James 1:1-8 in context

Introduction: There are some who quote James 1:5 in a way that pulls it out of its intended context and changes the original intent. That is, if you lack wisdom, ask God. While it's perfectly fine to ask God for wisdom according to the context and orginal intent of the author, James 1:5 is not the verse to claim for general wisdom as it is specific to wisdom in trials. I believe the Bible teaches that when we ask for wisdom, we ask with a selfless heart and that in granting the wisdom God may be glorified. There are limits on why God grants wisdom, such as if asked for selfish reasons. And pulling James 1:5 out of context puts no such limitations on what or how we request wisdom.

In verse 1 James uses the same word Paul used in Romans 1:1 and calls himself a servant of God the Father and God the Son. The word for servant can be defined as:

The first removal occurred when the people of the Northern Kingdom (whose capital was in Samaria) were conquered by the Assyrians and were carried away into captivity in Assyria (2 Kings 17:23 and 1 Chronicles 5:26).

The second removal occurred around 580 B.C. when the Babylonians conquered the Southern Kingdom (whose capital was Jerusalem), and carried the best of the people away to Babylon (2 Kings 24:14-16 and Psalm 137).

The third removal took place around 63 B.C., when Pompey conquered the Jews and took Jerusalem and many Jews were transplanted to Rome as slaves.

Still, far greater numbers of Jews left on their own free will, looking for more comfortable living conditions. Jews moved to Egypt and Syria. Alexander the Great moved 2000 Jewish families to Lydia and Phrygia. Thus, Jews were spread all over the world.

The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote: "It is hard to find a spot in the world which is not occupied and dominated by Jews." The Jewish Historian, Josephus wrote: "There is no city, no tribe, whether Greek or barbarian, in which Jewish law and Jewish customs have not taken root."

James continues with his introduction, saying: "Joy to you." Even though you are scattered among the nations and facing trials of many kinds, do not be robbed of your joy.

James never suggests to his audience that Christianity would be an easy road. In verse 2 we see just that with his use of the word trials. The Greek word for trials means: trials or testing directed towards an end. What is that end? He who is tested should emerge stronger and purer from the testing. The attached verb means strengthening and purifying.

The root word for trials can be used for trials or temptations (internal), with trials an external meaning, such as the adversity his readers are experiencing. With the external meaning, the word is used especially to refer to trials of persecution (1 Peter 4:12).

James says to consider it pure joy, or consider it all joy when we experience trials of many kinds. He doesn't say to be joyous for the trial but in the trial. The verb translated face might more literally be expressed as "fall into," much as the poor man "fell among robbers" (Luke 10:30).

James uses an interesting word for describing the testing process. It's the word for sterling coinage (genuine unalloyed money). Meeting the testing in the right way will produce much more than patience or perseverance. The word means the ability to turn testing into greatness and to glory.

Something that amazed the heathen during the persecution centuries was that the martyrs didn't die grimly. It's been told that a martyr was smiling in the flames so they asked him at what he was smiling. He responded: "I saw the glory of God and was glad." That's the type of character generated when we meet the trial in the right way, it produces greatness and glory.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us mature. The Greek word for mature is teleios and means perfection for a given end. A sacrificial animal is teleios if it is fit to offer to God. A scholar is teleious if he is mature. A person is teleios if he is full grown.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us complete. The word means perfect in every part. In meeting the trial in the right way we eventually remove weaknesses and imperfections.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us lacking nothing. The word means deficient in nothing and has been used in the following ways: the defeat of an army, the giving up of a struggle and the failure to reach a standard that should have been reached.

Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure so valuable that a man would sell everything he owns to obtain it and would do so "in his joy" (Matt 13:44). Paul said we "rejoice in our sufferings" because "suffering produces perseverance" (Romans 5:3). Peter said Christians should "greatly rejoice" in "all kinds of trials" (1 Peter 1:6). Perseverence isn't the end result, it's the lifestyle by which the Christian attains maturity.

During the trial, if you're deficient in the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, ask God. James speaks of the period of testing before perseverance has completed its work. During such testing, if anyone lacks or is deficient in wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, he may have it by asking.

Wisdom is not just acquired information but practical insight with spiritual implications (Prov 1:2-4; 2:10-15; 4:5-9; 9:10-12). With James' Jewish background, wisdom is a practical thing. It isn't philosophic speculation or intellectual knowledge, to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics.

James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).

Wisdom is a perfect first example because it is so important for Christians in trials. A cry from the heart of a Christian during trials might be "What do I do?" Look at 2 Chronicles 20:12 for a great example of a need for wisdom in trials.

We can ask God for the needed wisdom without fear, for God gives without holding our failures or lack of wisdom against us. Fortunately God doesn't respond by reminding us of our faults!

The context tells us it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes Christians mature. If we lack the wisdom to do this, ask God. The context tells us:

The Greek sentence structure also tells us those falling into trials do indeed lack wisdom, again making the wisdom here specific to trials. Claiming this verse for anything other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning, and understanding the original intent is required to have correct theology, no matter what the subject of study.

If you encounter a trial and don't have the wisdom for meeting the trial in the right way, ask God for help and don't doubt at all. The only barrier that exists is our faith. We shouldn't be afraid to ask God because of our lack of wisdom. James says he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown [horizontally] and tossed [vertically] by the wind. The image of being driven on the sea was common in Greek literature and occurs in Jewish wisdom texts, Isaiah 57:20, Ephesians 4:14 and the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus 33:2.

Jewish wisdom texts also condemn the double-minded or double-tongued person as does Psalm 12:2. Philosophers and Jewish sages abhorred the hypocrisy of saying one thing and living another, and speaking or living inconsistently.

James tells us not to be double-minded when we ask for wisdom. See James 4:8 as well. A double-minded man is a man with two souls or two minds inside him. One believes he'll receive wisdom and the other disbelieves.

When quoting Scripture we must be careful to quote in context. When requesting wisdom, God has given us the following verses and when used in context, are perfect for requesting wisdom.

If you want to properly claim Scripture it must be done in context, otherwise you can use Scripture to support just about anything.

If a Christian is going through trials they have James 1:5 as supporting Scripture when asking for wisdom to endure. The wisdom given in James 1:5 is specific to trials.

If a Christian desires wisdom for selfless reasons such as King Solomon requested to lead God's people, claim 1 Kings 3:5-14 (repeated in 2 Chronicles) in prayer.

