[Beltfed_0331]

"Further, study is not what Paul intended."
Who wrote this and whos intention was it for these words to be written? These are not Pauls words but rather those of God. Do not take this lightly! Gods intention was that the word study was the appropriate choice God intended for the world to be able to read and make the choice for themselves. You do not have to believe. I suggest you try and believe because there will always be those who can use philosophy and other mens teaching to try and cause doubt in God. I believe In Gods preserved Word. Nothing no man can say will change my mind. Let God be true and all men liars.

Originally Posted by Beltfed_0331

"Further, study is not what Paul intended."
Who wrote this and whos intention was it for these words to be written? These are not Pauls words but rather those of God. Do not take this lightly! Gods intention was that the word study was the appropriate choice God intended for the world to be able to read and make the choice for themselves. You do not have to believe. I suggest you try and believe because there will always be those who can use philosophy and other mens teaching to try and cause doubt in God. I believe In Gods preserved Word. Nothing no man can say will change my mind. Let God be true and all men liars.

They are Paul’s words (2 Ti 1:1-2) as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). It is accurate to say that Paul wrote 2 Timothy or to say that God wrote 2 Timothy, because both are true. Jesus used this convention to refer to Scripture (Mark 10:3).

Paul did not use the English word “study.” The Holy Spirit chose the Greek word “spoudazo”. Wycliffe used the English word “basili” in 1395 maybe we should stay with that word. Or do you think that between 1395 and Tyndale’s rendering of “study” in this text in 1525 that English speaking people did not have God’s inspired Word but were using a pre-modern corrupt version for a hundred and thirty years?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

Since you agree that the Greek word means “diligent” and the KJV translators followed Tyndale and used “study” was it because they were trying to be more interpretive and less literal or was it because the 16th century usage of the word study had a primary meaning of diligence?

This discussion might be more helpful if you could outline for us your superior credentials over those of the King James translators. How many Biblical languages did you speak at the age of 11?

Since you want to correct our Bible for us, it's only fair that you lay out your superior credentials. After all, the "fear of man" is what matters most in academia.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Excellent question, Diligent. Allow me to continue meanwhile, we can sometimes use the confused efforts of the Bible correctors as a spur to study and understand God's word.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

the 16th century usage of the word study had a primary meaning of diligence

Any idea that translations are supposed to be chained to 'primary meanings' is only a recipe for very inferior translation. The primary meaning generally means no more than the numerically greatest usage sans specific contextual considerations.

(A textbook example of its misuse in Bible translation discussions is the preterist misemphasis on the 'primary usage' of mello. Since most events in the NT take place in short periods of time the 'primary meaning' is thus said to be 'immanent' and this is then applied to all usages despite verses where very clearly immanent cannot be the meaning. This mello bible-correction primary-meaning-error is made independently of the strength or weakness of other arguments.)

The repeated emphasis here on 'primary meaning' only shows that 'against' is fishing for an argument against the Bible and has little grasp of the subject matter. In translational discussions you will find this misemphasis, this conceptual error, discussed under titles like the Fallacy of Lexical Concordance and the "basic meaning (grundbedeutung) fallacy".

Now, 'study' in 1611 clearly had a semantic range quite similar to today, although we have sometimes (but not always) passified the word 'study' from its historic dynamism, which is however still very much a part of our vocabulary. ("I'm going to study it out" ... meaning research, check with friends, look it up, ask the Lord Jesus for wisdom.) and the meaning appears dynamically in better modern dictionaries as well.

Ironically the King James Bible itself shows you clearly that study had a sense similar to that which we have today, not just the meaning of diligence. That I will plan to cover in the next post,

I felt the conceptual fallacy error issue here comes first, and the various other mistakes flow out of the conceptual error of 'against' trying to correct God's word, falling into a basic lexical fallacy.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

The next point to make clear is that the English sense of study that we have today was in the vocabularly of the King James Bible translators. It is simply a vocabulary/definitional myth to claim otherwise.

Ecclesiastes 12:12
And further, by these, my son, be admonished:
of making many books there is no end;
and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

In fact, the King James Bible even helps anybody who is still unsure with a little margin note.

or, reading

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=755

Of course, lest anyone object, Soloman is not talking about the particular type of study of 2 Timothy .

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Diligent

This discussion might be more helpful if you could outline for us your superior credentials over those of the King James translators. How many Biblical languages did you speak at the age of 11?

Since you want to correct our Bible for us, it's only fair that you lay out your superior credentials. After all, the "fear of man" is what matters most in academia.

There is nothing that I said that challenges or impugns the credentials of the KJV translators. I am challenging your understanding of the KJV only issue and suggesting that in some cases your dogma may cause you to miss the meaning of the Bible.

