Jared Livesey Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Apparently, the original meaning of the word ὑποκριτής [hupokrites], translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "hypocrite," is "interpreter of divine revelation;" it eventually came to mean "performer." In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the proffered definitions of ὑποκριτής are: One who answers, an interpreter. An actor, stage-player. In Biblical Greek: a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite. Why the seemingly Bible-only third definition? This recalls another seemingly Bible-only definition, this one for μισέω [miseo]: Quote μισέω, μισῶ; imperfect ἐμίσουν; future μισήσω; 1 aorist ἐμίσησα; perfect μεμίσηκα; passive, present participle μισουμενος; perfect participle μεμισημενος (Revelation 18:2); the Sept. for שָׂנֵא; (from Homer down); to hate, pursue with hatred, detest; passive to be hated, detested: τινα, Matthew 5:43 and Rec. in ; ; Luke 1:71; Luke 6:22, 27; Luke 19:14; John 7:7; John 15:18ff, ; ; Titus 3:3; 1 John 2:9 (); ; Revelation 17:16; passive, Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:9; (Mark 13:13); Luke 21:17; τί: John 3:20; Revelation 7:15; Ephesians 5:29; Hebrews 1:9; Jude 1:23; Revelation 2:6 and Rec. in 15; passive Revelation 18:2. As expected, μισέω means simply "hate, detest" ...except when it doesn't. Thayer's Greek Lexicon helps us understand what is happening by their proffered justification: Quote Not a few interpreters have attributed to μισεῖν in Genesis 29:31 (cf. Genesis 29:30); Deuteronomy 21:15; Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26; Luke 16:13; (John 12:25); Romans 9:13, the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight, through oversight of the circumstance that 'the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are accustomed both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing'; Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans, ii., p. 304; cf. Rückert, Magazin f. Exegese u. Theologie des N. T., p. 27ff To paraphrase: the interpreters of the scriptures decided that the authors of these verses must have been exaggerating since the interpreters did not empathize with the authors' claims as written. They have accordingly expanded the concordances. Jesus noted that the scribes and Pharisees had supplanted the commandments of God with binding interpretations (Mark 7:1-13; Matt 15:1-9). This is to be seen in light of the injunction that the commandments are not to be added to nor taken away from but to be executed as written, entailing that there should not be any binding interpretations, such as the Talmud (Deut 4:2, 12:32; cf. Alma 37:20). Jesus followed up his complaint against the scribes and Pharisees by referring to them as something that got recorded as ὑποκριταί [hupokritai] (Mark 7:6; cf. Matt 15:7). Questions: Could Jesus possibly have been referring to the scribes and Pharisees by their role as the interpreters of the scriptures when he called them whatever got recorded as ὑποκριταί? Why or why not? Might reading ὑποκριταί as "interpreters of the scriptures" help to explain why the lawyers took offense in Luke 11:45? We saw from Joseph Smith how the interpreters of the scriptures had destroyed all confidence in the scriptures by their competing interpretations of the same passages (JS-H 1:12). How might it be a blessing to us that God gave us the Book of Mormon in plain English? Bonus: What is the proper mode of interpreting the scriptures, according to Joseph Smith? 1
Ahab Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said: Apparently, the original meaning of the word ὑποκριτής [hupokrites], translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "hypocrite," is "interpreter of divine revelation;" it eventually came to mean "performer." In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the proffered definitions of ὑποκριτής are: One who answers, an interpreter. An actor, stage-player. In Biblical Greek: a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite. Why the seemingly Bible-only third definition? This recalls another seemingly Bible-only definition, this one for μισέω [miseo]: As expected, μισέω means simply "hate, detest" ...except when it doesn't. Thayer's Greek Lexicon helps us understand what is happening by their proffered justification: To paraphrase: the interpreters of the scriptures decided that the authors of these verses must have been exaggerating since the interpreters did not empathize with the authors' claims as written. They have accordingly expanded the concordances. Jesus noted that the scribes and Pharisees had supplanted the commandments of God with binding interpretations (Mark 7:1-13; Matt 15:1-9). This is to be seen in light of the injunction that the commandments are not to be added to nor taken away from but to be executed as written, entailing that there should not be any binding interpretations, such as the Talmud (Deut 4:2, 12:32; cf. Alma 37:20). Jesus followed up his complaint against the scribes and Pharisees by referring to them as something that got recorded as ὑποκριταί [hupokritai] (Mark 7:6; cf. Matt 15:7). Questions: Could Jesus possibly have been referring to the scribes and Pharisees by their role as the interpreters of the scriptures when he called them whatever got recorded as ὑποκριταί? Why or why not? Might reading ὑποκριταί as "interpreters of the scriptures" help to explain why the lawyers took offense in Luke 11:45? We saw from Joseph Smith how the interpreters of the scriptures had destroyed all confidence in the scriptures by their competing interpretations of the same passages (JS-H 1:12). How might it be a blessing to us that God gave us the Book of Mormon in plain English? Bonus: What is the proper mode of interpreting the scriptures, according to Joseph Smith? 1. Yes, because that was the role they were playing 2. No, because interpreting scriptures is fine as long as the interpretation is good/correct. What upset the lawyers was Jesus telling them how bad they were as interpreters/living representatives of God's teachings. 3. So that we can better interpret the teachings of our Father in heaven, correctly representing him and his teachings. Bonus: Receiving the Holy Ghost to tell us how to properly understand God's teachings.
