James 1:1-8 in context

Introduction: There are some who quote James 1:5 in a way that pulls it out of its intended context and changes the original intent. That is, if you lack wisdom, ask God. While it's perfectly fine to ask God for wisdom according to the context and orginal intent of the author, James 1:5 is not the verse to claim for general wisdom as it is specific to wisdom in trials. I believe the Bible teaches that when we ask for wisdom, we ask with a selfless heart and that in granting the wisdom God may be glorified. There are limits on why God grants wisdom, such as if asked for selfish reasons. And pulling James 1:5 out of context puts no such limitations on what or how we request wisdom.

In verse 1 James uses the same word Paul used in Romans 1:1 and calls himself a servant of God the Father and God the Son. The word for servant can be defined as:

The first removal occurred when the people of the Northern Kingdom (whose capital was in Samaria) were conquered by the Assyrians and were carried away into captivity in Assyria (2 Kings 17:23 and 1 Chronicles 5:26).

The second removal occurred around 580 B.C. when the Babylonians conquered the Southern Kingdom (whose capital was Jerusalem), and carried the best of the people away to Babylon (2 Kings 24:14-16 and Psalm 137).

The third removal took place around 63 B.C., when Pompey conquered the Jews and took Jerusalem and many Jews were transplanted to Rome as slaves.

Still, far greater numbers of Jews left on their own free will, looking for more comfortable living conditions. Jews moved to Egypt and Syria. Alexander the Great moved 2000 Jewish families to Lydia and Phrygia. Thus, Jews were spread all over the world.

The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote: "It is hard to find a spot in the world which is not occupied and dominated by Jews." The Jewish Historian, Josephus wrote: "There is no city, no tribe, whether Greek or barbarian, in which Jewish law and Jewish customs have not taken root."

James continues with his introduction, saying: "Joy to you." Even though you are scattered among the nations and facing trials of many kinds, do not be robbed of your joy.

James never suggests to his audience that Christianity would be an easy road. In verse 2 we see just that with his use of the word trials. The Greek word for trials means: trials or testing directed towards an end. What is that end? He who is tested should emerge stronger and purer from the testing. The attached verb means strengthening and purifying.

The root word for trials can be used for trials or temptations (internal), with trials an external meaning, such as the adversity his readers are experiencing. With the external meaning, the word is used especially to refer to trials of persecution (1 Peter 4:12).

James says to consider it pure joy, or consider it all joy when we experience trials of many kinds. He doesn't say to be joyous for the trial but in the trial. The verb translated face might more literally be expressed as "fall into," much as the poor man "fell among robbers" (Luke 10:30).

James uses an interesting word for describing the testing process. It's the word for sterling coinage (genuine unalloyed money). Meeting the testing in the right way will produce much more than patience or perseverance. The word means the ability to turn testing into greatness and to glory.

Something that amazed the heathen during the persecution centuries was that the martyrs didn't die grimly. It's been told that a martyr was smiling in the flames so they asked him at what he was smiling. He responded: "I saw the glory of God and was glad." That's the type of character generated when we meet the trial in the right way, it produces greatness and glory.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us mature. The Greek word for mature is teleios and means perfection for a given end. A sacrificial animal is teleios if it is fit to offer to God. A scholar is teleious if he is mature. A person is teleios if he is full grown.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us complete. The word means perfect in every part. In meeting the trial in the right way we eventually remove weaknesses and imperfections.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us lacking nothing. The word means deficient in nothing and has been used in the following ways: the defeat of an army, the giving up of a struggle and the failure to reach a standard that should have been reached.

Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure so valuable that a man would sell everything he owns to obtain it and would do so "in his joy" (Matt 13:44). Paul said we "rejoice in our sufferings" because "suffering produces perseverance" (Romans 5:3). Peter said Christians should "greatly rejoice" in "all kinds of trials" (1 Peter 1:6). Perseverence isn't the end result, it's the lifestyle by which the Christian attains maturity.

During the trial, if you're deficient in the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, ask God. James speaks of the period of testing before perseverance has completed its work. During such testing, if anyone lacks or is deficient in wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, he may have it by asking.

Wisdom is not just acquired information but practical insight with spiritual implications (Prov 1:2-4; 2:10-15; 4:5-9; 9:10-12). With James' Jewish background, wisdom is a practical thing. It isn't philosophic speculation or intellectual knowledge, to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics.

James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).

Wisdom is a perfect first example because it is so important for Christians in trials. A cry from the heart of a Christian during trials might be "What do I do?" Look at 2 Chronicles 20:12 for a great example of a need for wisdom in trials.

We can ask God for the needed wisdom without fear, for God gives without holding our failures or lack of wisdom against us. Fortunately God doesn't respond by reminding us of our faults!

The context tells us it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes Christians mature. If we lack the wisdom to do this, ask God. The context tells us:

The Greek sentence structure also tells us those falling into trials do indeed lack wisdom, again making the wisdom here specific to trials. Claiming this verse for anything other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning, and understanding the original intent is required to have correct theology, no matter what the subject of study.

If you encounter a trial and don't have the wisdom for meeting the trial in the right way, ask God for help and don't doubt at all. The only barrier that exists is our faith. We shouldn't be afraid to ask God because of our lack of wisdom. James says he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown [horizontally] and tossed [vertically] by the wind. The image of being driven on the sea was common in Greek literature and occurs in Jewish wisdom texts, Isaiah 57:20, Ephesians 4:14 and the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus 33:2.

Jewish wisdom texts also condemn the double-minded or double-tongued person as does Psalm 12:2. Philosophers and Jewish sages abhorred the hypocrisy of saying one thing and living another, and speaking or living inconsistently.

James tells us not to be double-minded when we ask for wisdom. See James 4:8 as well. A double-minded man is a man with two souls or two minds inside him. One believes he'll receive wisdom and the other disbelieves.

When quoting Scripture we must be careful to quote in context. When requesting wisdom, God has given us the following verses and when used in context, are perfect for requesting wisdom.

If you want to properly claim Scripture it must be done in context, otherwise you can use Scripture to support just about anything.

If a Christian is going through trials they have James 1:5 as supporting Scripture when asking for wisdom to endure. The wisdom given in James 1:5 is specific to trials.

If a Christian desires wisdom for selfless reasons such as King Solomon requested to lead God's people, claim 1 Kings 3:5-14 (repeated in 2 Chronicles) in prayer.

The Matthew and Luke passages are in regards to selfless prayer. If a Christian asks for wisdom to advance the cause of Christ, to glorify God, or to further God's kingdom, Matthew and Luke are prime examples to use.

We must understand the original intent of the writer and the context to properly claim a verse in prayer.

George M. Stulac, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, James, IVP
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Zondervan
William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, Westminster Press
Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, Victor Books
The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV, with Apocryphal books, Harper Collins
The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, IVP

That is a restatement of your view of v4.

Yes, and in post #1 I gave detailed reasons for just that statement. Reasons based on 4 or 5 Greek dictionaries and just as many commentaries.

Even though the WET goes out of its way to spell everything the Greek text indicates out, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.

You surely have no concept of context. Let's take another look at what Wuest says:

And if, as is the case, anyone of you [when undergoing these trials] is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, [a pure, simple giving of good without admixture of evil or bitterness], and who does not [with the giving of the gift] reproach [the recipient with any manifestation of displeasure or regret], and it shall be given him.

The "And if" at the beginning of verse 5 references the previous verse. Wuest expands the Greek words and sentence structure to point out the wisdom being requested is specifically for trials. Yet you want to rip it out of the context of trials and support whatever you want. Plain as day to any open minded reader, James states the wisdom here is specifically for trials. But no, Grig, demonstrating his profound ignorance of all things Greek decides Wuest is wrong and we can claim this verse for anything.

But that's not all, from http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/2522/biblevers.html#Wuest "On the downside, some interpretation seems to creep into the translation, and words in brackets should not always be taken as necessarily implied in the Greek originals"

You would have a point if you could demonstrate from the Greek where Wuest goes wrong. You can't do that, you know it and I know it, but you're going to insist Wuest and all the references I've provided are wrong and you're right based on your profound ignorance of the subject matter.