The Matthew and Luke passages are in regards to selfless prayer. If a Christian asks for wisdom to advance the cause of Christ, to glorify God, or to further God's kingdom, Matthew and Luke are prime examples to use.

We must understand the original intent of the writer and the context to properly claim a verse in prayer.

George M. Stulac, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, James, IVP
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Zondervan
William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, Westminster Press
Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, Victor Books
The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV, with Apocryphal books, Harper Collins
The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, IVP

For anyone not familiar with the background here, scripter and I have been discussing the proper meaning and use of James 1:5 for some while in a couple other threads. This thread is his attempt to explain the reasoning behind his conclusions. As you may guess, I disagree with the position taken that James intended v5 to mean we can ONLY ask for wisdom to endure a trial, or that we can only ask for wisdom because we are facing a trial.

Scripter, I’m glad that you are continuing to make this effort to come to an understanding. I hope you are benefiting from it as I am, even though at times it has been frustrating. I think will take some effort yet on both our parts however. I’m going to try and express the what and why of my disagreement as clearly as I can here.

“There are limits on why God grants wisdom, such as if asked for selfish reasons”

Selfishness is a motive, and it is not clear to me at what point a request for wisdom could be called selfish. In the broadest sense, any wisdom will be of benefit to the person it comes to, and thus asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree.

Rather than say God will not grant wisdom that is requested for selfish reasons, I would say God would not grant wisdom that is requested for an unrighteous purpose. It is not even possible because no unrighteous purpose can be correctly called wise. A person with unselfish motives may still ask for something that is not in keeping with God’s will, thinking it to be wisdom. Such a person would not get what they asked for however, even though the request was not selfish.

I expect you meant much the same thing as I just said; I just want it clearly defined.

“We must understand the original intent of the writer”

Yes, a key point. Specifically that it is the original intent of the author that is important. Words are a tool that we use to attempt to convey a message from one person to another, and it is a rather faulty and limited tool at that, especially when it is the written word that is being used.

Consider the sentence “Did you take the cookie?” The intent of the question is not perfectly clear. Were they asking “Did YOU take the cookie (or was it someone else who took it)”, “Did you TAKE the cookie (or did you do something else with it)”, “Did you take THE COOKIE (or did you take something else)?” Because of these inherent weaknesses with the written word, what was clear in the mind of the author might not always be clear in the minds of those who read what the author wrote.

When the author is not available to clarify any questions in the minds of the readers, it is wise to look to both the content and the context of the remarks to attempt to gain insight into what the intended meaning of the author was, but a person doing this may still ‘strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel’ and read far more (or less) into a remark than what was intended. Context is a useful tool, not a magic infallible decoder ring.

Anyway, we agree on the content ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God’ When we look at the content of the book of James, there is no statement (content) that limits the type of wisdom being asked for or when wisdom can be asked for.

Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James’ intent is better expressed by ‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.’ I disagree with that.

I do agree that James is discussing trials, but in the course of discussing a specific topic, general statements are often made that are not intended to be limited to only that context. For example consider this analogy:

Some guy (lets call him James) teaches a lesson on cabinet making. Three guys (named scripter1, scripter2 and Grig) get a transcript of the lesson. The context is about building cabinets, and near the beginning James identifies a hammer as one of the tools needed to build cabinets, and says you can get one at Home Depot. Grig goes 'Great! I need a hammer to put up some picture hangers!’ but scripter1 leaps to his feet and says, 'NO, because of the context, you can only get a hammer from Home Depot if you need it to build cabinets! You are taking that part out of context!' Scripter2 also leaps up and says 'No! You cannot use a hammer to put up picture hangers, the context shows that you can only use hammers for building cabinets. You are taking that part out of context!'

It is not my intent to mock anyone with this example, I only want clearly show that using the context alone to infer such restrictions is not justifiable. There was no intent on the part of the teacher to suggest that you could only get hammers from Home Depot if and when you needed the hammer for building cabinets. Likewise, the context of James 1, by itself, doesn’t justify restricting the wisdom discussed in v5 to ONLY wisdom about dealing with a trial and/or ONLY asking when we are in the midst of a trial. The context does justify ruling IN asking for wisdom about enduring trials, but it doesn’t justify ruling OUT other requests for wisdom at other times.

Let’s look at it from another angle.
You yourself admit that requesting wisdom from God is not restricted to only asking for wisdom to endure trials and you give scripture references to that effect. Given that, how can it be argued that James intended a restriction that is in opposition to other scripture? You can’t. Since he intended no such restriction, then you cannot say that using James 1:5 to support seeking wisdom from God for other righteous purposes changes the intended meaning.

I see James 1:5 as a clear unqualified statement of a general principle. The context applies that principle to a specific situation (trials), but he did not intend that specific application to be taken as the ONLY application of the principle, he knew the gospel better than that.

Selfishness is a motive, and it is not clear to me at what point a request for wisdom could be called selfish. In the broadest sense, any wisdom will be of benefit to the person it comes to, and thus asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree.

I consider the above a very myopic statement. King Solomon's request was for wisdom to lead God's great people. He could have asked for anything, yet he respected God's great people so much, his only request was for wisdom to lead them with discernment. God responded to Solomon's request and said because it was Solomon's hearts desire, he granted the request. And because Solomon didn't request anything for selfish gains, God granted Solomon so very, very much more.

When you say things like "asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree," that tells me something about you, which you've said more than once. I'm going to say something that may sound very strange to you, it may sound arrogant and mean, but please believe me, that is not my intent. Maybe you cannot request wisdom without some degree of selfish motives. I can to, but then I would be like the double-minded man, not really believing God will grant my request. I also know I can request wisdom for completely selfless reasons, and how do I know, the indwelling Holy Spirit. I honestly believe that is the difference between us. Without the Holy Spirit I would completely agree with you here.

I expect you meant much the same thing as I just said; I just want it clearly defined.

Pretty much. The sins of selfishness and unrighteousness would look like a superset of each.

When the author is not available to clarify any questions in the minds of the readers, it is wise to look to both the content and the context of the remarks to attempt to gain insight into what the intended meaning of the author was, but a person doing this may still .strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. and read far more (or less) into a remark than what was intended. Context is a useful tool, not a magic infallible decoder ring.

Of course context is nothing magic, it's not much more (if anything) than the Occam's razor approach to reading the passage.

Anyway, we agree on the content. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. When we look at the content of the book of James, there is no statement (content) that limits the type of wisdom being asked for or when wisdom can be asked for.

Nor should there be any such statement. That's what context tells us.

Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James. intent is better expressed by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.. I disagree with that.

Yes, you understand my claim perfectly. Here you said that by "following God's wisdom we become more perfect and entire". Yet that is not what the passage says at all and something I stressed in the above study. When you look at the Greek words it is quite obvious it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us perfect and entire. For what is the wisdom here? To help us endure so we can meet the trial in the right way. By no means does the passage say it's wisdom that makes us perfect and entire You're missing the entire point of the passage. The wisdom here is specifically for trials.

Let.s look at it from another angle. You yourself admit that requesting wisdom from God is not restricted to only asking for wisdom to endure trials and you give scripture references to that effect. Given that, how can it be argued that James intended a restriction that is in opposition to other scripture? You can.t. Since he intended no such restriction, then you cannot say that using James 1:5 to support seeking wisdom from God for other righteous purposes changes the intended meaning.

You're still stuck on this in opposition issue. That's not the issue, it's context.

I see James 1:5 as a clear unqualified statement of a general principle.

You should make your case from from the Greek sentence structure and Greek words. I listed the general bibliography I used for the study. In addition to the books listed, I also consulted an additional 4 Greek dictionaries, all of which gave the same definitions. Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation agrees with the expanded translation I put together.

I'll repeat something said in the above study:

The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom. What they need is not the speculative or theoretical wisdom of a philosophical system. It is the kinds of wisdom that we read about in Proverbs (passages listed above). It is the God-given understanding that enables a person to avoid the paths of wickedness and to live a life of righteousness. In this context wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously.

I am not making this up. There are very specific reasons for my position, which are based on taking a deep look at the Greek words and sentence structure. If you disagree, you should show where my study misuses the Greek.

Claiming James 1:5 for something other than wisdom to endure trials is changing the original meaning and ripping it completely out of context.

"When you say things like "asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree," that tells me something about you,...Maybe you cannot request wisdom without some degree of selfish motives"

What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.

Anyway, this is a minor point and I don’t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.

“Nor should there be any such statement.”

I don’t see why there shouldn’t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.

“‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.’…Yes, you understand my claim perfectly”

Well, I’d call that progress.

Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by ‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial’ I would agree with you much more than I do now. It’s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.

“you said that by "following God's wisdom we become more perfect and entire". Yet that is not what the passage says at all… By no means does the passage say it's wisdom that makes us perfect and entire You're missing the entire point of the passage.”

I said:
James says that God wants us to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing' (v4)
James says if we 'lack wisdom', we can obtain it from God. (v5)
Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing'.
In reply to your request for clarification on that I said: “I'm saying that if in the course of becoming perfect and entire we find ourselves at some point where we lack the wisdom to know what choice is right, or what action to take or whatever and we need God's input, we can get that wisdom from God. After that it is up to us to follow God's wisdom, even if it grates against our natural inclinations. By FOLLOWING God's wisdom [we] become more perfect and entire, not just by getting it.”

“When you look at the Greek words it is quite obvious it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us perfect and entire. For what is the wisdom here? To help us endure so we can meet the trial in the right way.”

And that idea is captured in my conclusion ‘Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing’ We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire, and so it is not the only kind of wisdom we can receive from God. We can also obtain the wisdom we need to avoid foolishly bringing trials on ourselves, the wisdom to discern truth from error, and the wisdom to correctly handle each of life’s important crossroads in the way God would have us handle them.

“You're still stuck on this in opposition issue. That's not the issue, it's context. “

No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James’ original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.

“You should make your case from the Greek sentence structure and Greek words.”

Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can’t say with certainty since we don’t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts. Had a translator thought as you do, the translations would be somewhat different than if done by someone who thought as I do.

“According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom”

OK, note however that it doesn’t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.

“In this context wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously.”

Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don’t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from ‘people facing trials do lack wisdom’ to ‘wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously’ The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.

On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows ‘wisdom’ referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?

According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, “Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.” I’m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I’m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how ‘wisdom’ is meant to be taken in that verse.

“If you disagree, you should show where my study misuses the Greek.”

It isn’t the use of the Greek I’m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.

You have again not responded directly to my analogy of the cabinet building lesson and the hammer. I might not get time to come back to this until next Sunday so I would very much appreciate your taking the time to address that in your next post.

If any part of this is unclear, it's because it's late, and I'm not proofreading this a lot.

What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.

You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." A selfish request would be impure motives. That's seems pretty clear to me, but we can use righteous, unrighteous, pure, impure... whatever fits your fancy.

Anyway, this is a minor point and I don.t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.

I believe we can agree here.

I don.t see why there shouldn.t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.

It's the context that sets the limits, whether you're talking about 1 Kings 3, 2 Chronicles 1, Matthew 7 or Luke 11.

Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial. I would agree with you much more than I do now.

Sounds good.

It.s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.

I'm not tacking the word only on it. The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context.

And that idea is captured in my conclusion .Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

No. That's not the context nor the meaning of perfect and entire. You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related. It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire (which is a horrible translation), it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory; all of which stems from the Greek words translated as perfect and entire.

It's trials that make us "perfect and entire" if we meet the trial in the right way. If we lack the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, we can ask God for wisdom to meet the trial in the right way.

We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire

It's the wisdom of James 1:5 that helps us meet the trial in the right way.

No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James. original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.

Context includes author, history, language, culture, mannerisms, original intent, reason for writing, etc. We get the original intent by studying the entire context, which I've done in this study while still trying to keep it short.

Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can.t say with certainty since we don.t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts.

When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek, then say that's unlikely and make some really bad assumptions. You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write, and every single copy we have of James was written in Greek. The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew. You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail, that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else.

OK, note however that it doesn.t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.

The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves.

Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don.t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from .people facing trials do lack wisdom. to .wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously. The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.

It doesn't just come from themselves, it comes from understanding the context and the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.

On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows .wisdom. referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?

The context.

According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, .Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.. I.m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I.m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how .wisdom. is meant to be taken in that verse.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above and welcome additional commentaries and dictionaries.

It isn.t the use of the Greek I.m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

"You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." "

I missed that post, thanks for the link.

"It's the context that sets the limits, "

And I showed how just because something is said in a certain context doesn't by itself establish that the author intended the remark to be limited to only that context. You've had well over a full week to consider and reply to the analogy I posted to you. I have not seen any reply to it. If I missed it, please point me to it, but if you have not responded to it, either do so or say you won't.

"I'm not tacking the word only on it."

You most certainly are. There is nothing in the context that indicates the limits you infer.

