):</b> <br /><br />"It seems likely that 2 Peter was written sometime between 100 and 140, perhaps about 125 (so also Mayor 1907, cxxvii; Senior 1980, 99). Other commentators assign different dates. Richard J. Bauckham (1988, 3740–42) gives the most comprehensive survey. Dates proposed by the commentaries I have consulted include the following:</p><p>ca. 60 (Bigg 1901, 242–47)</p><p>63 (Wohlenberg 1915, xxxvii)</p><p>mid-60s (Mounce 1982, 99)</p><p>64–110 (Davids 2006, 130–31)</p><p>ca. 65 (Moo 1996, 24–25)</p><p>65–68 (Harvey and Towner 2009, 15)</p><p>ca. 70 or 80 (Chaine 1939, 34)</p><p>80–90 (Bauckham 1983, 157–58)</p><p>ca. 90 (Reicke 1964, 144–45; Spicq 1966, 195)</p><p>late first or early second century (Perkins 1995, 160; Harrington 2003, 237)<br /></p><p>ca. 100 (Schelkle 1961, 178–79)</p><p>100–110 (Kelly 1969, 237; Knoch 1990, 213)</p><p>100–125 (James 1912, xxx; Paulsen 1992, 94; Vögtle 1994, 128–29)</p><p>110–50 (Grundmann 1974, 65)</p><p>130 (Sidebottom 1967, 99)"</p><p><br /><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-7833917639432007432024-02-24T07:59:00.000-08:002024-02-24T07:59:05.830-08:00Is Genesis 1:1 in The Construct State Or Is It Absolute?<p>Scholars differ on the answer to the question posed in this blog entry, but to take the position that it <b>has</b> to be construct, as some Youtubers/TikTokers claim, is just wrong. I will cite some informative websites to demonstrate my point:<br /><br />See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/hebrew-and-you-with-lee-m-fields-is-gen-11-a-subordinate-idea-or-a-main-clause for a discussion of the grammatical possibilities<br /><br />https://winebrenner.edu/2019/04/15/examining-translations-of-genesis-11-in-relation-to-genesis-11-3-part-one/<br /><br />https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3126&context=auss<br /><br />Good dissertation here: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3126&context=auss<br /><br />Tip of the iceberg.<br /><br /><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-45795115379249034722024-02-23T16:21:00.000-08:002024-02-23T16:21:42.271-08:00LSJ Entry for Hagios (Screenshot)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUcydmr4cpbZumcoPQqzHYiDdQzUDjMEpuQUBhvl4kocOQ0kfuoSY7Y6Mbhkdwzy3_akzJ2WYN3EZhrjXpqDuVYBbQ9jj3eRRbmZ_tfM2-B8qV9S82Scl2-GpdAr2WI9n7DUyzomw2VCz_CGbKabtptWcmSc1MN0si2KhX5RX9Wda8jpTY_jcq/s1876/Screenshot%202024-02-23%20at%2019-19-39%20Henry%20George%20Liddell%20Robert%20Scott%20A%20Greek-English%20Lexicon%20%E1%BC%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1876" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUcydmr4cpbZumcoPQqzHYiDdQzUDjMEpuQUBhvl4kocOQ0kfuoSY7Y6Mbhkdwzy3_akzJ2WYN3EZhrjXpqDuVYBbQ9jj3eRRbmZ_tfM2-B8qV9S82Scl2-GpdAr2WI9n7DUyzomw2VCz_CGbKabtptWcmSc1MN0si2KhX5RX9Wda8jpTY_jcq/w374-h183/Screenshot%202024-02-23%20at%2019-19-39%20Henry%20George%20Liddell%20Robert%20Scott%20A%20Greek-English%20Lexicon%20%E1%BC%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82.png" width="374" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-85824829310866517352024-02-23T10:41:00.000-08:002024-02-23T10:41:14.580-08:001 Peter 5:6-7: Qualities We Need and How God Deals with Us<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Greek (WH):</b> Ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ἐν καιρῷ, πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ' αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν.<br /><br /><b>ESV: </b>"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you."<br /><br />I heard a talk recently that pointed out three beautiful things about these verses. Peter (under inspiration) teaches that we as Christians need humility, patience, and trust in Jehovah. We must humble ourselves under Jehovah's mighty hand when under trial, we patiently wait until the proper or due time when he exalts us, and we cast/throw all of our anxieties on him, which shows we trust God. <br /><br />But notice that we can confidently throw our anxieties/burdens on Jehovah because we know he cares for us (Psalms 55:22; Proverbs 3:5-6). What a beautiful assurance the apostle gives. </span><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-24423276153476215912024-02-21T19:29:00.000-08:002024-02-21T19:29:02.920-08:00More Pertaining to Greek Gender (Morphology)<p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"></span></p><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A friend once asked me about grammatical gender in Ancient Greek, so I'll make a few remarks here.</span></div></div><p></p><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":rhk:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cities in Greek are normally feminine gender if I remember correctly. Granted, some nouns in the language have masculine and feminine forms, but the differentiation of gender in these instances is normally marked by the article employed with the noun (e.g., ὁ λόγος is masculine, whereas ἡ νῆσος is feminine). <br /><br /></span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Louw-Nida Greek and English Lexicon</b> points out that Βαβυλὼν is a feminine noun and so does <b>BDAG</b>. The article used in Revelation along with "Babylon" also points to the noun being feminine with respect to its grammatical gender: even when a nominal declines, unless the article indicates otherwise, we can conclude that its gender remains the same: λόγος is nom. sing. masc., but λόγοι is nom. pl. masc.<br /><br />See </span>https://pressbooks.pub/ancientgreek/chapter/20/<br /><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":rhk:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><br /></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-21919882015279306532024-02-21T13:12:00.000-08:002024-02-21T13:12:19.611-08:001 Corinthians 10:18: A Brief Syntactical Discussion<p><span style="color: #050505; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν (<b>1 Corinthians 10:18-Nestle 1904</b>)
It seems that κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου is a genitive of association (Compare Rom. 8:17). Furthermore, the substantival phrase οἱ ἐσθίοντες is the subject here rather than θυσιαστήριον. Additionally, the context suggests that the eater/one approaching the altar consumes the meat, not the altar <i>per se</i> (1 Cor. 10:16-17). For a similar use of altar terminology, see Heb. 13:10.
