peteolcott Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 You do realise that pantheism is far from the only possible interpretation, let alone the most likely interpretation?{There is none else} never has and never will mean [there is some else].
volgadon Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) {There is none else} never has and never will mean [there is some else].There is none else can, and does mean there are other things, but I am negating their importance or relevance. THERE IS NO BATHROOM! Edited December 2, 2012 by volgadon
volgadon Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) duplicate Edited December 2, 2012 by volgadon
peteolcott Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 So language itself cannot be precise, only "union with God".The language says it precisely, yet, people can not believe that it means what it says.The enlightenment / union with God experience is only ineffable in that almost no one can believe the words that accurately describethis experience.
peteolcott Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) There is none else can, and does mean there are other things, but I am negating their importance or relevance. THERE IS NO BATHROOM!straw man. {There is none else} does not nor will ever mean [there is some else].There is no bathroom in my house will never mean there is a bathroom in my house. Edited December 3, 2012 by peteolcott
volgadon Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 straw man. {There is none else} does not nor will ever mean [there is some else].There is no bathroom in my house will never mean there is a bathrom in my house. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) As I noted before, Isaiah is using a Hebrew idiom ʾên ʿûd to describe the nature of God. The word ʾên means "nothing, no, less, without" depending on the context (HALOT 42). The word ʿûd means "further, more, other" depending on if it is temporal, spatial, or related to things (HALOT 796). Thus it is perfectly reasonable to translate ʾên ʿûd as "no other" rather than the archaic Jacobean "none else" (which actually does mean "no other"). This is done for Isaiah 45:6 in a number of modern translations: ESV "no other"; NET = "I have no peer"; NRSV "there is no other"; NIV "there is no other." I know of no translation that renders ʾên ʿûd as "there is nothing else" as Pete understands it.The context of the usage of ʾên ʿûd in relationship to God also clarifies that ʾên ʿûd is used to mean "no other [god]" Isaiah himself, in this very passage (Isa 45:5-6), makes this perfectly clear (ESV throughout).5 I am the LORD, and there is no other (ʾên ʿûd),besides me there is no God;I equip you, though you do not know me,6 that people may know, from the rising of the sunand from the west, that there is none besides me;I am the LORD, and there is no other (ʾên ʿûd).Isaiah 45:14b uses the term in precisely the same fashion.They [the Egyptian and Cushite] gentiles will plead with you, saying:‘Surely God is with you, and there is no other (ʾên ʿûd),no god besides him.’”Isaiah 45:21b is exactly the same again.Who told this long ago?Who declared it of old?Was it not I, the LORD?And there is no other god besides me,a righteous God gand a Savior;there is none besides me (ʾên ʿûd).Thus, three times in this chapter Isaiah linguistically and poetically equates the idea that "there is no other god besides me" (Ex. 20:3; Dt 5:7), with a shortened catch-phrase ʾên ʿûd, "there is no other [god]." His meaning couldn't be more clear. He is saying "there is no other [god, except YHWH]."He is not saying "there is nothing else [except God]." Edited December 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 3
Calm Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 {There is none else} never has and never will mean [there is some else]."None" what?"None" may be defined as "nothing" but it may also just refer to a particular type. And contrary to what you are claiming with your biblical expert, the Bible doesn't come with all of its words footnoted for their precise definitions.If I ask someone if there are any cinnamon rolls left, he may point to the one he is reaching for himself and say "there is none else" but somehow I don't think he means there is nothing else in existence besides that cinnamon roll...unless he is like you and assumes that the cinnamon roll is God along with all else in existence, but if so he is not responding to my own 'precise' use of language and is defining the term differently than what I am...but how would I know if he didn't provide a cheat sheet of definitions along with the conversation. 1
Calm Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) When God commanded "you shall have no other Gods before me" why did he bother to identify other Gods as something not to worship is there was nothing but him anyway? "Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me"Again there is no need to 'precisely' identify "god" and "saviour" as the type of which there is no other if what God really precisely meant was that there was nothing else besides him whatsoever in existence.In Matthew 26:60 it states "and found none". Does that mean they found nothing at all in existence or does it mean a particular type of "none".Isaiah 63:55 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold......Guess this one means there is nothing whatsoever in existence.... Edited December 2, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 The language says it precisely, yet, people can not believe that it means what it says.The enlightenment / union with God experience is only ineffable in that almost no one can believe the words that accurately describethis experience.You are once again using language in a very personal and idiosyncratic way. That's not what ineffable means, and it is not what traditional mystics who first used the term meant by it. It means literally something that is inexpressible indescribable, unutterable or unspeakable. In its mystical setting it means something cannot be described or taught, it must be experienced (or something that it is not permitted to utter).