You are making a classic logical error. 'If A then B' doesn't also mean that 'If notA then notB' Example: 'if it is raining, the driveway is wet' is true, but 'if it is not raining the driveway is not wet' is not true all the time, the driveway doesn't become dry the instant the rain stops, and it can become wet in other ways.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it, but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God' You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

"The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials."

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'. Look at it again:

According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom.

That doesn’t say or mean that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. It says and means that people facing trials lack wisdom, something we have agreed on.

"The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context."

If you claim that James intented v5 to be taken as meaning the only wisdom God will give those who ask in faith is wisdom to endure trials, then you are saying James didn't know his stuff, he would be contridicting 2 Chronicles 1, Matt 7, Luke 11 and the other verses YOU pointed to.

"You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related."

So v3 and v5 ARE related, but v4 and v5 are not?

"It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire"

And I repeatedly agreed with you on that. It's a quality that makes it possilbe to become perfect and entrire, one required ingredient you could say.

"it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory"

Right, that's why James told them they should be HAPPY about the trials they faced. It was giving them the chance to become further strengthened and purified, closer to wanting [lacking] nothing.

But what if a person lacks the wisdom needed to become as God wants them to be? Where does one get such wisdom if they lack it? We need wisdom from him, and he will give it to those who ask in faith, whatever wisdom it is we need to become as He wants us to be. The idea that James intention was to say that God will grant you wisdom to endure a trial but you are on your own for everything else is both foolish and wrong IMHO.

"We get the original intent by studying the entire context"

There are limits to what we can tell of a person's intent from a frequently transcribed and translated copy of a letter they wrote to another group of people.

"When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject."

Hey, if you are going to look to those manuscripts to try and discern the author's intent, then the accuracy of the manuscripts is a valid thing to investigate. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek,"

I didn't say that, I ASKED if he did.

"then say that's unlikely"

I say I consider it unlikely, not impossible, I just think using either Hebrew or Aramaic are possibilities too.

"and make some really bad assumptions."

I asked some questions.

"You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write"

He wasn't writing to everyone though, just the Jewish christians. The common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon was Aramaic, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic.

"every single copy we have of James was written in Greek"

That tells us NOTHING about what language the original was in.

"The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew"

But was that Jew the author or a translator? We just don't know.

"You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail"

No, because you still haven't shown anything to support your claim. I'm just pointing to a weakness in your method and assumptions.

"that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else...The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves."

And nothing in the sentence structure or the words supports ONLY wisdom for trials.

"I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above "

Good, please note it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

No, I'm saying the restriction you place is not justified, you are drawing invalid inferences.

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'.

The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials. Everything is tied to trials. That is the context. That is the reference. The wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it,

Yes.

but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God'

I have no idea why you said that. We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. I have said over and over that if we need wisdom from God we should claim the 1 Kings 3 passage, the Matthew 7 passage and the Luke 11 passage. That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials.

That is not the issue. The issue is the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. That is the specific context. Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning.

You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

I sure can. The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position. The fact that everything is tied to trials offers no support for your position. Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical.

I previously said:

You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related.

So v3 and v5 ARE related, but v4 and v5 are not?

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

The idea that James intention was to say that God will grant you wisdom to endure a trial but you are on your own for everything else is both foolish and wrong IMHO.

I have never said that. Not once. This is a straw man.

Hey, if you are going to look to those manuscripts to try and discern the author's intent, then the accuracy of the manuscripts is a valid thing to investigate. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

That is an argument from silence. You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists.

That tells us NOTHING about what language the original was in.

Another argument from silence.

Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day. When you say things like this you demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. Everytime you say something on this subject you just make it worse for yourself. I have offered to point you to some books on the subject but you never take me up on the offer.

The common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon was Aramaic, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic.

The common language was Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic as we see in Matthew where Jesus said "talitha coum" if I remember it right, which means little girl I say to you, get up. So Jesus spoke Aramaic and most likely Hebrew, but the common language was Greek and is what the entire New Testament is written in. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament and the Septuagint is the version quoted by everyone in the New Testament. Everything we have is Greek. You're argument is from silence.

And nothing in the sentence structure or the words supports ONLY wisdom for trials.

One more time. You don't understand context. What's so strange is you admit the context is trials. You admit the wisdom is tied to trials, but you want to use the wisdom in James 1:5 to support whatever you want, and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not.

Good, please note it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial.

You're reading something into it that isn't there. Here is what he said.

Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour..

The first part doesn't apply as we're only interested in wisdom in Scripture. If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. Here's what I said:

Wisdom is not just acquired information but practical insight with spiritual implications (Prov 1:2-4; 2:10-15; 4:5-9; 9:10-12). With James' Jewish background, wisdom is a practical thing. It isn't philosophic speculation or intellectual knowledge, to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics.

What he doesn't do is go into more detail, but he says the same thing I said.

And I showed how just because something is said in a certain context doesn't by itself establish that the author intended the remark to be limited to only that context. You've had well over a full week to consider and reply to the analogy I posted to you. I have not seen any reply to it. If I missed it, please point me to it, but if you have not responded to it, either do so or say you won't.

I have called your analogy a straw man but you seem to have ignored or missed it entirely. I can't help but wonder if you're doing this on purpose to avoid admitting my point or if you just don't get it. I've also never seen a perfect analogy for anything - they always break down somewhere.

Just as in your view of James 1:5, you are leaving out specific issues that are required in your analogy. That is, perseverance which is meeting the trial in the right way and being complete which is removing our weaknesses and imperfections. With the lesson on cabinet making being trials in your analogy, Home Depot being God which is probably a first for God, the hammer representing wisdom and cabinets the end product or the mature Christian, you have left out two very important issues.

Let's say being complete is filling holes in the cabinet with wood putty and sanding the cabinets, which is a nice fit to removing our weaknesses and imperfections.

What's left is perseverence and is key to being mature and complete. To be true to your analogy we have to use the hammer in the right way (perseverence) to complete the cabinet and use the hammer to remove defects in the cabinet. But the analogy falls short here because we don't use just a hammer to build cabinets. We might also use a miter saw, table saw, router, finishing nails, putty, sand paper, screws, glue, drill, and more. We don't use just hammers to build cabinets, if we even use a hammer at all to build cabinets.

In the same way we don't request wisdom for trials and trials alone - we can use wisdom and hammers for different purposes. I have repeatedly said the same regarding wisdom from the beginning, saying we should use the 1 Kings 3, Matthew 7 and Luke 11 passages to request wisdom. There are other verses as well but from his choice of words, those are the verses James probably used as a basis for his words.

