Matthew Johnson wrote:

>
> >The Hebrew, "Dabar" as used in 1 Sam 3:21.
>
> But this word is _so_ heavily used, with _so_ many meanings! It has
one of the
> most _frustratingly_ wide semantic ranges of any word in Biblical
Hebrew! So
> even if it is used just as you say in 1 Sam 3:21, there is still a
lot of work
> to do to show that that sense is at all relevant to John 1:1.
>
The Hebrew translation of Jn 1:1 uses "Dabar."  So I guess one is not
out of line to conclude that it is, indeed, relevant.

> >This term *always* refered to deity in the mystery religions of
area.
>
> But since there are so many other senses, this is a long way from
helpful.
>
> Besides: what are you really referring to when you say "mystery
religions of
> area"? Did you mean "mystery religions of that area"? The mystery
religions were
> much later than the time when 1 Sam was written.

OH NO!  Where did you get this?  They go back to Babel, to the very
earliest Egyptian dynasties.

> And there are many, many
> problems with assuming that Scripture borrows terminology from the
very depraved
> Canaanite religions of _that_ time!
>
There are many Canaanite terms in the OT.  Also I've read papers which
link many Hebrew terms to Canaanite origin, esp those around Moses'
era.
>
> Yet one need not share your assumption to understand that different
emphasis. So
> this does not really support your claim that he had this 'graduate'
level
> training.
>
The point is, it was typical for Jewish boys** to study up to the age
twelve.  At that time there was a determination as to who was capable
to continue on in their training.  It is interesting to read of Jesus
at the age 12 offering the Passover sacrifice which means that he had
memorized the books of Moses by that age as that being a prerequisite.
It was also a prerequisite before a boy was considered to be worthy of
continuing on in his rabbincal studies.  That is still true today.

The "discipleship" paradigm was that such a boy would then strike out
own his own to follow one of the various rabbi's.  After several
months, the boy would then ask permission to follow that rabbi.  It was
then that rabbi would "quiz" the boy to see if he was up to his
standards.  If he was, then he was allowed to follow the rabbi, having
till age 30 to memorize the entire OT.

Point?  Though the other gospel writers show a familiarity with the OT,
as would be expected any Jewish boy, it is John, as often recognized
and noted, who makes the most subtle references.  For instance, his
understanding of Deut 18 in the opening verses of Jn 8.

>
> Besides: yes, there was no TV at the time, but that does NOT mean
that people
> had the time to sit and 'talk'. Not at all. The majority still had to
work hard
> to scrape by, as Peter Brown documented so well in his history of
Late
> Antiquity.
>
Yet that does not dismiss the fact that the Jewish culture was
different.  Look at the public reading of the scriptures.  Look at
their reading during Christ's time in the synagogues where they were
openly discussed.  No matter how hard their life was, the Sabbath still
prevailed and presented the opportunity for study and discussion.  My
best friend growing up was Jewish and he too went every Saturday and
had to study the Torah and to learn Hebrew, and was expected to be
versed in the things his rabbi taught.  Things haven't changed that
much.
>
> All good motives. But how did your citation of Boice actually achieve
any of
> them? After all: the 'four reasons' you gave showed that Boice
_himself_ did not
> profit from the labor of previous theologians where he could have
most profited.
>
I'm sorry.  My fault.  It is a habit with me to forget that the fathers
were infallible and beyond any to follow in theological understanding.

>
>
> Then why did so many assume that 'life' and 'light' here refer to the
Holy
> Spirit, not to Christ? And why did so many _claim_ to understand this
verse 1:4,
> yet _deny_ that Christ is God?
>
Not to the HS, but to creation.  I understand the arguments that in the
later translation that the punctuation was introduced to counter Arius
assumptions and has continued, for the most part, to this day.  The New
English bible, for what it is worth, I feel has the verse division
correct.

But that aside, this strophe is not about the spiritual realm, but
rather about the creation of the physical universe.  It does not refer
to the HS.  Later in John these terms do take on that definition, but
not here in the opening of the prologue.
>
> >"I am the light of the world" (8:12) is a most important concept
>
> Yes, it is, but that still does not establish that 'light' in 8:12 is
being used
> to refer to the same thing/person as in 1:4.
>
I wasn't infering that it was.
>
> In fact, Loren, no matter how hard you try, you _cannot_ establish
this without
> reference to the Tradition. But since you claim to live by Sola
Scriptura, you
> can do this only surreptitiously, claiming (for example) to know that
John
> reached 'graduate' level.
>
And in so concluding, you only illustrate you do not understand the
doctrine of sola scriptura.

-Matt, I am tired of bantering with you.
_________
girls also studied to the age 12 but they never were afforded the
opportunity to continue further.  Also, they were not required to learn
the Pentateuch but rather the books of poetry.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/13/05 8:00:47 AM