So if we remove the bracketed comments we get: "But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing. And if, as is the case, anyone of you is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, and who does not reproach, and it shall be given him."

We could get that from reading any translation. The key which you continue to ignore is in understanding the Greek sentence structure and expanded Greek words. Of course your lack of education on the subject gives you more knowledge than Wuest and the other sources I listed.

Now did you just not know any of this, or were you hoping I didn't?

You're so ignorant on so much of this issue I have no idea what you don't know. All I know is that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to understanding the concept of context and anything Greek.

Quoting me you write:

"You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge "

Again you try to change the meaning of my above comment. Here's the full sentence:

You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge in all areas of the hellenized times and yet you think your ignorant position carries more weight than Greek scholars.

You have too much invested in your position to admit you're changing the intended meaning of James 1:5 when you quote it as you do.

"What post number?"

#23 "Because I think if very clearly states a true principle and that using it as I do in no way alters the intended meaning of the author. I also know from personal experience that it is true in the general case, not just when it comes to enduring trials. Do you really think James would jump up and object if he could when I encourage someone to seek wisdom from God for some other righteous purpose and point them to v5?"

"Besides that, I'm using a different verse here: "

It doesn't matter what verse you are asking about. I still consider James 1:5 to be a clear statement of a true principle and that I'm not using it in a way that alters the intended meaning of the author.

"Doing so changes the original intent and leaves nothing from which to understand the original intent."

Are you saying that the context defines what the the full extent of the author's intent is? If so, I must disagree, the author's intent existed before the first word of James was written, so much of the context flows from the intent, not the other way around. They are related, but they are not 100% the same thing. Nor does context always give us a full understanding of everything that was in the author's intent, the written word too limited to do that in any language. As I said before (and gave examples of) inside a specific context, general statments can be made that the author doesn't intend to be limited to ONLY that context. I don't think you have directly responded to that claim yet.

"So why do you not quote this verse when asking for "whatever you wish" "

I didn't avocate using v5 for "whatever you wish", I said it shows we can seek wisdom that we lack from God, and there is no wisdom that is contrary to God's will.

"instead of ripping James 1:5 out of the context of trials"

I have not been presented with anything that justifies the claim that James intended v5 to be limited to ONLY trials.

If he intended to be limited to ONLY trials, James didn't know his stuff, if he didn't intend it to be limited to trials, my usage of it is not misrepresenting his original intent.

"The context has always been about trials and trials alone."

But first you say "Claiming this verse for ANYTHING other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning" and then later on you point to several verses that show a person can request and recieve wisdom outside of those limits, and still later on say "The text does hint that we can ask God for wisdom in order to avoid trials" Can't you see how reasonable people would see that as being at least somewhat contridictory?

"You on the other had have demonstrated such a profound ignorance here that my factual responses only make you appear even more ignorant on the sujbect"

ROTFLMAO! I gently admonish you for childish name calling, and you reply with MORE childish name calling!

"and the wisdom James says to ask for is specifically tied to the context of trials"

What you showed was the other way around, having trials was specificly tied to lacking wisdom. "According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom"

Nothing in all you have quoted or posted establishes any limit on what kind of wisdom James was talking about, or when such wisdom can be asked for. The context rules in asking for wisdom needed to cope with trials, it does NOT rule out asking and getting wisdom at other times.

"James probably had Matt 7:7 in mind as he wrote the first chapter of James. "

And that further estabishes that there was no intent to limit v5 to ONLY about enduring trials or ONLY when in a trial.

"In ripping James 1:5 out of context (by definition changes the original intent) "

You got that backwards, if you quote something in a way that mis-represents the author's intended meaning, THEN that by definition is taking it 'out of context'. It is the intent of the author that existed before the quote was written, the quote is a product of the intent, not the other way around.

"disagrees with Greek scholars who actually use physical evidence to support their writings."

You once suggested that my opposition to your side was rooted in some inability to question authority, and yet here you show signs of that very thing. Did Greek scholars rush to defend Galileo Galilei from charges of heresy for suggesting the earth went around the sun? Greek scholars can be as wrong as anyone else can be when it comes to bridging the gap between what the bible says (it's translation) and what it means.

Even so, you have not shown me anyplace where a Greek scholar presents this idea of it being limited to only wisdom to endure trials as anything more than their own personal opinion. Nowhere have you shown the Greek itself to impose such a restriction, in fact, your quoting from the WET only highlights the fact that there is nothing in the Greek that justfies the restriction, if there was, the WET would have put it in and not inside []. The restriction is an interpetation, an opinion and it is not the changable, error prone opinions of scholars I desire, it is the truth.

And simply because some form of physical evidence is used in the construction of some argument doesn't mean that the argument itself is valid or true. Argument in favor of the earth being flat and the center of the universe were also based on physical evidence and even direct observation, but those evidences and observations were interpreted wrongly, leading to a conclusion that was false.

"pulling a verse out of context implies changing the intended meaning."

Yes, but if you want to claim a verse is taken out of context, you must show a difference between the intended meaning by the author and the protrayed meaning by the quoter. You have not shown that James had any intent to limit his meaning as you say it must be limited.

"I'm still waiting for any physical evidence that supports a language other than Greek."

Isn't it kind of silly to wait for me to provide something I already said didn't exist? No matter what language you pick (Greek included) there is no proof that it was the original language because we do not have the originals.

"Your only argument is you don't like the facts."

I have no problem with the facts. I'm perfectly comfortable with the FACT that we know know with certainty what language James wrote it in. I can't see how you can be comfortable with that fact given your position.

The fact that all known manuscripts are in Greek is meaningless when determining the original language. Only a tiny percentage of manuscripts survived, and we can't really say how many copies existed between the oldest one we have and the original. They do no represent a random sample of all manuscripts ever made and we know nothing about all the manuscripts that have been lost or destroyed over the ages. Even if we had every manuscript EXCEPT the original, and even if every one of them was Greek, it still doesn't rule out the possibility that the original was not in Greek. THAT is a fact and I have yet to see you do anything other than hide from it.

"You have conveniently provided an out for yourself."

No 'out' is required. My position is independant of what the original language was, it doesn't make one bit of difference to me if it was Greek or not. YOU however put great emphasis on what kind of conditional Greek sentace structure is used even though you can't say for sure if it was James who picked it or not. Your arguments are riddled with logical flaws like that. You also have not explained how you can claim I violated an intent when you also claim the author didn't have that intent.

"For James 1:5, yes."

So what's the problem then?

"I've been writing logic for over 2 decades "

I find that sooooooooooooo hard to belive (unless you admit you write bad logic). Your unwarented conclusion, contradictions, arguments from silence, appeals to authority, name calling and tendancy to employ misdirection in accusing me of the errors you make lead me to think you might have written spin for over 2 decades, but not sound logical arguments.

"I caught your hint of a formal logical argument from silence; saw it for the dodge that it was and purposely brought the issue back on topic. "

So since when did acknowledging there is a silence and refusing to draw conclusions from it become an argument from silence?

"you have no physical evidence to support your thoughts that James might not have been written in Greek. Zero, nada, goose-egg, zilch - that summarizes all the evidence to support your thoughts. "

I never claimed otherwise. But you run away from confronting the fact that evidence for your claim that it was originaly Greek is also insufficent. THAT is the issue, that YOUR position is based (in part) on an unproven and unprovable premise. Bad logic.

"The facts are that every single piece of evidence we have supports Greek as the original language."

I have no problem with that. But you ignore that what evidence exists is insufficient to PROVE the originals were in Greek. An older Aramaic manuscript could possibly show up any time, or never at all, even if the original was in Aramaic. Do you have the courage and honesty to admit that is a possibility?

"But you'll accept what they say as credible because it helps you ignore the facts."

