stephan huller

In any event I am glad you're back. Honestly. The big word-thing-to-intimidate-people and all.

spin

Oh, give it a rest, Jeffrey. Be a good fellow. Please.

tanya

No, Jeffrey, I did not communicate that thought. I deny that I wrote such a thing.

I wrote that it is inconceivable that Jews would limit YHWH by constraining him in mere human attributes. Kurios is a term applicable to humans, not to YHWH. The subject of my sentence, was Jews, not Greek speakers.

I have no idea whether Koine Greek speakers described people, rocks, rivers, trees, goats, or deities as "O kurios". Frankly, it is off topic. The question here is not what did Koine Greek speakers say, the question is whether the LXX accurately portrays the meaning of Psalm 96, verse 5, as it pertains to the OP, i.e. by signaling a role for "demons", although, I maintain, in harmony with the OP, that the original Hebrew text did not reference "demons", at all, but rather the inanimate objects CARVED by humans, to worship--"idols". I argue this point, ignorant of Hebrew, but cognizant of the lofty role played by Lucian's recension of the Hebrew text of his era, according to Jerome, who fashioned the vulgate from it.

I deny that Douay Rheims represents an authentic translation of the Vulgate, for that latter text specifically states
and I deny your claim that sculptilia corresponds to an animate entity, as explicitly translated in Douay Rheims, but rather corresponds to the inanimate objects carved by humans: idols.

The Douay Rheims version also mistranslates the Vulgate's message about populorum, unless my high school Latin is very seriously undermined. There is nothing about "gentiles" conveyed in the Latin text.

I am unaware of any relationship between Jehovah's Witnesses and the World English Bible, but, if there is one, then, in my opinion, they are to be praised, for their version is accurate, from my perspective.

Jeffrey Gibson

This is boldfaced assertion. No such general meaning or general consistency (whatever that means) has been demonstrated or established. Which ancient authors in what texts speak of demon as an "indwelling spirit"? Do all authors who use this term understand it as having this meaning. Is it the prevalent meaning in the 1st (or 4th) century CE?

But other philosophers, medical men, historians, and other writers do use the term with the sense it has in Matthew.

So your claim is moot.

You keep changing what you say is the point of the OP. And in any case, you have still not shown that the use of the term in Matthew is unique for his age in any way.

Such as?

Yes, which you have not shown is inappropriate in any way especially given the fact that the story in which it appears is an exorcism story. Why isn't it also an inappropriate term in the exorcism story we find in Phliostratus?

Step back from what?

and apply the abbreviated term into Matt we get:

Yes, we get this. But so what?

Really? Have you actually demonstrated this? And even if you have, how does this lead to your conclusion that daimon = "evil spirit" (or is it now crazy spirit?) is exclusively Christian?

I'll ask again: is it true that only Christian writers use the word daimon to refer to an evil Spirit. Or do classical and Hellenistic authors do so as well?

If they do, then speaking of the use of daimon to mean evil spirit as antithetical so some alleged general usage is nonsense.


Once more, as is shown in the very sources you appeal to (but misuse) to show that there was a general sense to this term, the use of daimon to mean "evil spirit" is pre-Christian. It does not commence with Matthew.


Root term???

It isn't? Funny that LSJ says otherwise.

Oh, so now it's "crazy mad devil, is it?

And you are certain that there is no pre Christian attestation to the use of daimon with this meaning?




Yep. But how this proves your point that Matthew used daimones to make way for a doctrine of the holy spirit is beyond me.

Jeffrey

Toto

I don't really want to get into this discussion, but how can anyone say that the legion of demons that possessed the demoniac and later the swine were "indwelling spirits"? How can a benign indwelling spirit leave the body and inhabit another body?

This absurdity should not be allowed to stand.

tanya

William Whitacre defines sculptilis as “engraved”

Lewis and Short Latin English lexicon:
sculptĭlis, e, adj. [sculpo], formed or produced by carving, graving, etc.,

Psalms 96:5 Hebrew Interlinear version
’ĕ·lî·lîm English: are idols

Psalms 96:5
Strong's 457, “'e li lim” expressing the Hebrew, using Roman symbols, translated as “are idols”

Micah 1:7
Latin: Et omnia sculptilia eius concidentur,
English: And all her graven images will be cut to pieces
Hebrew in Roman Letters “pe si le ha” English: “of her idols”

Do you have a source which identifies this Hebrew word, as representing an animate, supernatural entity, rather than a human created, carved object, employed to represent a supernatural deity? "DEMONS" are not inanimate, carved objects.

In my opinion, the evidence is clearly pointing to a deformation of the original notion of "demon" as either (or neither) GOOD or BAD, to a concept of PURE EVIL. I understand that Jeffrey believes that this process began long before the Christians came to power. I do not understand his evidence for so thinking. To me, the evidence points to a false translation of "sculptilis". It means, in Hebrew, or Latin: IDOL, or GRAVEN IMAGE, or CARVED OBJECT, something inanimate, not something living, with anthropomorphic features. I favor Pete's interpretation. I think the OP supposition that "demon" became associated with EVIL, commenced with the Christians' assumption of power, and control of the empire's printing presses and libraries.

stephan huller

tanya,

why do you perpetuate this bloodbath? You have lost every debate you've ever had here. You must know that you know nothing about these matters. Just stop the bloodbath. Shut mouth

Jeffrey Gibson

sculptilis is a Hebrew word??

If we are speaking of אֱלִיל , yes, Brown Driver Briggs:

which, you'll observe, notes that in Ps 96:5 it's referent is a supernatural being.

Also, see the entry on אֱלִיל in the TDOT.

And then there's this from the the entry on in the TDNT.

BYou don't understand that the instances of the pre 1st century use of δαίμων to mean "evil spirits" makes nonsense of the claim that the word was given the meaning of evil spirits" by Christians???? How on earth could you not understand this.

Are you, like Pete once did, claiming that there are no pre-chrristin instances of the use of to mean "evil spirits"??

The Empire had printing presses???

And if it's true that it was only Christians who used the word to mean "evil spirits" how do you explain the use of it with this sense in these non Christian texts?

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about And why I continue to argue with someone who is so studiously ignorant (not to mention incapable of evaluating evidence to the contrary of her views and who rapes evidence to make it fit and confirm what she already knows as true) is beyond me.

I should have long ago followed Robert Heinlein's dictum:

I will do so now.

Jeffrey

mountainman

I did ask for the references, but you appear to have provided this to tanya ....


Thankyou for these citations, but are you able to easily provide an English translation for these extracts.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... why should I, even if it were an easy thing to do? You are the one who claims to know -- and who has been instructing me about -- what Greek authors say about demons.

Jeffrey