<b>Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner (<i>The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC Series</i>): </b>
</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="color: #050505; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">By “participating in the altar” Paul evidently means that those
eating the meal from the food taken from the altar are counted as
those who offered the worship through the sacrifice that was offered
there (and expect to benefit from the efficacy of that offering). The
implication for eating food offered to idols is clear. Paul implies that
to knowingly eat food that has been clearly identified as such makes
one a willing participant of the offering from which it was taken. Such
is understood to be the case in Christian participation in the Lord’s
Supper and in the offerings made at the temple in Jerusalem as well,
and it would be only reasonable to assume that it applies to food
offered to idols also. That very implication brings Paul back to the
issue of the significance of idols and idol food, an issue that he
touched on in 8:4, 7 and that he addresses again in the following
verses.
</span></span></blockquote><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-14448511187706734362024-02-19T15:47:00.000-08:002024-02-19T15:47:37.968-08:00More Physicalism/Reductionism: Against Ultrasensory Forms<p>The issue of reductionism is evidently not all that inconsequential. I'm not a chemist although I once assumed the role of chemistry teacher for three months in Caldwell County, NC (USA). Nevertheless, what I'm stating here is pretty much a given in modern scientific circles far as I can tell. A nomothetic analysis of clouds yields the conclusion that clouds (ontologically speaking?) are <b>nothing but</b> ensembles of water molecules; similarly, with water. It's ontologically nothing but H<span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span>O far as we know (= epistemic possibility). I checked my copy of Brian Greene's <i>The Fabric of the Cosmos</i>: he apparently explains water in these terms as well.<br /><br />Stephen Hawking once analyzed the structure of matter by probing the role that atoms and quarks play in the constitution of matter. He then asked in effect whether it's possible to reduce matter to a level of existence below subatomic particles; his tentative answer was that <b>energy</b> (<i>simpliciter</i>) possibly subsists beneath subatomic particles. Regardless of the answer to Hawking's query, it seems that a thing is what it is because of its atomic/molecular structure. A cloud is nothing above and beyond "a collection of water molecules"; water itself is nothing above and beyond H<span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span>0. Waterness is therefore nothing but the common properties of water that we find in singular instances of the wet stuff: it's not some intelligible "thingy" (universal/abstract form) that the soul abstracts from matter. No one has ever proved by means of empiricism or rationalism that Forms of any kind exist. <br /><br />Causal reductionism seems tough to explain when clouds or trees are the objects of inquiry. Does not Aristotle give a natural account of <i>teloi</i> since his deity is not an efficient universal cause but just a final cause? Hence, from the venerable Stagirite's perspective, it would appear that utterances regarding deific <i>teloi</i> might be out of bounds when it comes to delineating the nature of final causes. But maybe we could invoke causal reductionism within the sweeping compass of final causality to provide justification for the natural ends of acorns or agricultural seeds and other biological organisms. That is, one might take this approach when exploring these issues from an Aristotelian or Thomistic vantage-point.<br /><br />John R. Searle makes a distinction between ontological, causal and eliminative reductionism. He defines the former this way: "Phenomena of type A are ontologically reducible to phenomena of type B if and only if A's are nothing but B's" (<i>Mind: A Brief Introduction</i>, page 83). Some examples include material objects which are "nothing but collections of molecules" and sunsets which are nothing but "appearances generated by the rotation of the earth on its axis relative to the sun" (ibid.). Phenomena of type A are causally reducible (Searle would argue) to phenomena of type B "if and only if the behavior of A's is causally explained by the behavior of B's, and A's have no causal powers in addition to the powers of B's" (ibid). E.g., solidity is causally reducible to the behavior of molecules; consciousness might be <i>causally reducible</i> to neuronal behavior without being <i>ontologically reducible</i> to neuronal activity. <br /><br />When I referred to Hawking earlier I had this quote from A Brief History of Time in mind found in chapter five:<br /><br />"We now know that neither the atoms nor the protons and neutrons within them are indivisible. So the question is: what are the truly elementary particles, the basic building blocks from which everything is made? Since the wavelength of light is much larger than the size of an atom, we cannot hope to 'look' at the parts of an atom in the ordinary way. We need to use something with a much smaller wave-length. As we saw in the last chapter, quantum mechanics tells us that all particles are in fact waves, and that the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wavelength of the corresponding wave. So the best answer we can give to