Please note that I did not say I considered them correct, I only pointed out their existance as evidence that the matter of what the original language was is not an open and shut case. Nor is physical evidence the only evidence that some scholars will consider, as there is no reason to believe everything that is true has physical evidence to back it up.

It doesn't matter to me if it was Greek or not, it has no impact on my position so I have nothing to fear from admitting the fact that we just don't know what the original language was. Your positions is tied to the orginals being Greek however, so you are doing your best to employ yet another straw man and claim my position is other than it is, while YOU ignore the FACT that we don't know for sure if James picked that Greek syntax or some scribe later on.

"When it gets down to admitting you're wrong"

LOL!

"That is, state we don't know if the text is accurate or that we don't have the originals. "

I realize since I'm about to post quotes and not repost the entire thread that they came from you might resort to claiming I quoted you out of context, but I will provide the link to the thread instead so everyone can look them all up for themselves and judge for themselves.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/806452/posts?q=1&&page=1

#235: scripter: "And while we don't have originals, we do have thousands of copies with a very small margin of differences."

#242: Grig: I glad you can admit there are differences.

#250: scripter: It would be incorrect to state otherwise

#298: Grig: The difference between the different papyri is nothing but trivia to me, except to establish that the copies are not perfect copies of the original as some like to claim.

The word 'hypocrite' come to mind about now.

"That speaks volumes as you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like"

The only thing I've dismissed is your personal opinions about what v5 means. I've done that using logic, other scripture, and pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments.

Your avoidance techniques are old and thread-bare. If all you intend to do is to respond to my valid critisms and questions by ignoring them, repeating yourself over and over, acting all arrogant and snooty, and then accusing me of doing the very things you are quilty of, fine, I can't stop you from being like that. Just don't think you are fooling anyone but yourself.

"Reasons based on 4 or 5 Greek dictionaries and just as many commentaries."

To date, nothing you've posted specificly about the Greek text supports the restriction you claim are there. Only the personal opinions given in their commentaries support it. That's just not good enough in my book. In religous matters, scholars have a pretty poor track record and not all scholars are in agreement.

Do you take the opinion of EVERY scholar as valid? If not, how do you pick what scholars to listen to and which to ignore? Doesn't that in the end indirectly make YOU the scholar you follow?

"The "And if" at the beginning of verse 5 references the previous verse"

But it is not the same thing as 'if and only if'. Since the WET uses 'if' and not 'if and only if' why do you esentialy read that into it? If that is REALLY what the Greek text indicates, whey did Wuest not put that in there?

"Wuest expands the Greek words and sentence structure to point out the wisdom being requested is specifically for trials."

It says "And if, as is the case, anyone of you [when undergoing these trials] is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request" Wuest point out a specific situation (trials) where having additional wisdom is desireable, even required. It still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. If I say 'when you are sick, go to bed and rest' that doesn't mean you should stay awake 24/7 until you are sick.

However, the comment 'when undergoing these trials' comes from Wuest's personal interpretation, not from the Greek text, that's why he enclosed it inside square brackets. Deal with it.

"James states the wisdom here is specifically for trials. "

No he doesn't. You are ignoring the [] again.

"But no, Grig, demonstrating his profound ignorance of all things Greek decides Wuest is wrong and we can claim this verse for anything. "

Straw man. I'm agreeing with Wuest, especial his use of [] to offset his commentary from the actuall translation.

"You would have a point if you could demonstrate from the Greek where Wuest goes wrong."

In case you missed it, I didn't say Wuest went wrong, I said the conclusions you draw from it are wrong and not justified. Wuest was wise and honest enough to offset his own interpretation from the actual translation using square brackets. They are in [] specificly because Wuest does NOT want them to be taken as being directly implied in the Greek originals. YOU are disagreeing with Wuest, but too wrapped up in yourself to see it.

"Again you try to change the meaning of my above comment. Here's the full sentence: You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge in all areas of the hellenized times and yet you think your ignorant position carries more weight than Greek scholars "

I told you before I sometimes use quotes like that as placeholders. Shame on me for trying to save a little bandwidth by not quoting the full thing when it's right here on the same page for all to see anyway. Sheesh!

And my reaction is still the same, LOL!

You have little information on what I have and have not studied over the years, and it would not be wise to make assumptions you could later regret. It is profoundly arrogant to assume only someone who is ignorant can disagree with you.

Precious little of our discussion has even focused on any details of hellenized times other than the whole Greek issue so far. But the pattern has been the same over and over, you lay out some quote from some source that you claim proves your side, I show you how what you claim is different than the claims of the quote or how it doens't conflict with my position, you resort to declaring me ignorant without fully dealing with the substance of my reply, and so on and so on...

You just can't handle having someone disagree with you and who won't roll over when you use the word 'scholar'. I figure if your position really is scholarly one, then your should at least be able to put up a decent, logical, consistant argument for your position.

You don't want to know about or consider any scholar or fact that disagrees with the position you've already taken because in your mind, if they really were a scholar, they would agree with you. Sad.

"You have too much invested in your position to admit..."

Given your track record with accusations, my guess is that what your problem is.

BTW, that partial sentance quote is another placeholder, no need to get all indignant about my leaving the end off (that is what scroll bars are for you know).

If you don't have anyting better to offer, it might be wise to agree to disagree at this point, but I'll leave that decision up to you.

You continually misrepresent my position. You have incorrectly stated my position many times regarding the original manuscripts. You don't even know my position but you think you do. This should help you:

What we can't prove with absolute certainty:

In what language the letter of James was originally written
Whether the sun will rise tomorrow

For at least thousands of years the sun has continued to rise every day and we have thousands of Greek manuscripts that continue to give testimony of the language of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament.

What we don't have:

The original letter from James

What we do know about James and the book of James:

James was a hellenized Jew with an excellent understanding of the Greek language
Every manuscript we have is written in Greek
James was writing to Jews

We also know the common language of the time was Greek. Other than having the original document, it doesn't get any better for verifying historical documents than what we have of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament. With your mindset I'm surprised you believe any history.

It really boils down to what you said at the end of this post:

And what I said is that we don't know for sure who decided to use that particular Greek syntax (fact), and that must be taking into account when trying to determine author intent.

This is the out you've provided for yourself. You can always fall back to this position saying we don't know anything for sure. That speaks volumes as you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like, always claiming we don't know if what we have is an accurate record. In doing so you can continue to rip James 1:5 out of the context of trials, and that speaks volumes - you just have too much invested here to stop now despite the above facts.

You state you find it sooo hard to believe I've been writing logic for over 2 decades. What matters to me is the Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies that repeatedly hire me contractually for help. That is all I will say on this. What I think the issue is that I refuse to go along with your attempts to change the subject.

[from post] 23 "Because I think if very clearly states a true principle and that using it as I do in no way alters the intended meaning of the author. I also know from personal experience that it is true in the general case, not just when it comes to enduring trials. Do you really think James would jump up and object if he could when I encourage someone to seek wisdom from God for some other righteous purpose and point them to v5?"

That doesn't answer the question. Look at John 15:7:

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

Since this is a general case, you are saying it's perfectly fine to quote John 15:7b as

ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you

In doing so you are removing it from the immediate context of

If you remain in me and my words remain in you

and you are also removing it from the general context. Using your logic, I could say the Bible says I can ask for whatever I wish and it will be given to me. I want 10 million dollars within 5 minutes. Hey I waited 5 minutes and didn't get it. How come? You can argue whatever you want. Eventually you're going to have to rely on context somewhere to support why I didn't get it.

Another example: Claiming James 1:5, someone wants wisdom to know how to trick their neighbor's wife into sleeping with them. But they don't get it. Why? You can argue whatever you want, eventually you're going to have to rely on context somewhere. And when you do, you'll be guilty of using context selectively whenever it suits your beliefs. And that's exactly why we must always recognize the context and claim Bible verses in the correct context.

It doesn't matter what verse you are asking about. I still consider James 1:5 to be a clear statement of a true principle and that I'm not using it in a way that alters the intended meaning of the author.