stemelbow Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 Either way, it seems to me. If Jesus didn't like people who are hypocrites as we use the term today, or if Jesus didn't like people who interpreted what they read in scripture, then it seems Jesus doesn't like any of us anyway. Every person has acted the hypocrite at some point. Every person has attempted to interpret what they read.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: ................... Every person has acted the hypocrite at some point. Every person has attempted to interpret what they read. Correct on both counts. Just being human may mean that we have pretended to be something we are not, depending on the occasion. I have even had someone very dear to me accuse me of being a "two face," which caused me to reflect, and I'm still reflecting on it. The act of reading is always interpretation, and different readers may get different interpretations -- one of the reasons for rampant denominational christianity. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, Jared Livesey said: Apparently, the original meaning of the word ὑποκριτής [hupokrites], translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "hypocrite," is "interpreter of divine revelation;" it eventually came to mean "performer." In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the proffered definitions of ὑποκριτής are: One who answers, an interpreter. An actor, stage-player. In Biblical Greek: a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite. Why the seemingly Bible-only third definition? B. Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, CCLXVII-CCLXVIII, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=TSljAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR268&lpg=PR268&dq=חנף&source=bl&ots=793U00bZJO&sig=ACfU3U0OSxWCpIA3GOxUt0-2_DEHX997Kw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx_6qzcPsAhXFs54KHRtYBBkQ6AEwCXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=חנף&f=false , finds that Hebrew חנף “profane, polluted, defiled, ungodly; seduce to apostasy; wickedness,” is sometimes translated by the LXX Greek translators as hypokrites, and its derivatives (Ps 35:16, Prov 1:9, Isa 9:17, 10:6, 32:6, 33:14, Job 8:13, 13:16, 17:8, 20:5, 27:8, 34:30, etc.), even though modern lexicographers think that an incorrect translation, but that is the legacy followed by the NT authors. Jesus himself did not use Greek, so any conclusions based the Greek are likely to mislead. Quote ............................................... Could Jesus possibly have been referring to the scribes and Pharisees by their role as the interpreters of the scriptures when he called them whatever got recorded as ὑποκριταί? Why or why not? Might reading ὑποκριταί as "interpreters of the scriptures" help to explain why the lawyers took offense in Luke 11:45? We saw from Joseph Smith how the interpreters of the scriptures had destroyed all confidence in the scriptures by their competing interpretations of the same passages (JS-H 1:12). How might it be a blessing to us that God gave us the Book of Mormon in plain English? .................... What is the proper mode of interpreting the scriptures, according to Joseph Smith? We have been over this territory before, Jared, and you apparently did not accept my Feb 25th reply at that time: Quote On 2/23/2020 at 7:21 PM, Jared Livesey said: We accept a statement as true if, and only if, we believe it. We believe a statement if, and only if, we believe it literally. If we do not believe a statement then we reject it outright or by interpreting it. This is heretical mainstream Protestantism, which rejects the Holy Spirit, and substitutes sola scriptura.. For, to the contrary, all Scripture is best interpreted by the same Holy Spirit which gave it (2 Peter 1:20-21). Quote Methods of textual interpretation purporting to produce the author's intended meaning either result in statements to be taken literally, or else the results must themselves be interpreted.......................Elsewhere, again speaking of the scriptures, Joseph said: "What is the rule of Interpretation? Just no interpretation at all; Understand it, precisely as it reads."