Your analogy is a straw man because you mispresent what I've said. Your analogy is a also straw man because you're trying to say we can use a hammer to put up picture hangers, one of the many uses of a hammer. When James is saying if we lack the wisdom in using a hammer in the right way to put up straight picture hangers without any defects in the wall, ask Home Depot how to do it.

"The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials."

And none of that shows that the author intended his advice on seeking wisdom to ONLY be valid advice in that context.

"If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning. "

If James intended to convey the idea that God will ONLY give wisdom to those who need it for enduring trials then he is wrong, if he didn't intend that limit you claim, then nothing I did changed the intended meaning.

"I have no idea why you said that. "

Because that is just what you have claimed (many, many times) James' intent was.

"We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. "

Exactly why I can not agree that that James intended such a restriction as you claim. James applied a general principle (we can seek wisdom from God if we have faith) to a specific context (trials), but there is nothing to justify saying he intended that to be the ONLY context that principle can be applied to. Since trials is not the only context that it can be applied to, I assume James intended no such restriction.

"That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials."

You have claimed over and over that James intended meaning was that a person can ONLY recieve wisdom from God to endure trial they are in, and no other kind of wisdom.

"Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning"

So you claim, but you have not shown it to be anything more than your opinion of what his intent was.

And what wisdom is there that doesn't help a person to avoid or handle a trial? Your comment 'James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).' indicates that lacking wisdom is a trial IN AND OF ITSELF.

"The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position."

No, that only shows you really don't understand my position. I agree that it's all tied to trials, but you claim his intent was that it's ONLY tied to trials and I say there is no justification to say his intent was so restricted.

"Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical. "

It would only be illogical if there was a clearly demonstrable intention by James to teach that a person can ONLY get wisdom from God to endure trials and for nothing else. If someone tells you that you can get a hammer at Home Depot to build cabinets with, it is silly to infer that you can get a hammer at Home Depot ONLY to use for building cabinets.

"I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here."

You say since v3 is about trials, v5 is as well. I point to v4 and say it shows God wants us 'perfect and entire, wanting [lacking] nothing.' James' very next words are 'If any of ye lack wisdom...' so I fail to see how this counts as connecting unrelated words.

"I have never said that. Not once"

You said James intent was 'perfectly' represented by :"If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial ONLY"

"That is an argument from silence."

No, it wasn't an argument at all, it was a question. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists"

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING WITH THE QUESTION. We don't know for a fact what language James wrote it in, we don't know for a fact who chose to use that sentance structure. You want to ignore that and treat the known manuscripts as if they are the originals, I'm saying you have to more scholarly than that and allow for the possibility that James did not write it in Greek and some scribe chose that sentance structure while translating it.

"Another argument from silence."

No, a statement of fact. An argument from silence reaches some kind of conclusion, all I did is point out that the fact the known manuscripts are Greek is not a valid proof for claiming the original was Greek, my claim is that the language of the orginal is unknown, a fact. It COULD have been Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or something else.

"Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day."

Greek was the most common language on a (old)worldwide level, but James wasn't writing to everybody, he was writing to the Jews, so Hebrew and Aramaic are also likely candidates for the original language and brushing off the possibility is not justified.

"The common language was Greek."

Not among the Jews at that time. I'm taking into account the language and culture of the intended audience and the author, and saying that we can't rule out certain posibilites. You reply that I'm ignoring the context when I do that is rather funny.

"You admit the wisdom is tied to trials,"

Yes, and that James did not intend the fact that he tied it to trials to be taken as it being limited to ONLY trials.

"and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not. "

It all comes down to how James intended it to be taken. You have your opinion and I have mine about what the intended scope of v5 is. So far you have not shown anything in the content or the context that even makes your claim seem like a possibility to me.

"If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. "

Like I said, it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial. If you claim it does, then YOU are reading something into it that isn't there.

"to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics...he says the same thing I said."

And again, the type of wisdom is not limited to only wisdom to endure a current trial.

"I have called your analogy a straw man but you seem to have ignored or missed it entirely. I can't help but wonder if you're doing this on purpose to avoid admitting my point or if you just don't get it. "

I missed a lot of posts in the past 9 days. I did tell you that I wouldn't be around nearly as much.

"I've also never seen a perfect analogy for anything - they always break down somewhere."

Of course, but they are still usefull.

"With the lesson on cabinet making being trials in your analogy, Home Depot being God which is probably a first for God, the hammer representing wisdom and cabinets the end product or the mature Christian, "

Already you have taken tha anaolgy much farther than intended.

"Just as in your view of James 1:5, you are leaving out specific issues that are required in your analogy. That is, perseverance which is meeting the trial in the right way and being complete which is removing our weaknesses and imperfections"

The analogy is intended to make one point: that just because something is said in one specific context doesn't by itself justify claiming that is the ONLY context it is valid for. It is not intended to be a 1:1 retelling of James 1.

"Your analogy is a straw man because you mispresent what I've said."

I was using the analogy to try and get you to see my POV. You say that because v5 is in a context of trials that it's valid to limit it's application to ONLY trials. I'm saying that makes as much sense to me as what scripter1 and scripter2 say in the story. The context (how to build cabinets) alone doesn't justify the accusation of altering the intended meaning of the author.

Could you address THAT, instead of all the details you dwelt on which are not relevant to the intent or purpose of the analogy?

And none of that shows that the author intended his advice on seeking wisdom to ONLY be valid advice in that context.

You are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of context.

If James intended to convey the idea that God will ONLY give wisdom to those who need it for enduring trials then he is wrong, if he didn't intend that limit you claim, then nothing I did changed the intended meaning.

James says if you need wisdom to endure a trial, ask God. I don't know how many times I've said this, he is not saying you can't ask God for wisdom in other areas, but the context here is specifically trials. You are missing the entire reason for context.

Previously I wrote:

I have no idea why you said that.

Because that is just what you have claimed (many, many times) James' intent was.

Never. Not once have I made that claim. If you think otherwise then please show me what post number. You obviously have not understood something I said.

Exactly why I can not agree that that James intended such a restriction as you claim. James applied a general principle (we can seek wisdom from God if we have faith) to a specific context (trials), but there is nothing to justify saying he intended that to be the ONLY context that principle can be applied to. Since trials is not the only context that it can be applied to, I assume James intended no such restriction.