Yet the context is trials. At the beginning of verse 5 Wuest says: And if as is the case. I keep pointing out to you the context is trials and Wuest (along with the other references) are the reason I say the context is trials - I've studied this issue in detail. The And if as is the case is similar to a "therefore" when you see it in the Bible. You have to look at the previous passages to see what the "therefore" is there for.

And if as is the case for what? Well that's easy: And if as is the case anyone of you [when undergoing these trials]. Wuest is merely displaying the context in brackets, as the And if as is the case references the previous verses with their context being trials. If you disagree, then what does the And if as is the case reference?

You cannot logically deny the connection to the previous verses and perhaps you don't. But, I believe we are making progress as when we started this discussion you stated verse 5 was unrelated to verses 2-4 and verses 6-12. Now you say verse 5 is related to the surrounding verses of trials but the wisdom is a general case.

Here's verse 5 from Wuest:

And if as is the case anyone of you when undergoing trials is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, [a pure, simple giving of good without admixture of evil or bitterness], and who does not [with the giving of the gift] reproach [the recipient with any manifestation of displeasure or regret], and it shall be given him..

Do you think Wuest incorrectly interprets the rest of verse 5 with what he puts in brackets here, or is he just expanding the Greek words and providing the context? If you think he gets off track, show where he goes wrong using the Greek. My sources support Wuest.

We have to continue to back up to see what the And if as is the case is there for and we'll see the precise reason why Wuest put the context [when undergoing these trials] in brackets. As a side note, I believe the And if as is the case is similar to saying: "Since this is the case" depending on to what part of the sentence you are referring.

Here's Wuests' verse 4:

But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

According to the many dictionaries and commentaries I consulted, when the words are expanded we get the following for verse 4:

The ability to turn testing into greatness and glory must finish its work so that you may be perfect for a given end, with weaknesses and imperfections gone, deficient in nothing.

The "aformentioned patience" is perseverence, which the dictionaries expand as "the ability to turn testing into greatness and glory". Note it's the aforementioned patience - a reference to perseverence in verse 3, which is the last half of the sentence that starts as verse 2. So the aforementioned patience is tied to verses 2 and 3. The more we look at this the more we see how each verse is connected and how it completely supports my position.

Continuing with Wuest:

[Verse 5] And if as is the case for anyone when undergoing trials is deficient in wisdom

The And if as is the case refers to the previous verse:

[Verse 4] But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

The aforementioned patience here refers to patience in verse 3:

[Verse 3] knowing experientially that the approving of your faith, that faith having been put to the test for the purpose of being approved, and having met the test, has been approved, [that this approving process] produces a patience which bears up and does not lose heart or courage under trials.

Which brings us to the beginning of the immediate context of trials, verse 2:

[Verse 2] Consider it a matter for unadulterated joy [without any admixture of sorrow] whenever you fall into the midst of variegated trials which surround you,

You say it's not the same as saying 'if and only if' but it doesn't have to say if and only if; as the context is the qualifier. And the context is wisdom specifically to endure trials. Even further, the wisdom is specific to helping Christians meet the trial in the right way which makes Christians strenthened and purified, helps Christians to turn the trial into greatness and glory, making Christians mature and removes weaknesses and imperfections. That is the context of the wisdom in James 1:5. Wuest inserted [when undergoing these trials] to show the context of And if as is the case because it's referring to the previous verse (verse 4), which is referring to its previous verse (verse 3), which is the same sentence as the verse before that (verse 2).

When studying the Greek in detail it is very obvious the wisdom in James 1:5 is not a general case as you say. It is specifically tied to trials and quoting it as a general case and ripping it from the context of trials is changing the original intent of the author. The proper passages to claim in prayer for wisdom (and other things) are 1 Kings 3:5-14, Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, and John 15:7, as the context is a general case in each instance, with the qualifier that God is glorified.

"You state that if my position is scholarly I should be able to put up a decent, logical consistent argument. I have put forth the very arguments of scholars but you disagree"

I point out how the facts they cite do not add up to a decent, logical consistent argument for the position you state. You then ignore the substance of my remarks, and send forth your legion of straw men and constant appeals to authority. You posts reek of arrogant, elitist intellectualism that feels it is above responding to any critisms in a substantial way.

Just what is you think is so sacred about the opinion of a scholar? Do you think they can't be wrong? Do you think they all agree? There are Greek scholars of my faith with just as good credentials and profesional standing and reputation who disagree. Do you roll over and accept their views simply because they are a Greek scholar? '

"yet you disagree without a Greek education or an argument based on the Greek. "

You have failed to show how the Greek text itself supports your arguments FOR your position and excludes my position. Instead you rely on the personal interpretations of that text to bolster your case. Likewise it is foolish to think that because a person is a Greek scholar that they will perfectly understand a manuscript, even though they have the skill to translate it. Misunderstandings among people who speak the same language and live in the same cultural and historical context are as common as dust, so it is foolish to think some 'expert' who has studied an ancient civilization and language (not lived in it) will never misunderstand an ancient author's intent.

"You just disagree in ignorance."

I state very clearly my reasons for disagreement. If your desire is to 'cure' me of the ignorance you claim I suffer from, address my counterpoints. So far your record is one of ignoring those reasons, or mis-represent them, or just throwing more bad logic at them.

"When I say you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, I am not engaging in name calling"

Certainly you are. Just because you think it is accurate doesn't mean it isn't name calling.

"You state I haven't shown you anyplace where a Greek scholar supports the wisdom in James 1:5 is specific to trials."

Not so, I said "To date, nothing you've posted specificly about the Greek TEXT supports the restriction you claim are there."

"You state that by putting comments in brackets Wuest is incorrectly interpreting the passage"

Again you misrepresent me. I said: "Kudos to Wuest for using square brackets properly instead of protraying his interpretation as if it was more than that.... I didn't say Wuest went wrong, I said the conclusions you draw from it are wrong and not justified."

"You can post all the links you can find to discuss what square brackets mean. "

Translation: Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.

"To make your point you need to show where Wuest is incorrect in what he writes."

No, for two reasons: first, Wuest was honest enough to demark his comments as comments using [], so his translation does NOTHING to support your claim that the Greek text itself establishes some restriction on wisdom. Second, even if his comment is taken as being directly from the Greek text, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.

"You state you have dismissed my opinion using logic, other scripture, and pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments. That has to be the most profoundly untrue statement you have yet made on this thread."

I'm perfectly content to let the lurkers (if any) make their own mind up about that.

"You try to twist my words into formal logical statements to setup a strawman."

It's tempting to reply with 'If your position had any logic to it, no twisting would be needed to put it into formal logical statements.' But I won't take cheep shots like that.

There is no intention to twist your words, but from my POV your position itself is twisted and self-contridictory, on one hand you claim using v5 to anything other than wisdom to endure trials violates the intent of the author, but you also deny that James intended his remarks to be limited that way. Make up your mind or take the time to reconcile the two ideas. Anytime you feel I've misrepresented your views, you are free to point out just where I went wrong and correct that instead of waving it away crying straw man. Why not do that?

"You have not listed a single Scripture reference that I can find on this thread whereas I have listed numerous Scripture references that you rarely even mention and conveniently dismiss."

Cry me a river. I've dismissed no scripture and I enjoy the irony of taking the verses you post and showing how they support my view. Our disagreement is a very narrowly defined one and I'm trying to keep the focus on it by avoiding side issues.

"You did list some biblical references in another thread but the verses you listed, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with what you were claiming at the time. "

And then later on you pulled out those verses to use them pretty much the same way I did.

"You call me a hypocrite"

I said the word comes to mind when you attack me for not ignoring facts you admitted to before, of course there are other reasons that could account for such behavior.

"but you once again have no idea what I'm talking about because you have little knowledge on the subject matter."

So, are you saying that because I'm not a 'Greek scholar' that I can recognize when a person contradicts themselves?