My example is that the word translated “study” in 2 Ti 2:15 is better understood today as “be diligent”. Based on the etymology of the English word I suggested that the usage in the KJV was derived from Tyndale and it meant diligent in the 16th century and still carried that nuance in the 17th century. The word study no longer conveys that meaning today. The word study does not carry the same range of meaning as it did four hundred years ago, so a modern reader does not come away with the same meaning as the translators of the KJV. The responses thus far have demonstrated my point.
If you disagree with my position I would like for you to refute the essence of my argument.

Here are the essential points in brief:
1. The Greek word (spoudazo) means diligent.
2. In 1611 the English word (study) meant diligent
3. Today study does not mean diligent
4. Today in this passage we should use diligence

I am not trying to “correct your Bible” I am trying to challenge your understanding of the Bible. I do not expect to win any converts here, but it is most helpful to understand your position. My conclusions continue to be that your arguments are flawed, weak, and based on a poor understanding of the issues. It appears you are motivated by zeal without knowledge. Your motives should be commended, but your methods challenged. I do not expect that you will agree with my assessment, but I look forward to a challenge of my position.

[Steven Avery]

[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

The next point to note is what I will call the 'casualness of the alternative word' fallacy, or problem.

Now, to be fair, at least 'against' did in fact try to offer an alternative word that he suggested would be used if Paul's sense would be to "study to shew...". Often this primary aspect of translation discussion is simply ignored.

> "against"
> Had he intended “study” instead of “diligence” he could have
> used a Greek word like “melete” or “progummazo”.

I will let 'against' indicate the New Testament usages of progummazo when he posts and we can discuss that later. For now let's discuss 'melete', a fascinating word . Is it well-suited for 2 Tiimothy 2:15 ?

This word has a number of forms and a diverse history, from a Greek muse, to exercise and practice, to meditation, to contemplative study, to ritualistic repetition of scripture as per monks.

The simplest and best analysis then is to look at the three koine Greek usages in the New Testament.

Mark 13:11
But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up,
take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak,
neither do ye premeditate:
but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour,
that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:25
Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,
Why did the heathen rage,
and the people imagine vain things?

1Timothy 4:15
Meditate upon these things;
give thyself wholly to them;
that thy profiting may appear to all.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvst...K319.htm#S3191
h) Greek 3191. meletao, mel-et-ah'-o;
to take care of, revolve in the mind:-imagine, (pre-)meditate

Clearly the mental emphasis in the NT koine Greek usages is unacceptable, it will not work at all for the sense that is given in 2 Timothy 2:15.

2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

Where we are not called to simply meditate or think or imagine or mentally exert in order to "shew thyself approved unto God, a workman..".

So we see that the little throwaway line about using melete, when we examine NT usage, is a failure. Incidentally this is rather common in translation discussions, the issue of the best way to describe a point being made in the source language is glossed over. Substantive analysis is lacking.

Incidentally this leads us to another part of 2 Timothy 2:15, an aspect that is very import for the finest translation. The earnest, diligent, labor aspect of our study is already contextually emphasized strongly in the next phrase in the verse."workman that needeth not to be ashamed" . Thus allowing study to stand as a straightforward and simple wide-ranging word on its own, without adding in extraneous or repetitive words. In the other usages of melete in the NT you will not see this complementary contextuality ('context is king' - translation theory).

You can also see how the Timothy passage is complementary to another NT usage:

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest,
lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Note, even the modern versions often agree on the concept of labour and effort here.

strive - ESV
make every effort - HCSB
make every effort - NIV

Thus we find that all the examples, the King James Bible translators work with the definition, the semantic range, the context and the flow of meaning. When we see folks with limited backgrounds somehow think they are improving, no correcting, the work of fifty world-class scholars who had a depth of day-to-day language background far beyond the norm today .. with little rinky-dink and transparent attempts like critiquing "study to shew .. !" .. you really do wonder a bit and scratch your head in puzzlement. Only the authority of the King James Bible must be the real issue.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Excellent question, Diligent. Allow me to continue meanwhile, we can sometimes use the confused efforts of the Bible correctors as a spur to study and understand God's word.

Any idea that translations are supposed to be chained to 'primary meanings' is only a recipe for very inferior translation. The primary meaning generally means no more than the numerically greatest usage sans specific contextual considerations.

(A textbook example of its misuse in Bible translation discussions is the preterist misemphasis on the 'primary usage' of mello. Since most events in the NT take place in short periods of time the 'primary meaning' is thus said to be 'immanent' and this is then applied to all usages despite verses where very clearly immanent cannot be the meaning. This mello bible-correction primary-meaning-error is made independently of the strength or weakness of other arguments.)

The repeated emphasis here on 'primary meaning' only shows that 'against' is fishing for an argument against the Bible and has little grasp of the subject matter. In translational discussions you will find this misemphasis, this conceptual error, discussed under titles like the Fallacy of Lexical Concordance and the "basic meaning (grundbedeutung) fallacy".

