Re: mystical traditions and the impersonal models of God

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Sun Jun 29 2003 - 19:41:11 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"

    I criticized what I had evidence for. A guess is just a guess, not proof
    and hardly evidence. That is what I noted. On the Greek, I stand on solid
    ground without need to claim that the term has usually been
    misinterpreted. Indeed, the claim that "(almost) everyone has been
    mistaken but me" is a strong indication that the person is pushing

    As for your other quotations, I am not a scholastic genuflecting to their
    authority. Even the medievals' approach usually was something like:
    Somebody said this, but So-and-so said that, but I say ..." You are taken
    with these persons, at least when they support your view. That is your
    prerogative. I do not consider them worthy of a point by point

    On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:24:17 EDT writes:
    In a message dated 6/28/03 3:53:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

    Two questions about the part of your message below: First, how does White
    know what term Jesus used? He wasn't there to record it. Second, given
    your translation of the roots of /metanoia/, why doesn't it become
    "unthinkable," as in unthinkable crime? However, I got out my abridged
    Liddell and Scott and found that your translation of /meta/ is not
    supported. I quote:

    Let's see the forest for the trees.

    I found John White's essay to be in the same vein as the quote from de
    nicolas, the quote from simone weil, the quote from campbell, the quotes
    from the NT and the quote from William James which regards the centrality
    of the self sacrifice which was why I introduced those many quotes. It is
    not an exercise in translation, nor do I presume to be a translator. You
    have suggested fault with one example out of several significant
    examples. Regardless, my point is sound and still amply supported even if
    the John White quote is discarded and that was precisely my intention, to
    make the point from a variety of sources rendering it unassailable which
    I believe it is. I have played the translation game (no one person has
    mastered all the languages involved in religious texts) arguing with
    scholars of religion on a number of different lists and have learned
    never to rest on any single translation but provide enough data that does
    not rest on any one translation to support my position. Now name your
    objections to the other quotes if you wish to invalidate the single point
    I was trying to make.

    rich faussette

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jun 29 2003 - 19:58:33 EDT