Precious little of our discussion has even focused on any details of hellenized times. But the pattern has been the same over and over, you lay out some quote from some source that you claim proves your side, I show you how what you claim is different than the claims of the quote or how it doens't conflict with my position, you resort to declaring me ignorant without fully dealing with the substance of my reply, and so on and so on...

"The links you cite to try and water down my arguments have no physical evidence to support their thoughts."

So what, there is no reason to believe everything that is true has physical evidence to back it up. You ignore that what evidence exists is insufficient to PROVE the originals were in Greek, and even those scholars who are of the opinion that the originals were Greek admit it is an OPINION, not a proven fact. They know an older Aramaic manuscript could possibly show up any time, or never at all, even if the original was in Aramaic. Do you have the courage and honesty to admit that is a possibility?

"The earlist physical evidence we have for the New Testament is written in Greek."

So what. That proves nothing.

"The Adam Clarke Bible Commentary you quoted defined wisdom in the same way I defined it in the first post, yet you tried to twist it to mean something else."

It is not the definition of the word 'wisdom' that is in dispute, it is the intent of the author reguarding v5 that we disagree on, as I understand things. Clarke's commentary for v5 did not limit the application of v5 to as you did.

"From your statements and your questions about Jews, the hellenized times, the language, etc, it is quite obvious to the informed reader you are desperately trying to come across as one informed, but you are not. "

Which statements? Which questions? List them.

Your entire post #47 is nothing more than you whining about not liking my replies while doing everything you can to avoid addressing the issues I raise and the flaws in your logic I point out. You rehash issues I've already answered as if they are new, you look down your nose and sneer as if that alone is argument enough, you ignore what I have already said many times over and claim I said the opposite to create a straw man to knock over. I'm able to respect an opinion that I disagree with, but not a person who stoops to such tactics over and over.

"What we can't prove with absolute certainty: In what language the letter of James was originally written "

THANK YOU FOR FINALY ADMITTING THAT
(it wasn't so hard, now was it)

"- Whether the sun will rise tomorrow "

Invalid comparison. Knowledge about a past action by a person is a very different thing than knowledge about a future event controled by the laws of physics.

"For at least thousands of years the sun has continued to rise every day and we have thousands of Greek manuscripts that continue to give testimony of the language of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament. "

That is just such an illogical argument. The laws of celestial mechanics are well known, and it would take an act of God to prevent the sun from coming up. Sunrise is not an event that happens because of some decision by a mortal. No law of physics or any other kind of law exists that would force any copy of an original manuscript to be in the same language as the original. Your comparison is not valid.

It's perfectly fine to point to the mass of discovered manuscripts and use that to justify an OPINION that the original was in Greek, but that is nowhere near proving the original was in Greek no matter how many there are.

"What we don't have: The original letter from James "

The only physical item that would prove it beyond dispute.

"What we do know about James and the book of James: James was a hellenized Jew with an excellent understanding of the Greek language "

The writer is GENERALLY thought of as the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1: 19), the son of Mary, who is mentioned in Acts 12: 17; Acts 15: 13; Gal. 2: 9. I think that is correct myself, but again it is not 100% certain.

I am not aware of any evidence that establishes as a fact that he knew the Greek language. There is no record of James interacting with any Greek persons in the Bible that I know of (unlike Paul who as a Roman citizen most certainly did know Greek and preached among them). Pointing to the the time and place of his life doesn't prove it, and the manuscripts we have are not proof either.

"Every manuscript we have is written in Greek."

Again this is meaningless. The selection of manuscripts we have is a small fraction of what once existed and not a random sample. They are also far removed in time from the original.

"James was writing to Jews"

Yes, but Paul when addressing the Jews he spoke in Hebrew in Acts 21:40 "he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue" and Hebrew was the language of religious literature for the Jews.

"We also know the common language of the time was Greek"

It is true the Greek was the most commonly used language in the Roman Empire, but that by no means justifies claiming it was used all the time by everyone. English is by far the most common language in Canada, but good luck finding anyone living in northern Quebec who uses it regularly, it would take effort even to find someone who knows it at all up there.

During the time of Jesus, Hebrew was the language of the learned, of the law, and of religious literature among the Jews. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic. Some of them did know at least some Greek, but you can't just assume they all were fluent enough to use it as their first language.

"Other than having the original document, it doesn't get any better for verifying historical documents than what we have of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament. "

There is a world of difference between verifying a historical document, and establishing what the original language of it is when you don't have the original.

"This is the out you've provided for yourself."

It sounds to me like you think I should just close my eyes to inconvenient ambiguities and pretend they don't exist.

And as I've said before, it doesn't make any difference to my position if it's Greek or not, it's YOUR position that relies on the unproven assumption that the original was Greek, so it is not an 'out' for me, it is a flaw in your argument. Attacking me over it is a poor way to try and distract attention from that flaw.

"You can always fall back to this position saying we don't know anything for sure."

No, I said there are some specific things we do not know, and you agreed we do not know them, yet you build your argument for your position on top of them which is very bad logic.

"you just have too much invested here to stop now despite the above facts"

The above facts you list include my very position, that we do not know what language the original was in with certainty. Your actions show that YOU are the one trying to gloss over them and ignore the unpleasent messy reality that things are not so cut and dry as you make them out to be.

"You state you find it sooo hard to believe I've been writing logic for over 2 decades."

I sure do, valid logical arguments anyway. Programing requires logic, but its a very limited and different exercise in logic than this is, and talking pointy-haired bosses into some course of action is even less demanding.

"What matters to me is the Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies that repeatedly hire me contractually for help."

A consultant, gag. :)

Sorry, but trying to shut me down by implying some kind of status doesn't work on me. And I don't know of any F500 or F100 companies that hire people for scriptural analysis. I've seen it many times, where someone can be a true master of some subject, but totaly inept at appying the same skills to other areas. I don't really understand that aspect of human nature, but I've seen it many times.

Tell you what, when bidding on your next contract, give them a printout of this thread to display your 'skills'.

"That doesn't answer the question."

Your question was "Why not use the following verses [Matthew 7:7, John 15:7, Luke 11:9] instead of pulling James 1:5 out of context?" and I most certainly did answer it clearly, just not in the way you want. These transparent 'Do you still beat your wife' type questions are for children.

"Using your logic, I could say the Bible says I can ask for whatever I wish and it will be given to me."

Not so at all, in your example the text itself clearly puts a condition in place (IF you remain in me and my words remain in you, [THEN] ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you). You have not shown the conditions you claim in the text of James 1. From the text of James 1 you do get conditions that you have to ask in faith, and that the wisdom you are asking for has to be wisdom you lack. I don't specificly bring those conditions up when I belive they are mutually understood, but I don't ignore them.

"Claiming James 1:5, someone wants wisdom to know how to trick their neighbor's wife into sleeping with them"

No such thing as 'wisdom to know how to trick their neighbor's wife into sleeping with them', that is foolishness. Wisdom is in harmony with God's will.

"Wuest is merely displaying the context in brackets"

Wuest put the [] in there because it is his interpretation, not something that is implied in the Greek originals.

"And if as is the case references the previous verses with their context being trials. If you disagree, then what does the And if as is the case reference?"

Sticking to just what comes from the Greek text, we get:
"But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing. And if as is the case anyone of you is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request "

"But, I believe we are making progress as when we started this discussion you stated verse 5 was unrelated to verses 2-4 and verses 6-12."

That was a long time ago and several of my posts were done late at night, so I went back and searched the thread on the word 'related' and on 'unrelated' rather than just trust my memory. All I found was your accusations that I throught verse 5 was unrelated to the verses around it. I did not make such a claim myself so don't try to morph your false accusations of the past into nonexistant statements.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/806452/posts?page=301#301

I do believe we have made some minor progress in term of understanding each other's position. But don't flatter yourself thinking you've changed my mind any.