our question depends on how high a particle energy we have at our disposal,<br />because this determines on how small a length scale we can look. These particle energies are usually measured in units called electron volts. (In Thomson’s experiments with electrons, we saw that he used an electric field to accelerate the electrons. The energy that an electron gains from an electric field of one volt is what is known as an electron volt.) In the nineteenth century, when the only particle energies that people knew how to use were the low energies of a few electron volts generated by chemical reactions such as burning, it was thought that atoms were the smallest unit. In Rutherford’s experiment, the alpha-particles had energies of millions of electron volts. More recently, we have learned how to use<br />electromagnetic fields to give particles energies of at first millions and then thousands of millions of electron volts. And so we know that particles that were thought to be 'elementary' thirty years ago are, in fact, made up of smaller particles. May these, as we go to still higher energies, in turn be found to be made from still smaller particles? This is certainly possible, but we do have some theoretical reasons for believing that we have, or are very near to, a knowledge of the ultimate building blocks of nature."<br /><br />Compare https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-there-anything-smaller-than-a-quark<br /><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-21905702263014960962024-02-19T10:38:00.000-08:002024-02-19T10:38:55.985-08:00The Greater and Lesser Lights? (Genesis 1:16)<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Scholars often wonder why Genesis 1:16 refers to the greater and lesser lights without calling them "sun" and "moon." One suggestion has been that the Genesis account wants to emphasize the sun and moon are not gods (deities) but rather creations of YHWH Elohim (Gen 1:1). Maybe Genesis is militating against then-contemporary mythology: so the narrative goes. <br /><br />Whatever the reason for Moses' choice of words besides divine inspiration, we know that he could have written "sun" and "moon" since the Hebrew word שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ (<i>shemesh</i>) does appear elsewhere in Genesis (Genesis 15:12, 17; 19:23). Hence, the language, "greater" and "lesser" lights seems intentional:<br /></span></p><p></p><blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">The author’s polemical concerns continue in these verses as indicated, first of all, by his choice of terminology. He uses the unusual expression the greater luminary instead of the normal word for sun—</span><i style="font-size: large;">šemeš</i><span style="font-size: medium;">—of which he undoubtedly was aware. In the same way he opts for the lesser luminary instead of the familiar </span><i style="font-size: large;">yārēaḥ</i><span style="font-size: medium;">, “moon.” The reason for this choice of terms may be due to the fact that these words—which are very similar in other Semitic languages—are the names of divinities.</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">206</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> Thus this text is a deliberate attempt to reject out of hand any apotheosizing of the luminaries, by ignoring the concrete terms and using a word that speaks of their function.</span></blockquote></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hamilton, Victor P. <i>The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 </i>(New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 2404-2409). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. <b>Kindle Edition. </b></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com77tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-16018450706393407562024-02-16T10:37:00.000-08:002024-02-16T10:37:37.997-08:00To Which Mountain Was Jesus Taken?<p><span style="font-size: medium;">A student once asked me from which mountain Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (Matthew 4:8-11). We discussed how the mountain is not given a name in the account and it might even have been visionary, but also the word for "mountain" (ὄρος<span class="greek">)</span> appears numerous times in Matthew's Gospel (5:1; 5:14). However, these mountains are left nameless most of the time, I believe. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), we are not told what the mountain is and the same thing can be said for Matt. 17 with the transfiguration. In Matt. 28:16-20, Jesus gives the so-called Great Commission to his disciples from a mountain: Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.<br /><br />There is also the question of <i>how</i> was he taken, and from which mountain one could possibly see <i>all</i> the kingdoms of the world and their splendor?<br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzt5hH9hyDJlUpfPZjATMDF7_QFlifEYVIHMoGNQsJodOqDT4kgq0gN1hAQs2jQUrHWcQWQLWOR_HlvAsVpOU5cQ_T7O9d5ac3cTVbCfWmuzXo5erqAhKvgexFO-75DQzM9DH0B7MkX33UiRqhubOM3bmdBhw0RrvfqtL1XV3WkLYLF4jBFS6Y/s442/Mount%20Everest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="442" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzt5hH9hyDJlUpfPZjATMDF7_QFlifEYVIHMoGNQsJodOqDT4kgq0gN1hAQs2jQUrHWcQWQLWOR_HlvAsVpOU5cQ_T7O9d5ac3cTVbCfWmuzXo5erqAhKvgexFO-75DQzM9DH0B7MkX33UiRqhubOM3bmdBhw0RrvfqtL1XV3WkLYLF4jBFS6Y/s320/Mount%20Everest.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com</div>Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.com16