Calm Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 You are once again using language in a very personal and idiosyncratic way. No, no, Bill. He is using it precisely, even mathematically. Can't you tell by all the definitions and axioms included?
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 When God commanded "you shall have no other Gods before me" why did he bother to identify other Gods as something not to worship is there was nothing but him anyway? "Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me"Again there is no need to 'precisely' identify "god" and "saviour" as the type of which there is no other if what God really precisely meant was that there was nothing else besides him whatsoever in existence.In Matthew 26:60 it states "and found none". Does that mean they found nothing at all in existence or does it mean a particular type of "none".Technically speaking, "none" in English is a contraction of "no one" and refers to humans or sentient beings. In English we use no-thing/nothing to refer to non-sentient things. The use of "none" here by the KJV translators, who were careful linguists, clearly means "no one else" not "nothing else." 3
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) {There is none else} never has and never will mean [there is some else].There is "none else" means "there is no-one else." It does not mean "there is no-thing else." Edited December 3, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 1
Calm Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 Technically speaking, "none" in English is a contraction of "no one" and refers to humans or sentient beings. In English we use no-thing/nothing to refer to non-sentient things. The use of "none" here by the KJV translators, who were careful linguists, clearly means "no one else" not "nothing else."I vote that Bill gets the prize of the day for the "Mathematics in Language" category. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 The ultimate measure of the direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God confirms the view that I propose. To know the truth nothing besides direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God is sufficient.Although there are many different branches of Buddhism, I am not at all confident that many, if any, see "enlightenment" as "union with God." This is your neomystical conflation and idiosyncratic use of language. Enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhi, Japanese satori) in Buddhism means literally "awakening" not "enlightenment," and technically refers to the recognition of the true nature of reality and the Four Noble Truths. It has nothing to do with "union with God." 2
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) I vote that Bill gets the prize of the day for the "Mathematics in Language" category.Thank you, thank you. I graciously accept the award, and the generous cash prize that goes with it! Edited December 3, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 1
Calm Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 Although there are many different branches of Buddhism, I am not at all confident that many, if any, see "enlightenment" as "union with God." This is your neomystical conflation and idiosyncratic use of language. Enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhi, Japanese satori) in Buddhism means literally "awakening" not "enlightenment," and technically refers to the recognition of the true nature of reality and the Four Noble Truths. It has nothing to do with "union with God."And what a spectacular followup in the Mathematics in Religion category!
volgadon Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 Thank you, thank you. I accept the award, and the generous cash award that goes with it!As soon as you can find a way to multiply the zero, it is yours. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 As soon as you can find a way to multiply the zero, it is yours.The government does it all the time. Why can't I? 1
volgadon Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 The government does it all the time. Why can't I?Ok, you've convinced me. I'm off to print you a batch of 1500000s in Monopoly money.
Bill Hamblin Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Ok, you've convinced me. I'm off to print you a batch of 1500000s in Monopoly money.Which is what our dollars will soon be worth. I'm sure you remember fondly the old Israeli shekel!On the other hand, the old Israeli shekel was never quite as awesome as the Turkish lira! Edited December 3, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Which is what our dollars will soon be worth. I'm sure you remember fondly the old Israeli shekel!On the other hand, the old Israeli shekel was never quite as awesome as the Turkish lira!My grandmother once faced the dillemma of either buying a new pair of shoes, or making a house payment...
mfbukowski Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Meaning postulates are specified that contain and fully specify every subtle nuance of meaning, and any meaning outside of these meaning postulates is considered not to exist.And that is the entire problem.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Although there are many different branches of Buddhism, I am not at all confident that many, if any, see "enlightenment" as "union with God." This is your neomystical conflation and idiosyncratic use of language. Enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhi, Japanese satori) in Buddhism means literally "awakening" not "enlightenment," and technically refers to the recognition of the true nature of reality and the Four Noble Truths. It has nothing to do with "union with God."No one that has not had this experience directly first-hand for themselves has the sufficient basis to determine whether or not Union-with-God is not also equally apt. Very few buddhists ever have this experience, thus most are unqualified to speak.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Technically speaking, "none" in English is a contraction of "no one" and refers to humans or sentient beings. In English we use no-thing/nothing to refer to non-sentient things. The use of "none" here by the KJV translators, who were careful linguists, clearly means "no one else" not "nothing else."Apparently not.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=none
Recommended Posts