[scripter]

What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.

You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." A selfish request would be impure motives. That's seems pretty clear to me, but we can use righteous, unrighteous, pure, impure... whatever fits your fancy.

Anyway, this is a minor point and I don.t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.

I believe we can agree here.

I don.t see why there shouldn.t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.

It's the context that sets the limits, whether you're talking about 1 Kings 3, 2 Chronicles 1, Matthew 7 or Luke 11.

Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial. I would agree with you much more than I do now.

Sounds good.

It.s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.

I'm not tacking the word only on it. The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context.

And that idea is captured in my conclusion .Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

No. That's not the context nor the meaning of perfect and entire. You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related. It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire (which is a horrible translation), it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory; all of which stems from the Greek words translated as perfect and entire.

It's trials that make us "perfect and entire" if we meet the trial in the right way. If we lack the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, we can ask God for wisdom to meet the trial in the right way.

We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire

It's the wisdom of James 1:5 that helps us meet the trial in the right way.

No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James. original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.

Context includes author, history, language, culture, mannerisms, original intent, reason for writing, etc. We get the original intent by studying the entire context, which I've done in this study while still trying to keep it short.

Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can.t say with certainty since we don.t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts.

When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek, then say that's unlikely and make some really bad assumptions. You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write, and every single copy we have of James was written in Greek. The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew. You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail, that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else.

OK, note however that it doesn.t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.

The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves.

Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don.t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from .people facing trials do lack wisdom. to .wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously. The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.

It doesn't just come from themselves, it comes from understanding the context and the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.

On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows .wisdom. referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?

The context.

According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, .Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.. I.m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I.m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how .wisdom. is meant to be taken in that verse.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above and welcome additional commentaries and dictionaries.

It isn.t the use of the Greek I.m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

[Grig]

"You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." "

I missed that post, thanks for the link.

"It's the context that sets the limits, "

And I showed how just because something is said in a certain context doesn't by itself establish that the author intended the remark to be limited to only that context. You've had well over a full week to consider and reply to the analogy I posted to you. I have not seen any reply to it. If I missed it, please point me to it, but if you have not responded to it, either do so or say you won't.

"I'm not tacking the word only on it."

You most certainly are. There is nothing in the context that indicates the limits you infer.

You are making a classic logical error. 'If A then B' doesn't also mean that 'If notA then notB' Example: 'if it is raining, the driveway is wet' is true, but 'if it is not raining the driveway is not wet' is not true all the time, the driveway doesn't become dry the instant the rain stops, and it can become wet in other ways.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it, but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God' You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

"The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials."

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'. Look at it again:

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.

That doesn’t say or mean that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. It says and means that people facing trials lack wisdom, something we have agreed on.

"The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context."

If you claim that James intented v5 to be taken as meaning the only wisdom God will give those who ask in faith is wisdom to endure trials, then you are saying James didn't know his stuff, he would be contridicting 2 Chronicles 1, Matt 7, Luke 11 and the other verses YOU pointed to.

"You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related."

So v3 and v5 ARE related, but v4 and v5 are not?

"It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire"

And I repeatedly agreed with you on that. It's a quality that makes it possilbe to become perfect and entrire, one required ingredient you could say.

"it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory"

Right, that's why James told them they should be HAPPY about the trials they faced. It was giving them the chance to become further strengthened and purified, closer to wanting [lacking] nothing.

But what if a person lacks the wisdom needed to become as God wants them to be? Where does one get such wisdom if they lack it? We need wisdom from him, and he will give it to those who ask in faith, whatever wisdom it is we need to become as He wants us to be. The idea that James intention was to say that God will grant you wisdom to endure a trial but you are on your own for everything else is both foolish and wrong IMHO.

"We get the original intent by studying the entire context"

There are limits to what we can tell of a person's intent from a frequently transcribed and translated copy of a letter they wrote to another group of people.

"When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject."

Hey, if you are going to look to those manuscripts to try and discern the author's intent, then the accuracy of the manuscripts is a valid thing to investigate. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek,"

I didn't say that, I ASKED if he did.

"then say that's unlikely"

I say I consider it unlikely, not impossible, I just think using either Hebrew or Aramaic are possibilities too.

"and make some really bad assumptions."

I asked some questions.

"You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write"

He wasn't writing to everyone though, just the Jewish christians. The common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon was Aramaic, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic.

"every single copy we have of James was written in Greek"

That tells us NOTHING about what language the original was in.

"The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew"

But was that Jew the author or a translator? We just don't know.

"You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail"

No, because you still haven't shown anything to support your claim. I'm just pointing to a weakness in your method and assumptions.

"that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else...The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves."

And nothing in the sentence structure or the words supports ONLY wisdom for trials.

"I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above "

Good, please note it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

No, I'm saying the restriction you place is not justified, you are drawing invalid inferences.