You do not understand context. We agree the context is trials. We agree James said to ask for wisdom to endure trials, but you want to claim this verse to support asking God for wisdom for anything when the context is specifically trials. In doing so you're changing the intended meaning. There are other verses to claim for that promise, verses I've listed many times now but you're stuck on this one verse.

You have claimed over and over that James intended meaning was that a person can ONLY recieve wisdom from God to endure trial they are in, and no other kind of wisdom.

I have claimed James 1:5 is wisdom for trials and trials alone but have never said James denies wisdom for other areas. In fact I've stated over and over that James probably used Matt 7:7 as a basis for his thoughts, which could be wisdom for anything in the glory of God.

The context of the following verses is that God be glorifed, and it tells us to ask for whatever we want. Yet for some reason you want to pull James 1:5 out of the specific context of wisdom for trials and use that verse to support asking for wisdom. Why?

Matthew 7:7
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
John 15:7
If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.
Luke 11:9
So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

No, that only shows you really don't understand my position. I agree that it's all tied to trials, but you claim his intent was that it's ONLY tied to trials and I say there is no justification to say his intent was so restricted.

I understand your position perfectly. I just don't know why you're stuck on this verse to request wisdom.

It would only be illogical if there was a clearly demonstrable intention by James to teach that a person can ONLY get wisdom from God to endure trials and for nothing else.

James doesn't have to do any such thing. The context tells us everything. For some reason you want to rip this verse out of its context.

You say since v3 is about trials, v5 is as well. I point to v4 and say it shows God wants us 'perfect and entire, wanting [lacking] nothing.' James' very next words are 'If any of ye lack wisdom...' so I fail to see how this counts as connecting unrelated words.

It isn't connecting unrelated words - that's what I've been saying all along. We agree the words are related. What you want to do is connect the words in one instance and divorce the words from their context in another so they can support whatever you want. And in doing so you remove the wisdom from the context of trials and change the intended meaning of James 1:5.

You said James intent was 'perfectly' represented by :"If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial ONLY"

Please provide the post number where I said that.

No, it wasn't an argument at all, it was a question. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

That's a really pathetic question. I've told you the thousands of manuscripts we have are all in Greek. Not a single manuscript of James exists in Aramaic or Hebrew. I've read numerous books on this issue and not a single book even hints at what you're saying. If you want to know who made that choice, look at the available evidence. Everything points to James writing in Greek. Go read a few books on the issue.

I previously wrote:

You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING WITH THE QUESTION. We don't know for a fact what language James wrote it in, we don't know for a fact who chose to use that sentance structure. You want to ignore that and treat the known manuscripts as if they are the originals, I'm saying you have to more scholarly than that and allow for the possibility that James did not write it in Greek and some scribe chose that sentance structure while translating it.

Your ignorance on this issue is profound. If you knew anything about textual issues you wouldn't make such ignorant comments. Your position is one of silence - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your position.

No, a statement of fact. An argument from silence reaches some kind of conclusion, all I did is point out that the fact the known manuscripts are Greek is not a valid proof for claiming the original was Greek, my claim is that the language of the orginal is unknown, a fact. It COULD have been Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or something else.

It's an argument from silence - there is nothing to support your position. Nothing. You've obviously drawn your conclusion. And one thing is obvious, you have no idea what you're talking about. Could you tell me anything, any book you've read on this issue? And if you knew anything about textual issues you would know that after a certain quantity of manuscripts are found and not a single piece of evidence exists against all the other evidence, it is considered to be close enough to the original to call it just that.

Greek was the most common language on a (old)worldwide level, but James wasn't writing to everybody, he was writing to the Jews, so Hebrew and Aramaic are also likely candidates for the original language and brushing off the possibility is not justified.

Grig, scholar of no evidence, reacher of things never seen, believer in the things never said. Would you please provide a single piece of physical evidence to support your position?

Not among the Jews at that time. I'm taking into account the language and culture of the intended audience and the author, and saying that we can't rule out certain posibilites. You reply that I'm ignoring the context when I do that is rather funny.

Please cite a source to support your position. Any source. Even Hyam Maccoby, author and hater of Christianity. Please, just one source. Of course you can't support your statement. It's beyond ridiculous.

It all comes down to how James intended it to be taken. You have your opinion and I have mine about what the intended scope of v5 is. So far you have not shown anything in the content or the context that even makes your claim seem like a possibility to me.

Simply amazing. You agree the context is trials yet you think it's perfectly find to take it out of that context to support whatever you want. James intended meaning is in the context: trials.

Like I said, it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial. If you claim it does, then YOU are reading something into it that isn't there.

You are incredible. Unable to realize what even your own source is saying. It's very obvious my source agrees with your source, but your source is written at a much higher level. My sources take it further into the meat of the details but you'll close your eyes to the facts if you don't like what they say.

Already you have taken tha anaolgy much farther than intended.

If the analogy is going to reflect the context of James 1:5, then I'm going to see to it the analogy fits as best as possible. If you want to start another thread on straw man analogies, have at it.

"You are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of context...James says if you need wisdom to endure a trial, ask God"

No, James said that if you lack wisdom, ask God for it. He said that while talking to them about trials, but he did not say 'if you need wisdom to endure a trial, ask God'. There is a difference. As I said once long ago (or so it seems) while discussing a specific topic, gerneral statements can and are made that are not limited to only the topic being discussed, I gave an example in my story of just such an occurance as well.

Your appeal to the Greek syntax only establishes that 'people who face trials lack wisdom' which does nothing to limit the kind of wisdom being asked for. In fact you could take it that by asking God for wisdom we can AVOID some trials.

"he is not saying you can't ask God for wisdom in other areas"

Good! Since you admit he had no intent to restrict the type of wisdom being asked for, it doesn't change his intended meaning when James 1:5 is used to justify seeking any wisdom beyond just wisdom to endure trials.

"Never. Not once have I made that claim. If you think otherwise then please show me what post number. You obviously have not understood something I said. "

So you are saying a person can quote James 1:5 for wisdom other than wisdom to endure trials without changing the intended meaning of the author?

The very start of this thread says: 'Claiming this verse for anything other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning'. If claiming that you CAN get wisdom from God for some other reasons besides trials changes the original meaning, then the inteneded meaning must be that you CAN'T get wisdom from God for any other reason than enduring trials. I really do hope I'm misunderstanding your position, so feel free to clarify yourself.

"We agree the context is trials."

Yes.

