Replies

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, yet you disagree without a Greek education or an argument based on the Greek. You just disagree in ignorance. When I say you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, I am not engaging in name calling; ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge and can be cured.

You state I haven't shown you anyplace where a Greek scholar supports the wisdom in James 1:5 is specific to trials. You state that by putting comments in brackets Wuest is incorrectly interpreting the passage which you have no expertise from which to critique. You can post all the links you can find to discuss what square brackets mean. To make your point you need to show where Wuest is incorrect in what he writes.

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. You try to twist my words into formal logical statements to setup a strawman. You repeatedly twist what I say in some pitiful attempt to bolter your extremely weak position. 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. 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.

You call me a hypocrite but you once again have no idea what I'm talking about because you have little knowledge on the subject matter. You do not understand what I say because you don't know enough on the subject matter, and that is being kind.

The links you cite to try and water down my arguments have no physical evidence to support their thoughts. The earlist physical evidence we have for the New Testament is written in Greek. Even the sources you listed admitted as much.

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. When I put the definitions side by side the similarities were quite obvious.

You state I have little information on what [you] have and have not studied. 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. But if by a very very slim chance I am wrong here, then you are purposely acting ignorant, and that means you are playing games and wasting time.

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.