Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

OzSpen said:

Wafer,

Oxford Living Dictionaries disagrees with you about ending sentences with prepositions:

Did anybody ever tell you that prepositions are not good words to end a sentence with? That is not a rule, it is an opinion formed by Latin students and carried over to English.

You can read more about ending sentences with a preposition on the Oxford Dictionaries blog (2019. s.v. Grammar: Ending sentences with prepositions).​

Oz

Click to expand...

As Winston Churchill said, "That is the sort of arrogant pedantry up with which I will not put."

OzSpen said:

Wafer,

You don't seem to understand that when you or I write sentences we use logic to understand what they mean:

Click to expand...

You keep saying "logic" but what you are talking about are conventions. You can analyze them according to formal rules of logic, but they might not comply.

I was chatting with a young fellow when he suddenly said "You're a libertarian!" I had never heard the word before so I asked him what that meant. He could not explain, but whatever it was, I was one! That was a native English speaker, well brought up, not stupid, and what he said was perfect according to the conventions of discourse. He just didn't know what he was talking about. And that is where your insistence on "logic" to convey meaning no longer relates to reality.

Another example is the figure of speech "idiom". We say "crack the door" and no amount of logic can explain that. You just have to know what that means.

I just remembered this: "Swat the fly" was originally a baseball expression. A school teacher took it literally and invented the fly swatter.

"In the summer of 1905, Kansas was plagued by an overabundance of flies, which, as well as causing annoyance, aided in the spread of disease. Dr. Samuel Crumbine, a member of the Kansas board of health, wanted to raise public awareness of the threat of flies. He was inspired by a chant at a Topeka softball game: 'swat the ball'. In a health bulletin published soon afterward, he exhorted Kansans to 'swat the fly'.

In response, a schoolteacher named Frank H. Rose created the 'fly bat', a device consisting of a yardstick attached to a piece of screen. Crumbine invented the device now commonly known as the fly swatter."
When was the flyswatter invented? - Fun Trivia Quizzes

www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question1022.html

2 Peter 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Sometimes the correct interpretation is "I don't understand that!"

FYI, just musing here and not with the intention of offending anyone, but merely ruminating out loud. This thread has been around for a while, and now having read it, well, most of it, I now have gained a little insight, maybe, dunno, fwiw, into the mind of bbyrd. Perhaps. But unsure as to what it is precisely that I have found. It maybe worth pondering whether my conclusions are perhaps not worth giving any consideration to whatever, having been led down the garden path before and finding myself face to face with the compost bin, so while conceding that compost is verily a good thing, it does take time to mature, and I'm not altogether comfortable with the specific activities taking place in said bin on its way to whatever state of 'perfect' that various gardeners will debate as acceptable, depending I suppose on the desired outcome and what preconceived results are needed in order to feed the family. And the neighbours perhaps if we feel an urge to be generous. And if they feel the urge to accept. Now what was I talking about.....?
Oh yes....Now that said...what I have come to conclude, is that our good friend bbyrd is not sure what the Bible teaches about anything, because everything in scripture is merely a discussion which presents numerous options, and choosing one over the other is a grave mistake because being 'sure' about anything is entirely logical and therefore unacceptable. And God, being presumably of Eastern origins wrote the Bible in a way (dialectically)that is designed to engender discussion, but to come to no firm conclusion, and the only True conclusion anyone can really come to is that they know precious little, if anything, that can be termed Truth.
Yet throughout the NT in particular we see the Son of that same "Hebrew" God who by His Spirit inspired every thought that went into the writing of said Word, repeatedly saying, "verily verily, I say unto you....". Can we not take what He said as Truth? Even absolute truth? Or was He also speaking dialectically and had no intention of anyone understanding what He said? Now of course there is that oft quoted expression ...I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes...
yet a moment previously had also said, Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Now I suppose one could believe quite easily that Jesus was here speaking dialectically seemingly suggesting two opposite concepts the meaning of which can only be deduced by a select few imbued with insight into the Hebrew mind. I am not sure? if I agree with this. God is not Hebrew. God is no respecter of persons...there is neither Jew nor Greek...so therefore when Jesus says, "verily verily, (truly truly) I say unto you", to my mind it is with the most full and complete intention that all should understand, but with exceptions. (How potentially confusing is that?!) Those exceptions being based not on their unfamiliarity with eastern thought and/or philosophy but rather on their heart for or against God Himself, and thus their attitude toward Him, not their attitude to what is written.
Paul, in speaking of the 'mystery of iniquity' that was at work even in his time, and its personification in the form of the 'man of sin' coming in a short time (from his perspective) said,
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause (because they don't have a love for truth) God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I think Paul is here saying, at the great risk of sounding 'determinist', that if you want to understand truth...even truth that brings assurance of salvation, one must have a love for truth...not truths as individual revelations, but the love of truth as a principal in the life. Then, we may understand the principles and concepts as presented in scripture, as God Himself reveals them to us by His Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

For me, understanding and knowing truth, even Truth, is wholly dependant on attitude. And perhaps, the wise guys who don't understand, are dumb because they're really just pretenders?
Musings now over. Sorry about the long rant.

bbyrd009 said:

where trackback snips are highlighted when you click the trackback, which is that hidden little button next to "______ said:"

Click to expand...

Wow! I never knew that! I've spent so much time sifting through these long long threads trying to find the quoted post!

Thank you for the mention!

Wafer said:

You keep saying "logic" but what you are talking about are conventions. You can analyze them according to formal rules of logic, but they might not comply.

I was chatting with a young fellow when he suddenly said "You're a libertarian!" I had never heard the word before so I asked him what that meant. He could not explain, but whatever it was, I was one! That was a native English speaker, well brought up, not stupid, and what he said was perfect according to the conventions of discourse. He just didn't know what he was talking about. And that is where your insistence on "logic" to convey meaning no longer relates to reality.

Another example is the figure of speech "idiom". We say "crack the door" and no amount of logic can explain that. You just have to know what that means.

I just remembered this: "Swat the fly" was originally a baseball expression. A school teacher took it literally and invented the fly swatter.

"In the summer of 1905, Kansas was plagued by an overabundance of flies, which, as well as causing annoyance, aided in the spread of disease. Dr. Samuel Crumbine, a member of the Kansas board of health, wanted to raise public awareness of the threat of flies. He was inspired by a chant at a Topeka softball game: 'swat the ball'. In a health bulletin published soon afterward, he exhorted Kansans to 'swat the fly'.

In response, a schoolteacher named Frank H. Rose created the 'fly bat', a device consisting of a yardstick attached to a piece of screen. Crumbine invented the device now commonly known as the fly swatter."
When was the flyswatter invented? - Fun Trivia Quizzes

www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question1022.html

Click to expand...

No, mate!

This is what I mean when I state that you and I have to use logic to understand sentences:



Oz

brakelite said:

Oh yes....Now that said...what I have come to conclude, is that our good friend bbyrd is not sure what the Bible teaches about anything...

Click to expand...

You got that right. But it goes even further. As I told him some time back, he functions as a saboteur in the forum, planting his IED's all over the place.