"We agree James said to ask for wisdom to endure trials"

I said James applied a general principle (we can seek wisdom from God if we have faith) to a specific context (trials), but there is nothing to justify saying he intended that to be the ONLY context that principle can be applied to. The wisdom James refers to is any wisdom a person stands in need of. Wisdom to endure a trial, avoid a trial, wisdom to choose the paths in life that will be God's will for us, not JUST wisdom to endure trials.

"but you want to claim this verse to support asking God for wisdom for anything when the context is specifically trials."

And you can get a hammer at Home Depot no matter what you want it for, even though that information on where to get it came within a specific context of a lesson on building cabinets. Please tell me you can see the paralell, even if you still don't agree with it.

Oh, and as I said before, ALL wisdom is in harmony with God's will.

" I have claimed James 1:5 is wisdom for trials and trials alone but have never said James denies wisdom for other areas."

Self contradictory. If he intended James 1:5 is wisdom for trials AND TRIALS ALONE then he DOES deny wisdom for other areas by that very act.

"In fact I've stated over and over that James probably used Matt 7:7 as a basis for his thoughts, which could be wisdom for anything in the glory of God. "

But then you turn around and say that using v5 for anyting other than wisdom to endure trials is contrary to the intended meaning of the author. Can't you see the contradiction of that?

"Yet for some reason you want to ...use that verse to support asking for wisdom. Why?...I just don't know why you're stuck on this verse to request wisdom"

Because I think if very clearly states a true principle and that using it as I do in no way alters the intended meaning of the author. I also know from personal experience that it is true in the general case, not just when it comes to enduring trials. Do you really think James would jump up and object if he could when I encourage someone to seek wisdom from God for some other righteous purpose and point them to v5?

"The context tells us everything"

Really? Just how do you know it tells you everything? Context is a usefull tool when trying to understand the intended message, but it is not perfect even in the best of circumstances.

"For some reason you want to rip this verse out of its context. "

All quotations separate the quote from it's context. As long as it doesn't do so in a way that alters the intended message of the quote there is no problem. James did not intend his words to be taken to mean that you can ONLY ask for wisdom to endure trials, therefore it does not alter the intended meaning when it is quoted in refference to seeking other kinds of wisdom.

"Please provide the post number where I said that. "

From Post 17:
Grig: Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James' intent is better expressed by "If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only".. I disagree with that.

scripter: Yes, you understand my claim perfectly

"That's a really pathetic question."

That's a really pathetic way to avoid answering it.

"I've told you the thousands of manuscripts we have are all in Greek. Not a single manuscript of James exists in Aramaic or Hebrew. I've read numerous books on this issue and not a single book even hints at what you're saying. If you want to know who made that choice, look at the available evidence. Everything points to James writing in Greek."

Now THAT is arguing from silence. Claiming an absence of discovered Aramaic or Hebrew manuscripts is not proof that there never were any.

Oh, you might find these interesting:

from http://www.biblesociety.ca/about_bible/original_languages/
"Many scholars believe that Mark's Gospel was written in Aramaic, and only later translated into Greek, and some believe that other portions of the New Testament were also originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew."

From http://www.aramaic.org/MANUSCRIPT.html
"Fortunately, today many sincere Bible students and scholars, who are tired of constant revision of the Scriptures from Greek, are turning to the Aramaic. Now many of them are admitting that there was an original written in Aramaic, the language which Jesus and his disciples spoke, from which the Greek was translated, but that it was lost. It is probably true all ancient texts of the Holy Scriptures perished in the lands west of the Euphrates, Syria and Palestine during the Roman and Byzantine persecutions, but original Bible manuscripts survived in the Euphrates Valley in an inaccessible region as Hakari; and in Iran (Persian Empire) among the ancient Assyrian Christians, and the remnant of the Ten Tribes."

http://www.metamind.net/lamsaorig.html

Nothing you stated PROVES the original was in Greek, and it is not my position to prove they were not Greek, only to show that we don't know with absolute certainty what the original language was.

You don't have the original so no matter how many Greek copies there are, there still exists the possibility that it was not originally writen in Greek. If you say it is very likely that it was in Greek, fine, but if you categorically insist that it is a fact that James wrote in in Greek then you go farther than the evidence justifies.

"there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your position"

My position is that we don't know for sure what language the original was written in. That is a fact. Any conclusions based on the existing manuscripts can at best indicate a LIKELY property of some previous manuscript, which indication may or may not be correct, and in which the previous manuscript may or may not be the original.

"after a certain quantity of manuscripts are found and not a single piece of evidence exists against all the other evidence, it is considered to be close enough to the original to call it just that. "

After all that you can come as close to the original as your source manuscripts allow, but unless you have the original itself to compare against you can not declare with absolute certainty that you have perfect copy of the original.

The possibility that the conclusion is wrong still exists, like it or not, and real scholars won't be afraid to admit that. Having a high degree of confidence in a position is not the same thing as having absolute proof. This has little to do with the specifics of textual critisizm, it is mainly a matter of valid research techniques used in all fields of study.

"Would you please provide a single piece of physical evidence to support your position? "

My position is that when you don't have the original, you can't be 100% sure the copies you have are exactly the same as the original, and you can't be certain that any attempt to reconstruct the original is 100% accurate as well. If that position requires proof for you to accept it, you are beyond my ability to help.

"If the analogy is going to reflect the context of James 1:5, then I'm going to see to it the analogy fits as best as possible."

I told you the analogy is to highlight a specific point I am trying to make: that just because something is said in one specific context doesn't by itself justify claiming that is the ONLY context it is valid for. Do you agree with that point or not?

Your appeal to the Greek syntax only establishes that 'people who face trials lack wisdom' which does nothing to limit the kind of wisdom being asked for. In fact you could take it that by asking God for wisdom we can AVOID some trials.

You actually almost got something right. The text does hint that we can ask God for wisdom in order to avoid trials and at the same time ask for wisdom to help us endure trials. You would know that if you did any reading on the subject.

Good! Since you admit he had no intent to restrict the type of wisdom being asked for, it doesn't change his intended meaning when James 1:5 is used to justify seeking any wisdom beyond just wisdom to endure trials.

Yeah, twist my words some more! You asked me to clarify my position if you have it wrong but I just hope there is some magical number of times that I can repeat the same words over and over where it will eventually sink in. I'm going to say exactly what I've said I don't know how many times. No, I'll expand on what I've previously said and save this so I can copy and paste it the next 50 times you misrepresent my words.