Now, 'study' in 1611 clearly had a semantic range quite similar to today, although we have sometimes (but not always) passified the word 'study' from its historic dynamism, which is however still very much a part of our vocabulary. ("I'm going to study it out" ... meaning research, check with friends, look it up, ask the Lord Jesus for wisdom.) and the meaning appears dynamically in better modern dictionaries as well.

Ironically the King James Bible itself shows you clearly that study had a sense similar to that which we have today, not just the meaning of diligence. That I will plan to cover in the next post,

I felt the conceptual fallacy error issue here comes first, and the various other mistakes flow out of the conceptual error of 'against' trying to correct God's word, falling into a basic lexical fallacy.

Shalom,
Steven

Unfortunately, Steven Avery, you have committed a logical fallacy by engaging in a straw man argument. Perhaps you will actually consider dealing with the content of my argument.

Today the word “study” normally conveys the idea of acquisition of knowledge. Diligence normally conveys the idea of persistent effort. The Greek word “spoudazo” means persistent effort. Four hundred years ago “study” meant persistent effort. The first phrase in 2 Ti 2:15 is intended to convey the idea of persistent effort to be approved of God not acquiring knowledge. Thus “Be diligent” is a better rendering of “spoudazo” not because the KJV translators made an error, but words change their meaning over time.

If the English rendering has led you to believe that this passage is only about acquiring knowledge or mainly about acquiring knowledge, then you have misunderstood the meaning of this passage and you are not “rightly dividing the Word of truth.”

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A bit more on "study to shew thyself approved..."

======================

From Will Kinney, an excellent study, in line with the verse .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/13259

2 Timothy 2:15
"STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth."

So even if you thought that "study" should be "be diligent", what are you to be diligent in?? - the answer is in the verse - "rightly dividing the word of truth". That's why contextually it makes perfect sense to translate as "study".

Not only does the KJB render this word as 'study' but so also do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Green's interlinear and his Modern KJV, the KJV 21st Century Version, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Even the Italian Diodati has 'study' spelled 'studiati'

The word is spoudazo in Greek and I have a modern Greek dictionary that has nothing to do with the Bible at all. It is like a Spanish/English- English/Spanish dictionary you buy in the stores.

If you look up spoudazo it says "to study". Also the well known lexicon of Liddell & Scott on page 1630 lists one of the meanings of spoudazo as 'to study'. The noun form means 'study' and another noun form spoudastees means 'a student'.

To me the difference is:

1. new versions: "do your best" ===> "present yourself to God as one approved"

2. KJV: "study" ===> "approved unto God"

In the new versions it almost rings of Bible study vs. good works dichotomy -

Perhaps the reason the Bible Relativists are enamored with "do your best" - "work hard" etc is due to a fundamental difference in one's appoach to God's Words -

================================================== ==========================

Thank you Will.

And there was no doubt about this translation, being fully aware that studying in English includes laboring and reading :

Tyndale

1Thessalonians 4:11
and that ye studye to be quyet and to medle with youre awne busynes
and to worke with youre awne hondes as we commaunded you:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth
not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly

Geneva

1Thessalonians 4:11
And that ye studie to be quiet, & to meddle with your owne busines,
and to worke with your owne handes, as we commaunded you,

2 Timothy 2:15
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God,
a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed, diuiding the worde of trueth aright.

Notice these definitions included in the range of meaning of study.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/study
–verb (used without object)
to apply oneself to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or practice.
to apply oneself; endeavor.
to think deeply, reflect, or consider.
to take a course of study, as at a college.

In English today we tend to emphasize the intellectual aspect more than the
zealous endeavor and effort. The historical usage gives us a full and proper sense of the word 'study'.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

you have committed a logical fallacy by engaging in a straw man argument.

Hi against, in the course of my four posts multiple parts of your argument were reviewed and found wanting.

To begin with .. you misunderstood the usage of study in 1611, even overlooking the usage and footnote in Ecclesiastes. You overlooked, you didn't even notice, the full context of 2 Timothy 2:15, which helps direct the specific semantic range by its harmony with the complementary phrase. You very improperly attempted to limit the Greek word to what you repeatedly called its 'primary meaning', a basic lexical fallacy. Any you misunderstood the word 'study' in today's English, reducing its semantic range. And you offered alternate words that would have been used for 'study' without, apparently, doing any study on those words yourself.

Your attempted construct failed on multiple particulars, amply demonstrated. You then severely compound your error above by fabricating the concept of a "straw man argument" -- when point after point of my posts directly addressed your improper claims. Such a totally erroneous, fabricated accusation of a logical fallacy is the last vestige of a person whose arguments have disintegrated.

There is one thing you might do that would help, 'against' -

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

Shalom,
Steven Avery