Burden of Proof

[JLVaughn]

In another discussion, a web page was presented as proof of the meaning of kosmos. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV# It's certainly a useful starting point. The author is a well known and highly respected expert. But still, to just accept it, may be an error. How do we evaluate such things?

Specifically, the list is in question

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
...
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Kosmos is often translated world. In that sense, at least the English word world, in our generation, holds all of these meanings except #2 above. With the possible exception of #2, the list looks quite reasonable.

However, Scripture was not written to modern English speakers. It was written to ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek speakers. Their concepts of the "world" and how it worked are very different from ours. The concept of audience relevance comes immediately to the fore. Would an ancient see this list of definitions as reasonable? How could we determine that?

The ancient had never seen the Big Blue Marble picture and likely doesn't have a conscious understanding that the earth is a sphere. He might know that the earth is a sphere, but that fact certainly did not pervade his consciousness in the way it pervades ours.

Ultimately, all we have is the text and our limited understanding of the culture. In the case of the list above, we have an outline of one expert's understanding. It is not his understanding. It expresses none of the uncertainty or nuance of the expert's considered opinion.

So how do we use such evidence?

My specific concern is, what of these definitions can be proven? Notice that most in the list state no examples. Should we just accept the list because an expert created it?

First example. #2. 1 Pet. 3:3

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

This is apparently the only example where kosmos is translated this way. Might It would be appropriate instead to "let it not be ... [the] putting on of the world?" Might this be likened to Paul's charge to "put off the sinful nature?"

I've run out of room, and am not yet to the second example. How do we evaluate and use this expert's contributuion?

[Aduro]

It may help to not beg the question of his error when your motivation is entirely self-serving, as you have a theory that depends on a specific interpretation of the text that has only existed since you invented it. At the very least, you could offer the different interpretations of other experts and not rest solely upon your own opinion.

EDIT: Btw, here is a list of occurences for you to have fun with:

All of them found at Kosmos' page on strongsnumbers here.

Specifically, κόσμος (kosmos) − 32 Occurrences: http://concordance.biblos.com/kosmos.htm

[JLVaughn]

Aduro,

I already posted a list of all the occurrences. Why do I need another one? It might help if you weren't so assuming.

I already demonstrated a problem with the lexicon. You ignored it and accused me of question begging. Since you were on the other end of the other discussion, your insinuation is equally open to the charge.

Try adding something useful to the discussion.

[dlspence_58]

Okay JL, Here is some proof for you, but I doubt you'll accept it because you know Hebrew, Greek and the Ancient Eastern mindset better than anyone.

Quote: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 884)
2. κόσμος = World I, as the Universe, the Sum of all Created Being
a. In the sense “world,” “universe,” κόσμος is synon. with the OT “heaven and earth” (γῆ). ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς κύριος ὑπάρχων οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ, Ac. 17:24. It denotes here the universe which consists of heaven and earth and in which is found the totality of all individual creatures (πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ). It has the sense of the spatial, just as κόσμος, used of the world, carries that of the temporal. It suggests space in the greatest sense of the greatest space that can be conceived n the sentence: Ἕστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ὃσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν οὐδὲ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία ἀμήν, “even the world itself, I think could not contain the books,” Jn. 21:25; cf. Herm. S., 9, 2,1, which speaks of a rock that is big ”that it could comprehend the whole world in itself.”
The concept of the κόσμος as the totality of all created things, of universal space and everything contained in it, comes to expression in statements concerning creation and the part of the Logos in it, e.g., Jn. 1:10: ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω, cf. 1:3.In such statements  κόσμοςis used synonymously and interchangeably with πάντα τὰ  and this corresponds to NT usage elsewhere, cf. I Co. 8:6; 15:27f.; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:16f.; 1:20; Eph. 1:10; Heb. 1:2f; 2:8, 10; I Pt. 4:7…

In another discussion, a web page was presented as proof of the meaning of kosmos. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 889&t=KJV# It's certainly a useful starting point. The author is a well known and highly respected expert. But still, to just accept it, may be an error. How do we evaluate such things?

Apparently we have to filter all of it through JL Vaughn who knows better than all. Why he even wrote a piece of fiction entitled, "Covenant Creation," that we're supposed to accept as fact because he is an expert.

[JLVaughn]

Aduro (sorry),

In other words, you have nothing helpful to add. You have no interest in actually discussing the subject or even the specific example. Just ad hominems and tossing up more tidbits from experts whose pronouncements might not even apply but must be assumed to settle the issue.

