[scripter]

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'.

The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials. Everything is tied to trials. That is the context. That is the reference. The wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it,

Yes.

but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God'

I have no idea why you said that. We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. I have said over and over that if we need wisdom from God we should claim the 1 Kings 3 passage, the Matthew 7 passage and the Luke 11 passage. That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials.

That is not the issue. The issue is the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. That is the specific context. Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning.

You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

I sure can. The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position. The fact that everything is tied to trials offers no support for your position. Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical.

I previously said:

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?

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

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.

I have never said that. Not once. This is a straw man.

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?

That is an argument from silence. You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists.

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

Another argument from silence.

Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day. When you say things like this you demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. Everytime you say something on this subject you just make it worse for yourself. I have offered to point you to some books on the subject but you never take me up on the offer.

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.

The common language was Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic as we see in Matthew where Jesus said "talitha coum" if I remember it right, which means little girl I say to you, get up. So Jesus spoke Aramaic and most likely Hebrew, but the common language was Greek and is what the entire New Testament is written in. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament and the Septuagint is the version quoted by everyone in the New Testament. Everything we have is Greek. You're argument is from silence.

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

One more time. You don't understand context. What's so strange is you admit the context is trials. You admit the wisdom is tied to trials, but you want to use the wisdom in James 1:5 to support whatever you want, and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not.

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

You're reading something into it that isn't there. Here is what he said.

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..

The first part doesn't apply as we're only interested in wisdom in Scripture. If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. Here's what I said:

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.

What he doesn't do is go into more detail, but he says the same thing I said.

[Grig]

"The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials."

And none of that shows that the author intended his advice on seeking wisdom to ONLY be valid advice in that context.

"If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning. "

If James intended to convey the idea that God will ONLY give wisdom to those who need it for enduring trials then he is wrong, if he didn't intend that limit you claim, then nothing I did changed the intended meaning.

"I have no idea why you said that. "

Because that is just what you have claimed (many, many times) James' intent was.

"We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. "

Exactly why I can not agree that that James intended such a restriction as you claim. James applied a general principle (we can seek wisdom from God if we have faith) to a specific context (trials), but there is nothing to justify saying he intended that to be the ONLY context that principle can be applied to. Since trials is not the only context that it can be applied to, I assume James intended no such restriction.

"That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials."

You have claimed over and over that James intended meaning was that a person can ONLY recieve wisdom from God to endure trial they are in, and no other kind of wisdom.

"Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning"

So you claim, but you have not shown it to be anything more than your opinion of what his intent was.

And what wisdom is there that doesn't help a person to avoid or handle a trial? Your comment 'James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).' indicates that lacking wisdom is a trial IN AND OF ITSELF.

"The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position."

No, that only shows you really don't understand my position. I agree that it's all tied to trials, but you claim his intent was that it's ONLY tied to trials and I say there is no justification to say his intent was so restricted.

"Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical. "

It would only be illogical if there was a clearly demonstrable intention by James to teach that a person can ONLY get wisdom from God to endure trials and for nothing else. If someone tells you that you can get a hammer at Home Depot to build cabinets with, it is silly to infer that you can get a hammer at Home Depot ONLY to use for building cabinets.

"I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here."

You say since v3 is about trials, v5 is as well. I point to v4 and say it shows God wants us 'perfect and entire, wanting [lacking] nothing.' James' very next words are 'If any of ye lack wisdom...' so I fail to see how this counts as connecting unrelated words.

"I have never said that. Not once"

You said James intent was 'perfectly' 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 ONLY"

"That is an argument from silence."

No, it wasn't an argument at all, it was a question. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists"

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING WITH THE QUESTION. We don't know for a fact what language James wrote it in, we don't know for a fact who chose to use that sentance structure. You want to ignore that and treat the known manuscripts as if they are the originals, I'm saying you have to more scholarly than that and allow for the possibility that James did not write it in Greek and some scribe chose that sentance structure while translating it.

"Another argument from silence."

No, a statement of fact. An argument from silence reaches some kind of conclusion, all I did is point out that the fact the known manuscripts are Greek is not a valid proof for claiming the original was Greek, my claim is that the language of the orginal is unknown, a fact. It COULD have been Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or something else.

"Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day."

Greek was the most common language on a (old)worldwide level, but James wasn't writing to everybody, he was writing to the Jews, so Hebrew and Aramaic are also likely candidates for the original language and brushing off the possibility is not justified.

"The common language was Greek."

Not among the Jews at that time. I'm taking into account the language and culture of the intended audience and the author, and saying that we can't rule out certain posibilites. You reply that I'm ignoring the context when I do that is rather funny.

"You admit the wisdom is tied to trials,"

Yes, and that James did not intend the fact that he tied it to trials to be taken as it being limited to ONLY trials.

"and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not. "

It all comes down to how James intended it to be taken. You have your opinion and I have mine about what the intended scope of v5 is. So far you have not shown anything in the content or the context that even makes your claim seem like a possibility to me.

"If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. "

Like I said, it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial. If you claim it does, then YOU are reading something into it that isn't there.

"to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics...he says the same thing I said."

And again, the type of wisdom is not limited to only wisdom to endure a current trial.

"I have called your analogy a straw man but you seem to have ignored or missed it entirely. I can't help but wonder if you're doing this on purpose to avoid admitting my point or if you just don't get it. "

I missed a lot of posts in the past 9 days. I did tell you that I wouldn't be around nearly as much.

"I've also never seen a perfect analogy for anything - they always break down somewhere."

Of course, but they are still usefull.

"With the lesson on cabinet making being trials in your analogy, Home Depot being God which is probably a first for God, the hammer representing wisdom and cabinets the end product or the mature Christian, "

Already you have taken tha anaolgy much farther than intended.

"Just as in your view of James 1:5, you are leaving out specific issues that are required in your analogy. That is, perseverance which is meeting the trial in the right way and being complete which is removing our weaknesses and imperfections"

The analogy is intended to make one point: that just because something is said in one specific context doesn't by itself justify claiming that is the ONLY context it is valid for. It is not intended to be a 1:1 retelling of James 1.

"Your analogy is a straw man because you mispresent what I've said."

I was using the analogy to try and get you to see my POV. You say that because v5 is in a context of trials that it's valid to limit it's application to ONLY trials. I'm saying that makes as much sense to me as what scripter1 and scripter2 say in the story. The context (how to build cabinets) alone doesn't justify the accusation of altering the intended meaning of the author.

Could you address THAT, instead of all the details you dwelt on which are not relevant to the intent or purpose of the analogy?