"If you think he gets off track, show where he goes wrong using the Greek"

Ha ha, the parts in [] do not come from the Greek text, and even if they did, they still don't support your claims very well at all. Like I said before, if a doctor says, 'When you have a cold, go to bed and sleep', you can't run around claiming that the doctor told you to stay awake 24/7 unless you have a cold.

"You say it's not the same as saying 'if and only if' but it doesn't have to say if and only if; as the context is the qualifier. "

No, the author's intent is the qualifier. Context can help us to better understand what the author's intent is (when properly used), but context itself is not the same thing as the author's intent. James would not intend a meaning that was contrary to other scripture, so he would most certainly NOT intend an unstated 'if and only if'.

"Wuest inserted [when undergoing these trials] to show the context"

And he did so inside [] because it is NOT implied by the Greek text.

"And if as is the case because it's referring to the previous verse (verse 4), "

And v4 indicates that God wants us to be complete in every detail, lacking in nothing. (so if we lack wisdom....)

"When studying the Greek in detail it is very obvious the wisdom in James 1:5 is not a general case as you say."

It's always easy to see what you expect to see as being the only way it can be seen. (and yes, I know that applies to both of us). I do think I understand your reasons for your position, but I don't see them as valid reasons.

"It is specifically tied to trials and quoting it as a general case and ripping it from the context of trials is changing the original intent of the author."

Claiming that James intended it to me restricted to only trials is the same thing as saying James didn't know his stuff from my POV.

"passages to claim in prayer for wisdom (and other things) are 1 Kings 3:5-14, Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, and John 15:7"

And James would not intend a restriction that was in conflict to what is in those passages.

"with the qualifier that God is glorified. "

Wisdom is qualified by it's very nature to only those things pleasing to God.

Just what is you think is so sacred about the opinion of a scholar? Do you think they can't be wrong? Do you think they all agree? There are Greek scholars of my faith with just as good credentials and profesional standing and reputation who disagree. Do you roll over and accept their views simply because they are a Greek scholar?

Since I've referenced multiple Greek scholars it should be obvious to you that I don't put my faith in any one Greek scholar. I have yet to see you post the name of any Greek scholar that supports your position, or any Greek scholar that disagrees with the Greek I've posted.

You have failed to show how the Greek text itself supports your arguments FOR your position and excludes my position. Instead you rely on the personal interpretations of that text to bolster your case.

You have yet to demonstrate how the bracketed comments are the personal opinions of the author and not the context or the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.

I state very clearly my reasons for disagreement. If your desire is to 'cure' me of the ignorance you claim I suffer from, address my counterpoints.

Counterpoints? I have asked you to respond from the Greek and you have failed to do that with each response.

Certainly you are. Just because you think it is accurate doesn't mean it isn't name calling.

Just because you don't like me pointing out your profound ignorance on the subject doesn't mean it's name calling. It's just an observation.

I previously wrote:

You can post all the links you can find to discuss what square brackets mean.

Translation: Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.

That means you can't make your case from the Greek.

No, for two reasons: first, Wuest was honest enough to demark his comments as comments using [], so his translation does NOTHING to support your claim that the Greek text itself establishes some restriction on wisdom. Second, even if his comment is taken as being directly from the Greek text, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.

You still have no clue what context is.

There is no intention to twist your words,

Yet that's exactly what you do when you don't know what you're talking about and try to come across as if you do. You simply don't understand what I say and respond, twisting what I did say from ignorance, misunderstanding what I said or bad assumptions. I refuse to hold your hand and guide you through something when you pretend you already know it and act as if you don't need any help. Such behavior is a game and I won't play it.

but from my POV your position itself is twisted and self-contridictory, on one hand you claim using v5 to anything other than wisdom to endure trials violates the intent of the author, but you also deny that James intended his remarks to be limited that way.

Stop playing games. I don't know how many times I've told you that is not my position but you continually repeat it. You say I should point out where you go wrong and I've done that I don't know how many times. Yet you continue to mispresent what I say. That is a game you play and I'm not going to continue playing it.

And then later on you pulled out those verses to use them pretty much the same way I did.

That is not true. I gave you a link and told you exactly where to look for something, and in that passage was Matthew 7:7. You then later tried to use Matthew 7:7 as a reference for your position, stating it said something it didn't.

I said the word [hypocrite] comes to mind when you attack me for not ignoring facts you admitted to before, of course there are other reasons that could account for such behavior.

Because you have a profound ignorance on the subject and you assume things based on your lack of knowledge, you simply do not understand what I'm saying and therefore think some contradiction exists. I'm not going to step you through years of study when you try to imply you already know what you obviously don't know. If you don't understand something, don't pretend as if you do.

"The Adam Clarke Bible Commentary you quoted defined wisdom in the same way I defined it in the first post, yet you tried to twist it to mean something else."

It is not the definition of the word 'wisdom' that is in dispute,

That's a non sequitur - nobody is saying it is.

it is the intent of the author reguarding v5 that we disagree on, as I understand things. Clarke's commentary for v5 did not limit the application of v5 to as you did.

As I said earlier, Clarke's commentary and my sources agreed with a very high level definition of wisdom. It's the details that matter and it's the details that you continue to avoid.

If I were to print this thread and give it to my next contract, they would probably double my rate after reading how patient I've been with one so profoundly ignorant.

You try so hard to put me down in some poor attempt to build up your weak position. You assume, you guess, you misrepresent, and then try to create straw man arguments. You assume I'm trying to shut you down by implying Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 status of some kind. Again, you assume incorrectly. I write logic for a living and as I said, the companies repeatedly hire me. I said I'm not saying anymore on it because of the way it would come across plus I'm sticking to the subject.

It's perfectly fine to point to the mass of discovered manuscripts and use that to justify an OPINION that the original was in Greek, but that is nowhere near proving the original was in Greek no matter how many there are.

Then there's the preponderance of the evidence. But hey, since we don't have the original you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like.

The writer is GENERALLY thought of as the Lord.s brother (Gal. 1: 19), the son of Mary, who is mentioned in Acts 12: 17; Acts 15: 13; Gal. 2: 9. I think that is correct myself, but again it is not 100% certain.

I agree 100%, but I give the the preponderance of the evidence more weight than pie-in-the-sky ideas with no supporting physical evidence.

I am not aware of any evidence that establishes as a fact that he knew the Greek language. There is no record of James interacting with any Greek persons in the Bible that I know of (unlike Paul who as a Roman citizen most certainly did know Greek and preached among them). Pointing to the the time and place of his life doesn't prove it, and the manuscripts we have are not proof either.

We're not looking for proof, just at the preponderance of the evidence.

Again this is meaningless. The selection of manuscripts we have is a small fraction of what once existed and not a random sample. They are also far removed in time from the original.

The earliest manuscripts and the latest manuscripts are much further removed from each other than the earliest and the originals, and yet are very close in content, with differences mostly orthographical in nature. Again, just the preponderance of the evidence.

Yes, but Paul when addressing the Jews he spoke in Hebrew in Acts 21:40 "he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue" and Hebrew was the language of religious literature for the Jews.

What you have to look at is the intended audience - Paul spoke to the tribune in Greek, then turned to the crowd and spoke in Aramaic or the Hebrew dialect. The intended audience is key, so when James wrote his letter he wrote it with the intended audience in mind, using the common language used by the intended audience.

Greek was the common language not the only language. "We also know the common language of the time was Greek"

It is true the Greek was the most commonly used language in the Roman Empire, but that by no means justifies claiming it was used all the time by everyone.

I've never implied anything else - Greek was the common language not the only language. I don't assume anything here and simply use the preponderance of the evidence as my guide.

There is a world of difference between verifying a historical document, and establishing what the original language of it is when you don't have the original.

What is that world of difference you speak of? How does the preponderance of the evidence affect that world of difference?

Programing requires logic, but its a very limited and different exercise in logic than this is, and talking pointy-haired bosses into some course of action is even less demanding.

If you are hinting I'm a programmer, not only do you have no clue what I do for a living, but you assume you know what I'm talking about and get it wrong most of the time.

