aa5874

Well, just tell us what is known to be true about Jesus of the NT without guessing.

According to Acts of the Apostles, Jesus ascended through the clouds and this event was witnessed by the disciples, now if it is supposed Jesus was just a man, then I guess the ascension of Jesus as described was a stupid monstrous lie.

patcleaver

I do not know Greek, but the question that you are asking does not make any sense from a lexographic POV.

Words represent regions of meanings that overlap the regions of meanings of other words. There is almost no word in a first language that has exactly the same region of meaning as a word in a second language. The words in a different language are similar to synonyms in English - they only have similar meanings. Words represent a set of concepts but the set of concepts are at least slightly different for different languages and different geographic regions and different times and even different people.

There was no Greek word that means exactly the same thing as "foolishness" in modern English. There is no Greek word that means exactly the same thing as "stupidity" in modern English. There are one of more Greek words that represent similar concepts to some of the concepts that we associate with the word "foolishness". There are one of more Greek words that represent similar concepts to some of the concepts that we associate with the word "stupidity". Since "foolishness" and "stupidity" are synonyms in English then some of the concepts represented by "stupidity" are very similar to some of the concepts that we associate with the word "foolishness".

I would be surprised if there were no Greek word that could reasonably be translated sometimes into "foolishness" and alternatively or at other times into "stupidity".

Even if there is a Greek word that is usually translated into stupidity, and a different Greek word that is usually translated into foolishness, and they were not synonyms, that does not mean that the Greek word for stupidity should never be translated into the English word foolishness or that the Greek word for foolishness should never be translated into the English word stupidity.

I do not think that stupidity was even a word in English in 1610, or if it was, that it had its modern meaning.

An archaic meaning of foolishness was humility. I do not know what the translators of the KJB had in mind. Who knows?

Where does aa5874 claim that: Paul thought what he was preaching was stupid. I cannot find it. I have no reason to think it’s true, but I have not seen the argument.

Something that is foolish is stupid and something that is stupid is foolish.

The only reason I have to think that "foolish" is a better translation than "stupid" is some incompetent bible translators who intentionally fraudulently mistranslated the bible. The translations of bibles is an exercise performed by insanely biased religious fanatics based on Lexicons developed by crackpots.

If you have any valid argument that foolish is a better translation than stupid, then it’s probably based on a defective lexicon that you probably don't trust either.

We do not know what was in Paul's mind.

Maybe Paul was thinking the same concept of the modern English word "stupid", but the closest Greek word he knew was μωρίαν which was, unfortunately, best translated into "foolish".

Maybe Paul was mistaken in choosing the word μωρίαν and he really meant another Greek word that should be translated into “stupid”.

Paul believed things without evidence, so maybe Paul had faith that the word μωρίαν means “stupid” but his faith was misguided because it really means “foolish”. Why should we trust Paul to write what he means to write when he has no grasp on reality.

Maybe the word μωρίαν means “stupid” in Greek but the lexographers or translator made a mistake or intentionally mistranslated it into "foolishness" for doctrinal reasons.

Maybe it doesn't matter because "a stupid belief" and "a foolish belief" are approximately the same thing.

I think that aa5874’s translation is only bothering you because its non-traditional. Bible readers are used to hearing “foolish” and smiling and nodding their heads, but when Paul wrote “foolish” he probably meant it to be shocking and insulting. Under the circumstances, “stupid” might be the best translation because it has the emotional impact that Paul really intended.

-----------------------
Notice below the third definition of foolishness is identical to the second definition of stupidity.


http://wordnet-online.com/foolishness.shtml

foolishness Noun has 3 senses

1) folly, foolishness, unwiseness - the trait of acting stupidly or rashly
--1 is a kind of trait
--1 has particulars: indiscretion, injudiciousness; absurdity, fatuity, fatuousness, silliness

2) folly, foolishness, craziness - the quality of being rash and foolish
--2 is a kind of stupidity

3) stupidity, betise, folly, foolishness, imbecility - a stupid mistake
--3 is a kind of mistake, error, fault

--------------------------------

stupidity Noun has 2 senses

1) stupidity - a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience
--1 is a kind of inability
Antonyms: intelligence
--1 has particulars: denseness, dumbness, slow-wittedness; dullness, dullness, obtuseness; retardation, mental retardation, backwardness, slowness, subnormality; folly, foolishness, craziness

2) stupidity, betise, folly, foolishness, imbecility - a stupid mistake
--2 is a kind of mistake, error, fault

Jeffrey Gibson

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

patcleaver

Mighty high horse there. Science involves guessing a hypotheses. Comprehension of communication involves guessing the intent of the author. The only occupation that does not involve guessing is theology where you just make up bullshit and claim that God said it.

Ben C Smith

Agreed. But I would not characterize science as guessing. Would you?

I am not very good at theology.

Ben.

spin

Just blame the educationalists who keep people so much in the dark about language(s). "Common sense" is a killer of understanding and enquiry. Because everyone is a practitioner (to varying degrees) of a language, "common sense" makes them think they know something about how languages work. Argument by linguistic naivety. When have teachers recently taught students about the mechanics of languages? Yet, time and again we see people parade across the screen showing their cluelessness about what they are saying.

But then, Jeffrey, you are somewhat provocative in this respect. This seems to be entertainment on your part.


spin

spin

I think you're a little too quick to agree there. I don't think science itself has anything to do with guessing, just as the law has nothing to do with guessing. Guessing is an opaque means at arriving at an idea. Science involves testing ideas about the phenomenal world. Guessing has nothing directly to do with the phenomenal world.

I've noticed that. That's why you seem to cover it up as much as possible.


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, you are probably right.

I do not think I cover up how bad I am at theology. At least, I do not mean to.

Ben.

No Robots

Talk to a blind man--he knows he wants the sense of sight, and willingly makes the proper allowances. But there are certain internal senses, which a man may want, and yet be wholly ignorant that he wants them. It is most unpleasant to converse with such persons on subjects of taste, philosophy, or religion. Of course there is no reasoning with them: for they do not possess the facts, on which the reasoning must be grounded. Nothing is possible, but a naked dissent, which implies a sort of unsocial contempt; or, what a man of kind dispositions is very likely to fall into, a heartless tacit acquiescence, which borders too nearly on duplicity.-- Coleridge / "On inward blindness"

Doug Shaver

I don't assume that all of the men who wrote the NT were talking about the same Jesus. I believe the gospel writers were talking about a mortal man (probably fictional) while the epistle writers were talking about some other kind of being. Both groups just happened to pick the same name, most likely because one was influenced by the other.