[2] We may call this Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation." While additional statements from Joseph to this effect may be adduced, we can see from these that he taught the correct method of interpreting scripture is to take the text at literal face value, which is what is today called "literalism" or "naive literalism." Literalism, in Joseph's language, is "no interpretation at all." Literalism is how a small child approaches speech: he takes what you say as what you mean according to the language he knows at face value. When you give him the verbal token "cat," the literalist understands "cat." The purpose of Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation" is not to produce the "best" interpretation, understood as the clearest possible contemporary expression of the original author's intent; communicating his intended meaning is the original author's problem to solve in his writing. The literalist simply accepts the text at face value as it is given to him as the intended meaning, howsoever he as the reader may understand the language. Literalism may therefore produce as many interpretations of a text as there are readers. The purpose of Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation" is to help people to believe the word of God as they have received it so that they may pass the very first test of the gospel of Jesus Christ....................................... Joseph Smith gave no canonical Rule of Interpretation. Even a child understands that a fairy tale is not to be taken literally, so that the Parables of Jesus, for example, are not to be taken literally. Like the fables of Aesop, they are to be taken as imaginary stories with a moral. Nor should we take biblical poetry, metaphor, or symbols as literal. That would be to completely miss the point about an author's figurative intent. Not everything in the Bible is just narrative. That is certainly not what the biblical poets and prophets were doing. Moreover, as an avid student of Hebrew, Joseph pointed out: "It seems as if the Lord opens our minds in a marvelous manner, to understand His word in the original language." (HC II:57b, from journal entry, Jan 9, 1836, Kirtland, Ohio) Indeed, during his King Follett Funeral Sermon, Joseph went out of his way to make some very specific exegetical comments on the Hebrew meaning of Genesis 1. Edited October 20, 2020 by Robert F. Smith
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 21 hours ago, Jared Livesey said: Apparently, the original meaning of the word ὑποκριτής [hupokrites], translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "hypocrite," is "interpreter of divine revelation;" it eventually came to mean "performer." In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the proffered definitions of ὑποκριτής are: One who answers, an interpreter. An actor, stage-player. In Biblical Greek: a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite. Why the seemingly Bible-only third definition? This recalls another seemingly Bible-only definition, this one for μισέω [miseo]: As expected, μισέω means simply "hate, detest" ...except when it doesn't. Thayer's Greek Lexicon helps us understand what is happening by their proffered justification: To paraphrase: the interpreters of the scriptures decided that the authors of these verses must have been exaggerating since the interpreters did not empathize with the authors' claims as written. They have accordingly expanded the concordances. Jesus noted that the scribes and Pharisees had supplanted the commandments of God with binding interpretations (Mark 7:1-13; Matt 15:1-9). This is to be seen in light of the injunction that the commandments are not to be added to nor taken away from but to be executed as written, entailing that there should not be any binding interpretations, such as the Talmud (Deut 4:2, 12:32; cf. Alma 37:20). Jesus followed up his complaint against the scribes and Pharisees by referring to them as something that got recorded as ὑποκριταί [hupokritai] (Mark 7:6; cf. Matt 15:7). Questions: Could Jesus possibly have been referring to the scribes and Pharisees by their role as the interpreters of the scriptures when he called them whatever got recorded as ὑποκριταί? Why or why not? Might reading ὑποκριταί as "interpreters of the scriptures" help to explain why the lawyers took offense in Luke 11:45? We saw from Joseph Smith how the interpreters of the scriptures had destroyed all confidence in the scriptures by their competing interpretations of the same passages (JS-H 1:12). How might it be a blessing to us that God gave us the Book of Mormon in plain English? Bonus: What is the proper mode of interpreting the scriptures, according to Joseph Smith? Jared, are you a follower of Denver Snuffer?
Ahab Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: Either way, it seems to me. If Jesus didn't like people who are hypocrites as we use the term today, or if Jesus didn't like people who interpreted what they read in scripture, then it seems Jesus doesn't like any of us anyway. Every person has acted the hypocrite at some point. Every person has attempted to interpret what they read. There are bad interpreters just as there are bad actors, and on the other hand, there are good interpreters just as there are good actors. And there is nothing wrong with being an interpreter or an actor, as long the interpreting and acting is good. So if Jesus doesn't like you, or if you interpret Jesus's feelings for you as not good feelings, maybe you're just not good at acting or interpreting.