[dlspence_58]

Your Honor. I rest my case.

[JTownsend]

JL,
Here are my thoughts:
I would find every time the word was translated, as both you and Aduro suggested, and try to understand the context of each statement. I would then make a list of each way the terms were translated into english and try to understand why it was translated like it was. Finally I would again read through each passage replacing the term with the different english translations to see if they made any more sense.

But when you mention "burden of proof" and ask how we can trust these other theologians, we have the same problem trusting any human source. We must accept that they have done the best they can, based on our knowledge of their love for God. The rest me must accept on faith. If this is not enough, you can always study the passages yourself, but then everyone who listens to you will have the same argument against you that you have against these others: how can I trust JL? Why should I trust JL?

On 1 Pet 3:3, if the word is kosmos as you suggest, then I think your translation gives plenty of worthwhile insight.

JL, I think you are an intelligent person. There are many intelligent people here on AV... and sure enough we don't all see eye to eye on everything. But it seems to me that you are dealing more with an issue of trust in your fellow Christian than anything else. I would encourage you to strive for unity with your fellow believers. As Augestine said,

In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas.

Roughly translated for all of us non-latin people "In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity." This stems directly from 1 Corinthians... and I think this is the biggest problem facing the church today.

[Aduro]

Well, really, it's not a problem of trust for JLVaughn so much as it is a necessity to keep his theory alive. If he gives up his choice passages and gives deference to interpretations not favoring his own, he undermines his own position and makes himself look like a fool. Obviously, he's not going to do that, and so, if something contradicts his position, it must be destroyed. This is likely why he's willing to question the work of someone like Strong, who is not perfect and has received criticism, yet was not ignorant. It all sounds arrogant, to me.

Try adding something useful to the discussion.

Your topic is called "Burden of Proof." Why don't you bring out a list of scholars whose interpretations of the same passage/word are different than Strong's in order to show his interpretation is contested? If it isn't, you just have yourself and have to answer your own questions. Surely, you can find someone and link us up!

If you don't want to bring up other scholars, then we have a battle of opinions and nothing you say is going to convince me, which likely will be a common reaction.

[JLVaughn]

Jeramiah,

On 1 Pet 3:3, if the word is kosmos as you suggest, then I think your translation gives plenty of worthwhile insight.

JL, .. it seems to me that you are dealing more with an issue of trust in your fellow Christian than anything else. I would encourage you to strive for unity with your fellow believers. As Augestine said,

In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas.

Roughly translated for all of us non-latin people "In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity." This stems directly from 1 Corinthians... and I think this is the biggest problem facing the church today.

I gave you an example of where the traditional view is probably lacking. You said, "I think your translation gives plenty of worthwhile insight."

Then you tell me my problem, a trust issue. Yes, I have a trust issue. People tell me that eschatology is a non-essential. People tell me that creation views are a non-essential. Then they condemn, mock, and often outright lie to misrepresent my views. Where is their liberty and their charity?

I've demonstrated that Thayer has a problem. You saw it. I have gone through every single example of kosmos, but it is too much to be reported here. For some of the definitions in the list, there are no unambiguous examples. There is no solid evidence that those definitions are ever used in Scripture. This is an important issue in interpretation.

Even though I gave an example, which you liked, you've decided to dismiss it as "a trust issue." Aduro refuses to consider any differing interpretation and dismisses it on that issue.

Trust is not the issue. Test is the issue. Paul said, "Test everything." I'm asking how to test Thayer, specifically where Thayer gave no examples.

[JTownsend]

JL,
I think you take my meaning too far when you say

Even though I gave an example, which you liked, you've decided to dismiss it as "a trust issue."

I am no language scholar. I rely heavily on others in this area. I would not dismiss your interpretation, nor that of any other scholar who is honestly trying to interpret the Word properly. My stance here is to give charity to both yours, and other scholars, positions.

Bear with me here: I think there has been a lot of miscommunication starting with your first post. I agree that some comments on this thread may seem harsh, but I don't think any of them have been posted to spite you. I think everyone missed the point of your thread. This might have been due in part to the character limit. Perhaps you can reiterate your argument more clearly in your next post?

I am not dismissing your interpretation, and I don't think Arduro is either. People were just replying to how you came across in writing... and as we all know, it's much more difficult to properly convey your meaning and intonations in writing than in person.

[Brother Les]

Food for thought.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=1266

[JLVaughn]

Jeramiah,

Everything you said is proven false by Aduro's claims on the other thread.