Not so at all, in your example the text itself clearly puts a condition in place (IF you remain in me and my words remain in you, [THEN] ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you). You have not shown the conditions you claim in the text of James 1. From the text of James 1 you do get conditions that you have to ask in faith, and that the wisdom you are asking for has to be wisdom you lack. I don't specificly bring those conditions up when I belive they are mutually understood, but I don't ignore them.

I reverse engineered the passage demonstrating how each verse is connected to the previous verse. How about responding to the meat of the discussion?

No such thing as 'wisdom to know how to trick their neighbor's wife into sleeping with them', that is foolishness. Wisdom is in harmony with God's will.

How do you know that? You state the wisdom in James is a general case. What's the context of any biblical reference you have?

Wuest put the [] in there because it is his interpretation, not something that is implied in the Greek originals.

As I've gone into detail, that's not what the Greek tells us. Make your point from the Greek if you can.

I previously wrote:

And if as is the case references the previous verses with their context being trials. If you disagree, then what does the And if as is the case reference?

Sticking to just what comes from the Greek text, we get: "But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing. And if as is the case anyone of you is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request "

Dodge!
You didn't even try to answer the question and this is the meat of the discussion. What does the And if as is the case reference?

That was a long time ago and several of my posts were done late at night, so I went back and searched the thread on the word 'related' and on 'unrelated' rather than just trust my memory. All I found was your accusations that I throught verse 5 was unrelated to the verses around it. I did not make such a claim myself so don't try to morph your false accusations of the past into nonexistant statements.

Nice try. Let your own words speak for you again from here:

Verses 2-4 are about trials, it is only an assumption of yours that verse 5 is a continuation of that thought. Do you think they never move from one topic to another within a chapter or something?

You may not use the word unrelated but you surely imply just that with the above.

And then here

That's how you break it down, I would do so differently. 5-8 very clearly talk about recieving personal guidance from God. Certainly something very usefull in times of trial and temptation, but nothing in the text limits this exclusivly to that. It clearly illustrates that God can and will take an active role in guiding his children, and shows that personal revelation is both christian and biblical. It means what it says, and whatever verses come before or after don't effect it's meaning.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with what you meant with both of the above quotes.

I do believe we have made some minor progress in term of understanding each other's position. But don't flatter yourself thinking you've changed my mind any.

From what others told me about you at the outset, I never thought that was possible with you. Still, I thought it worth the time for the lurkers to see just how bad Mormons rip James 1:5 out of context.

Ha ha,

There's nothing funny about you trying desperately to ignore the meat of the discussion.

the parts in [] do not come from the Greek text, and even if they did, they still don't support your claims very well at all.

Make your case from the Greek. Expand on the Greek words. Demonstrate what words are referencing previous verses. Oh, you want to ignore the meat of the discussion, don't you. Yeah, that's probably why you deleted it all and didn't respond to it. Well, here it is. Are you going to ignore it again?

At the beginning of verse 5 Wuest says: And if as is the case. I keep pointing out to you the context is trials and Wuest (along with the other references) are the reason I say the context is trials - I've studied this issue in detail. The And if as is the case is similar to a "therefore" when you see it in the Bible. You have to look at the previous passages to see what the "therefore" is there for.

You cannot logically deny the connection to the previous verses although you surely tried to do just that by deleting the meat of the discussion.

Here's verse 5 from Wuest:

Here's Wuests' verse 4:

But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

According to the many dictionaries and commentaries I consulted, when the words are expanded we get the following for verse 4:

The ability to turn testing into greatness and glory must finish its work so that you may be perfect for a given end, with weaknesses and imperfections gone, deficient in nothing.

Continuing with Wuest:

[Verse 5] And if as is the case for anyone when undergoing trials is deficient in wisdom

The And if as is the case refers to the previous verse:

[Verse 4] But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

The aforementioned patience here refers to patience in verse 3:

Which brings us to the beginning of the immediate context of trials, verse 2:

[Verse 2] Consider it a matter for unadulterated joy [without any admixture of sorrow] whenever you fall into the midst of variegated trials which surround you,

There you go. Try sticking to the meat of the discussion here. That being, what the text actually says.

“Since I've referenced multiple Greek scholars it should be obvious to you that I don't put my faith in any one Greek scholar. I have yet to see you post the name of any Greek scholar that supports your position, or any Greek scholar that disagrees with the Greek I've posted. “

Right, because my position is that such things are not relevant. I don’t care how many scholars of what type take what position; it is not proof or even evidence that the position is correct, even if the position is one I agree with. I’ll examine the merits of their case as honestly as I can, but if I don’t find it a convincing argument I won’t buy into it, and I won’t attempt to use an appeal to authority since it not a valid argument

“You have yet to demonstrate how the bracketed comments are the personal opinions of the author and not the context or the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.”

The fact that the comment is inside [] is proof enough.

“Counterpoints? I have asked you to respond from the Greek and you have failed to do that with each response.”

You are the one asserting there is a specific restriction supported by the Greek text and the burden of evidence is on you. I have directly replied to all the evidences you posted showing how they do not provide sufficient support for your claim and mostly you ignore it or brush is off with some ‘oh you are so ignorant’ comment that does nothing to address what I said. It is your claim that the Greek manuscripts justify a restriction not stated in the KJV, yet nothing you’ve posted shows a Greek scholar getting that restriction out of the translation either.

“Just because you don't like me pointing out your profound ignorance on the subject doesn't mean it's name calling.”

All you do is huff and puff calling me ignorant blah blah blah. If that is really so, demonstrate it. It seems to me your definition of ignorant is ‘someone who disagrees with me’ and you use the accusation to avoid directly responding to points I bring up.

For example: your rely to “No, for two reasons: first, Wuest was honest enough to demark his comments as comments using [], so his translation does NOTHING to support your claim that the Greek text itself establishes some restriction on wisdom. Second, even if his comment is taken as being directly from the Greek text, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.” Was to wave your hand and declare from on high: “You still have no clue what context is.” No effort is made to point out a factual error, or a logical flaw, just an arrogant dismissal of an argument you do not like.

“You simply don't understand what I say and respond,”

It’s quite possible I misunderstand what you say when I respond. If so you need to express yourself better. And instead of whining about my supposedly twisting your words, take the opportunity to clarify what you did mean.

It’s because of stuff like this, when two people who speak the same language and live in the same cultural and historical context have to work this hard to understand the intended meaning of the other, that I am very cautious about following some herd of Greek scholars and buying into their interpretation of the scriptures.

“I refuse to hold your hand and guide you through something when you pretend you already know it and act as if you don't need any help.”

I make no bones about having an opinion already, but I am willing and able to examine your side honestly. If you really think I am unable or unwilling to give honest consideration to your side, don’t bother to reply. And if you have no interest in making the effort to defend your position, you shouldn’t have started this thread in the first place.

“I don't know how many times I've told you that is not my position but you continually repeat it.”

From post 23:
scripter: " I have claimed James 1:5 is wisdom for trials and trials alone but have never said James denies wisdom for other areas."

Grig: Self-contradictory. If he intended James 1:5 is wisdom for trials AND TRIALS ALONE then he DOES deny wisdom for other areas by that very act.

Also at the very start of this thread you say: 'Claiming this verse for anything other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning'. So clearly you see the original meaning as being that James is saying you can ONLY request wisdom to endure trials. If James didn’t mean it to be taken as you can ONLY request wisdom to endure trials, then it’s possible to take it to mean more than just that without changing the originally intended meaning.

To me it looks like a clear contradiction.

“you simply do not understand what I'm saying and therefore think some contradiction exists.”

So explain yourself better instead of whining about being misunderstood.

“As I said earlier, Clarke's commentary and my sources agreed with a very high level definition of wisdom. It's the details that matter and it's the details that you continue to avoid.”

Disagreeing with you is not avoiding details.

“If I were to print this thread and give it to my next contract, they would probably double my rate after reading how patient I've been with one so profoundly ignorant.”

Be my guest.

“You assume I'm trying to shut you down by implying Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 status of some kind.”