Jared Livesey Posted October 20, 2020 Author Posted October 20, 2020 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Jared, are you a follower of Denver Snuffer? No.
Ahab Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 24 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said: No. Are you a hypocrite? And if you are, as I think we all are, are you good or bad at it?
Jared Livesey Posted October 20, 2020 Author Posted October 20, 2020 33 minutes ago, Ahab said: Are you a hypocrite? And if you are, as I think we all are, are you good or bad at it? No.
Ahab Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 Just now, Jared Livesey said: No. Okay then I suppose you define a hypocrite as a bad actor or interpreter, and since you don't think you're a bad actor or interpreter of our Savior and his teachings, you don't think of yourself as a hypocrite. I can go along with that understanding, whether or not you actually are. The thing to keep in mind in regards to definitions of words is that they generally refer to the same basic idea, so for example all of the definitions for the word ὑποκριτής are referring to the same basic idea.
stemelbow Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Ahab said: There are bad interpreters just as there are bad actors, and on the other hand, there are good interpreters just as there are good actors. And there is nothing wrong with being an interpreter or an actor, as long the interpreting and acting is good. So if Jesus doesn't like you, or if you interpret Jesus's feelings for you as not good feelings, maybe you're just not good at acting or interpreting. Anything is possible including, Jesus is not. That's the most likely of the options it seems to me. If Jesus doesn't like someone then what's his problem?
Lemuel Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 On 10/19/2020 at 5:15 PM, Jared Livesey said: Bonus: What is the proper mode of interpreting the scriptures, according to Joseph Smith? TPJS: Quote In reference to the prodigal son, I said it was a subject I had never dwelt upon; that it was understood by many to be one of the intricate subjects of the scriptures; and even the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? While not germane to the question, Joseph's discussion that follows is a good read: Quote While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; “and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, “How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?” Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed it for nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.” And he spake this parable unto them—“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance.” The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees, as though Jesus had said, “If you Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.” This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised. He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; 1they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. 1
Lemuel Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) -- Edited October 21, 2020 by Lemuel want to delete post
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Jared, are you a follower of Denver Snuffer? 8 hours ago, Jared Livesey said: No. Are you a different Jared Livesey, then, than the one responding on the Interpreter web site and quoted here by Louis Midgley? (I’ll come back in a moment and provide a link) Quoting here: on January 14, 2018 at 9:07 pm said: This is from Jared Levesey’s blog: “My name is Jared Livesey, and I reside in Bakersfield, CA. I am an inactive member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (‘LDS Church’). I have been baptized again outside the auspices of the LDS Church because I believe Denver Snuffer has truthfully reported that Jesus Christ renewed the commandment to be baptized and so-called ‘rebaptism’ is no longer a service that the LDS Church provides for members.” One ought to read his remarks as an expression of his having become a follower of Denver Snuffer. Those who join Snuffer’s “church” are not merely “inactive” Latter-day Saints. Jared’s remarks are a kind of Snuffer style opposition to the community of Latter-day Saints.“ Close quote. When you answered no to my question, was that because you had never heard of Denver Snuffer or just that you don’t consider yourself a follower of his? Now, bear with me as I go back and get that link Edited to add the link: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=21572 Edited October 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
Jared Livesey Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) I am the Jared Livesey whom Louis Midgley referred to. Edited October 21, 2020 by Jared Livesey
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Jared Livesey said: I am the Jared Livesey whom Louis Midgley referred to. Thanks for your candor. I just added the link for those who are interested. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 47 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said: I am the Jared Livesey whom Louis Midgley referred to. 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Thanks for your candor. I just added the link for those who are interested. Here in an effort to convert us to Snufferism then?
Jared Livesey Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here in an effort to convert us to Snufferism then? No.
Calm Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here in an effort to convert us to Snufferism then? Not everyone who agrees with Snuffer about rebaptism follows all of the rest of Snuffer’s teachings. I would be cautious about assuming this. I believe Jared has some significant differences, though perhaps they have been resolved
Kenngo1969 Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here in an effort to convert us to Snufferism then? 8 hours ago, Calm said: Not everyone who agrees with Snuffer about rebaptism follows all of the rest of Snuffer’s teachings. I would be cautious about assuming this. I believe Jared has some significant differences, though perhaps they have been resolved Okay.
Recommended Posts