tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037457696217227495.post275779266566853083..comments2023-10-24T02:07:43.165-07:00Comments on Zion Beckons: Pseudo Scholars & Other ImpersonatorsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037457696217227495.post-42572047816772594202007-08-18T14:56:00.000-07:002007-08-18T14:56:00.000-07:00I think brother Earl Curry appropriately referred ...I think brother Earl Curry appropriately referred to it as "arid intellectualism" -- and nailed it!<BR/><BR/>brother EvBrother Evhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224838598558060010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037457696217227495.post-82865111674748634792007-08-18T10:44:00.000-07:002007-08-18T10:44:00.000-07:00Cecil,I am in no way offended by your post. Indee...Cecil,<BR/>I am in no way offended by your post. Indeed I lifted a rather hearty Amen! at much of it.<BR/><BR/>For the sake of accuracy, however,<BR/>Greek not Latin, was the every day language of the Roman Empire, even in Rome, until well into the first millenium.<BR/>There was not even an official Latin translation of the Bible until the 5th century AD. (By official, I mean a Latin version of the scriptures that was authorized and used and promulgated by the church)<BR/><BR/>That of course does not change anything about the point of your post, but just to comment on a weakness in your argument about seeking to understand the original languages of the written record of the faithful community.<BR/><BR/>I would offer that you seem to take offense at the very nature of scholarship, however, in your first paragraph. I am not denying that people may have the appearance of scholarly effort just for blustery show, and would agree that it is offensive. I would also add that it becomes transparent rather quickly, especially if there is real interaction between people. <BR/>But I would point out that any educational process of lasting value involves a leading, a provocation, and a hypothesis (maybe even a thesis). A process that dictates a conclusion that is accepted without examination, regardless of documentation, reputation, or credential is often not lasting; and it often leads to serious issues of indoctrination that can be literally fatal. There is nothing more dangerous than a well-documented and substantiated thesis, accepted without examination and contemplation. So I would challenge your point that a well-reasoned, and formulated argument relieves one of the educational process of "plowing through" references and thinking. This challenge comes with a hearty agreement that drive-by soundbites of documentation do not make for any real persuasive evidence of any point, and to accept them simply because they are sourced from a "repected" archive is indeed troublesome.<BR/><BR/>In reading your post I am a little confused, I guess. I sense in your writing a well-shielded desire to break away from some of the trappings of tradition that seem so apparent to an outside observer; but a vague guiltiness for feeling like you might want to do that.<BR/>Maybe I am wrong in my perception...I am willing to return <I>mea culpa</I> in kind.<BR/>I also was not sure whether you are truly opposed to "education", or if you are just oppposed to the appearance of education.<BR/>From your writings, I would be hard to persuade that you are not a quite intelligent man, whether formally educated or not; so I would not be easily persuaded that you are opposed to education and even bolstering your Christian discipleship by it.<BR/>It is not difficult, therefore, to see, and much more, agree that the pretention of education and the tactics thereof would be offensive to you. I quite agree, nothing offends me more or turns me off more quickly, than for someone to come out of the cannon with blustery quotations from scripture that have obviously been "called up from memory" by the ever-present search engines that are so prevalent today. This appearance of education and familiarity with scripture is both offensive and ingenuous in many cases. I won't name names because the tactic is obvious, but I will say that you should perhaps look beyond your "hierarchy" for offense in this regard. Perhaps even beyond your own comfort zone and circle of admiration.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am struck by the apparent necessity to defend your use of Strong's Concordance in scripture study. Of course it is not based on the Inspired Version of the Bible...nothing outside of your own tradition's writings is based on the IV. You can't even buy an IV in a Christian bookstore for example, and no writings outside of your tradition will even follow versification of the IV in cases where there are differences. I am not sure if that surprises you or if it is merely an element of your "guilt" for owning it and perhaps using it.<BR/>I find it sad and illustrative of your tradition's apparent hold on you, however, that you feel the need to defend your use of it, or seek permission or authorization to use it in study.<BR/><BR/>Your restrictive view of scripture leaves little room for comment or perhaps even conversation. This may be why you and your few participants here, excepting me of course, find yourselves "exiled".<BR/><BR/>{parenthetical comment: I searched and thought for sometime before I typed "exiled" because I didn't want to offend but I did want to capture the sense I have of your status (if you will) based on the writings and comments (not just yours but also Jan's and others here). Again I will gladly offer <I>mea culpa</I> if necessary.} <BR/><BR/>So back to my point on nature of scripture. Any debate on this point would surely be fruitless, but I think you know that many do not hold your restricvtive view. And objectively, your view does not stand the test of examination. Of course, by tradition and beliefs, it stands stalwart. There is a certain admirability to that, but the fruits of such restriction are, shall we say, captive; and I would imagine, based on your own writing and the remarks of others, that the admiration wanes rather quickly when any alternate view is offered in discussion.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that it makes for a rather lonely voice crying in the wilderness (not to wax too scriptural); and this should not be taken as compliment no matter how noble an effort and example the Baptist may have been.<BR/><BR/>That's as close to a scripture reference as you will get from me for these comments. Not every human discourse needs, nor should have, chapter and verse accompanying it for support. <BR/>If people have the ability to read your post and this comment they have all the intelligence and education necessary to understand them. I wouldn't insult your or anyone's intelligence by thinking otherwise.<BR/>And finally, except for the occasional Latin, I have spoken in plain English. If it is plainly read, it should be plainly understandable.<BR/><BR/>I do like this blog!<BR/>e.c.Equally Coyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287697631605264705noreply@blogger.com