Well, that’s how you came across, and you can thank yourself for that. To me it looked like you wanted to lay claim to some level of expertise or authority instead of focusing on the merits of your case or mine.

“I write logic for a living and as I said, the companies repeatedly hire me.”

And there you go again, coming off like an appeal to your own authority. I don’t care one tiny bit what your job is or your resume looks like. I look at what you’ve posted here and go by that.

“I said I'm not saying anymore on it because of the way it would come across plus I'm sticking to the subject.”

You are the one who brought it up in the first place.

“Then there's the preponderance of the evidence.”

The number of Greek manuscripts is not relevant since no number of Greek copies rules out the possibility of a non-Greek original. You also admit that we don’t know for certain that the original was in Greek so I see no need to dwell on that any longer. However the fact that we do not know for sure what language the original was in does introduce a weakness into your reasoning.

“If you are hinting I'm a programmer”

I’m not, I’m trying to show you that simply having a job that requires the use of some logical skills doesn’t automatically translate into being logical in all areas of life. Your vague references to your line of work (whatever it is, lawyer, advertising, janitor, I don’t care) don’t mean didly squat to me, nor does who hires you or how many times.

“How do you know that?”

Are you saying that sometimes it is wise to rebel against God’s will? Go read Prov. 8 sometime.

“What does the And if as is the case reference?”

‘as is the case’ is not the same thing as ‘therefore’ and not a correct substitution to use. http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/deadwood.html and http://www.klariti.com/technical-writing/Writing-Deadwood-Phrases.html lists it meaning the same as ‘as is true’, i.e.: you are identifying what you are about to bring up as an already accepted truth, whereas ‘therefore’ identifies that what you are about to say as a conclusion based on the previous statements. The ‘case’ being referred to is the condition of lacking wisdom. The ‘If’ creates the conditional structure of the statement (if A [then] B), and ‘and’ connects it to the idea immediately before about becoming perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

So, my first draft of rewording it would be something like: dealing with trials correctly helps you become perfect and complete, lacking nothing, and if it is true that any of you are lacking in wisdom, which lack can be the cause of trials, let him ask God…

Once again this fails to justify the idea that James intended the wisdom he referred to be only be wisdom about trials.

“Nice try. Let your own words speak for you again from here: Verses 2-4 are about trials, it is only an assumption of yours that verse 5 is a continuation of that thought [trials]. Do you think they never move from one topic to another within a chapter or something? “

And I still say v2-4 are directly discussing trials, v5 is discussing wisdom. That doesn’t mean that v5 does not have a relationship to v4 however.

And then here : That's how you break it down, I would do so differently. 5-8 very clearly talk about recieving personal guidance from God. Certainly something very usefull in times of trial and temptation [ie: there is a relationship, but not the one you claim], but nothing in the text limits this exclusivly to that. It clearly illustrates that God can and will take an active role in guiding his children, and shows that personal revelation is both christian and biblical. It means what it says, and whatever verses come before or after don't effect it's meaning.

And again, that doesn’t say that they are unrelated, it says that the meaning of those verses is self-contained and quoting them as I did didn’t alter their meaning. I said much the same thing again, although (I hope) with greater clarity, in post 13 of this thread where I said “I see James 1:5 as a clear unqualified statement of a general principle. The context applies that principle to a specific situation (trials), but he did not intend that specific application to be taken as the ONLY application of the principle, he knew the gospel better than that.”

What you see as a change in my position is nothing more than your coming to understand that my position is not the same as you first thought it was. The idea that I claimed v5 was unrelated to the surrounding verses was a misconception on your part. You read more into my words than I intended, just as you do with James.

“From what others told me about you at the outset,”

Well, that’s one long held suspicion confirmed. Was drstevej among these ‘others’ you speak of? He likes act all offended and say we are talking about him behind his back if we say anything about him in a PUBLIC post without pinging him. He might just do that now since I’m not going to ping him on this reply to you.

“I thought it worth the time for the lurkers to see just how bad Mormons rip James 1:5 out of context.”

And therein lies the true motivation. Mormons cite James 1:5 to encourage non-members to ask God about the truth of our faith, and you would rather they just listened to Greek scholars of your choosing. Isn’t that correct?

“Make your case from the Greek.”

Yawn, it was your claim that the Greek supported the limits you claimed, so YOU make your case from the Greek. I’m saying there isn’t anything there that supports those limits, so you are essentially asking me to prove a negative.

“I keep pointing out to you the context is trials and Wuest (along with the other references) are the reason I say the context is trials”

And I’ve agreed the context is trials, but that alone doesn’t show James intended v5 to only be about wisdom to endure trials. James stated and applied a true principle to trials with no intent of having that principle limited to trials and trials alone. Like I said before, if you go see a doctor and he says ‘If you have a cold, go to bed and get some sleep’, it would be both foolish and wrong to take his advice as meaning you should stay awake 24/7 when you don’t have a cold. Author intent takes precedent over context.

“Do you think Wuest incorrectly interprets the rest of verse 5 with what he puts in brackets here,:

I said James is applying a true principle to a specific situation (undergoing trials), so I see Wuest and I as agreeing on that point. I think you take [when undergoing trials] as being the same thing as [ONLY when undergoing trials], and THAT is incorrect. Nor does Wuest put any restriction on what kind of wisdom one may receive. I agree about the context, but I don’t see the context as always giving a full portrayal of the author’s intent, which is more important than the context.

I think this really is the crux of our disagreement, not what the context is, but how did James intend it to be taken, as advise that is only valid in a narrow, limited set of circumstances, or as one specific application of a broadly applicable principle. Also, does author intent take precedent over context. You did say “We must understand the original intent of the writer” but I don’t have a clear picture of your views on author intent as it relates to context etc.

“You say it's not the same as saying 'if and only if' but it doesn't have to say if and only if; as the context is the qualifier. And the context is wisdom specifically to endure trials.”

And yet Wuest did NOT put that into his translation of v5, he just says ‘wisdom’ with no qualifier either in or out of [].

“That is the context of the wisdom in James 1:5”

And context can become a red herring when you use it that way. The intent of the author is not always limited to ONLY the context the author presents.

“And if as is the case because it's referring to the previous verse (verse 4), which is referring to its previous verse (verse 3), which is the same sentence as the verse before that (verse 2).”

Verse 4 relates to v3 in a different way than v5 relates to v4, likewise for v3 and v2, so you can’t then conclude the wisdom in v5 refers to only to the trials as mentioned in v2 and cut out everything between.

“You can only make that statement by ignoring the Greek.”

No, the Greek didn’t say it. Its just an INTERPRETATION of the TRANSLATION from the Greek that says it, and I disagree with the INTERPRETATION you give it.

“demonstrating the obvious connection to the trials of verse 2 and and you completely ignored it.”

Because you are either ignoring or missing the point that I don’t buy into this idea that that author’s intent is limited to ONLY what is found in the context. You are barking up the wrong tree.

“It is very obvious the And if as is the case at the beginning of verse 5 refers to the previous verses”

I would say it refers to the previous verse (singular).

“That's precisely why Wuest put the context of the previous verses in brackets, so we could know to what the wisdom refers.”

None of Wuest’s comments indicates that the wisdom refers to trials, at best you could argue that Wuest’s comments indicates something about the timing of a request for wisdom (when undergoing trials), not the kind of wisdom being requested, but even then if you claim Wuest is saying that is the ONLY time you can request wisdom and get it, I would say you misunderstand Wuest as well as James.

“if we lack the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, ask God. The wisdom …makes Christians strenthened and purified, and helps Christians to turn the trial into greatness and glory, making Christians mature and removes weaknesses and imperfections.”

I don’t doubt that gaining whatever wisdom a person needs to correctly deal with a trial and reap the benefits of doing so is PART of the author’s intent, but not the full extent of it.

“It's absolutely beautiful when understood in context.”

And even more so when understood as intended. God will partner with us and guide us though life according to our faith if we ask

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.