The context of James 1:5 is trials and the wisdom James says to ask for is specifically tied to the context of trials. As a basis for his thoughts and from the words he chose to use, James probably had Matt 7:7 in mind as he wrote the first chapter of James.

In ripping James 1:5 out of context (by definition changes the original intent) there is no longer a context from which to understand the original intent and some, as we've seen here, will try to use the wisdom of James 1:5 to support whatever they want.

Luke 11:9 tells us:

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

What an awesome promise God grants to those who remain in Him. James was no doubt familiar with this teaching and probably used a similar passage, Matthew 7:7 as a basis for his thoughts when writing the first chapter of the book of James.

The key and the context here is remaining in Him. You can't pull Luke 11:9 out of the context of remaining in him to support whatever you want just like you can't pull James 1:5 out of it's context of trials to support whatever you want. Doing so changes the original intent and leaves nothing from which to understand the original intent.

I previously wrote:

Please provide the post number where I said that.

From Post 17: Grig: Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James' intent is better expressed by "If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only".. I disagree with that.

scripter: Yes, you understand my claim perfectly

Now we see the whole picture. The way you used the above gave a different impression than the original. Yes, the wisdom in James 1:5 is about trials and trials alone. I previously wrote:

That's a really pathetic question.

That's a really pathetic way to avoid answering it.

Yes, stating the known facts are pathetic according to Grig, who is profoundly ignorant of all things Greek.

I previously wrote:

I've told you the thousands of manuscripts we have are all in Greek. Not a single manuscript of James exists in Aramaic or Hebrew. I've read numerous books on this issue and not a single book even hints at what you're saying. If you want to know who made that choice, look at the available evidence. Everything points to James writing in Greek."

Now THAT is arguing from silence. Claiming an absence of discovered Aramaic or Hebrew manuscripts is not proof that there never were any.

Yours is the argument from silence, trying to hide from the facts by pulling in ideas with no supporting evidence. Please provide references to any physical evidence you have to support your thoughts that James might not be originally written in Greek.

Oh, you might find these interesting:

I've seen similar sites and they have no physical evidence to support their position. If you think otherwise, please provide any physical evidence to support your thoughts here. I said any, that leaves it wide open for you. Take all the space you need. What am I saying? You don't need any space because there is zero physical evidence to support your position.

"The text does hint that we can ask God for wisdom in order to avoid trials and at the same time ask for wisdom to help us endure trials. "

So now it isn't ONLY wisdom to endure a trial?

"You actually almost got something right... You would know that if you did any reading on the subject."

Your continued attempts to elevate yourself by attacking me with snide remarks like that does nothing to help your position.

"Yeah, twist my words some more! "

Just trying to point out the contridiction you make. You say that quoting v5 for anything other than wisdom to endure trials goes against the original intent of James, but that James had no intent to limit it to just wisdom to endure trials. Can you explain how I violate and intent that isn't there?

"I just hope there is some magical number of times that I can repeat the same words over and over where it will eventually sink in."

I just hope there is some magical number of times that I can repeat the same words over and over where it will eventually sink in.

"The context of James 1:5 is trials and the wisdom James says to ask for is specifically tied to the context of trials."

And I say not limited to the context of trials.

"In ripping James 1:5 out of context (by definition changes the original intent) "

Every time you quote any verse you remove it from it's context, but that doesn't automaticly mean you mis-represented the author's intent. The analogy I gave provided a specific example of advice that was given in a specific context, but that was not intended to be limited to only that context.

"and some, as we've seen here, will try to use the wisdom of James 1:5 to support whatever they want. "

Oh for shame, suggesting that 'wisdom' means 'wisdom'.

"When it gets down to admitting you're wrong, all you'll have to do is what you've already done."

I'm glad you used the furture tense, I haven't been anywhere close to even thinking that perhaps I might not be right.

"That is, state we don't know if the text is accurate."

Hey, it was YOUR premise that the Greek syntax was so important. If you don't want to defend the foundations of your claims, then this isn't the place for you.

And what I said is that we don't know for sure who decided to use that particular Greek syntax (fact), and that must be taking into account when trying to determine author intent. Do you think such facts should be glossed over and ignored?

"The way you used the above gave a different impression than the original"

Post #20:
You said James intent was 'perfectly' represented by :"If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial ONLY"

Post #17: Grig: Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James' intent is better expressed by "If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only".. I disagree with that.

scripter: Yes, you understand my claim perfectly

I took your reply 'you understand my claim perfectly' to mean that you took "If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only" as perfectly representing what you consider James' intent to be. If you did not mean it to be taken that way then please clarify your original reply. There was no intent give a different impression.

"Yours is the argument from silence"

Sigh, I wouldn't give you a passing grade on Logic 101, but here is something from 102 anyway...

Argumentum a silentio – (argument from silence) a generalization made based on lack of evidence for the contrary.

For example: Since there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) to support X, notX is true.

In this specific case, saying 'Since there is no physical evidence suggesting the original language was not Greek, the original language was Greek.' IS by definition an argument from silence.

My position, that since we do not have the originals, we do not know what the original language is that it was written in, is a DENIAL of your argument from silence and is not ANY kind of generalization.

As I showed in the links I provided, scholars are not all in agreement, some think it was all originaly in Greek, some all in Aramaic, some think different languages for different parts. Are you going to suggest that a scholar's work is not worth considering unless it agrees with what you already belive?

"Please provide references to any physical evidence you have to support your thoughts that James might not be originally written in Greek. "

Proof is not required to refute an argument from silence because the reasoning itself is flawed. A lack of proof is not proof of a lack and if you want to assert that the orginals were written in Greek the burden of proof is on you. A lack of physical evedence to the contrary is meaningless.

As I said before, I don't make any claim about what the original language is, it might have been Greek, it might not have been. Without the originals it remains unknown.

So now it isn't ONLY wisdom to endure a trial?

The context has always been about trials and trials alone. Nice try, though.

Your continued attempts to elevate yourself by attacking me with snide remarks like that does nothing to help your position.

My position doesn't need any help as I've got all the evidence on my side. You on the other had have demonstrated such a profound ignorance here that my factual responses only make you appear even more ignorant on the sujbect.

"Yeah, twist my words some more! " Just trying to point out the contridiction you make. You say that quoting v5 for anything other than wisdom to endure trials goes against the original intent of James, but that James had no intent to limit it to just wisdom to endure trials. Can you explain how I violate and intent that isn't there?

I'm glad I saved my last response. Maybe you'll get it this time.

Luke 11:9 tells us:

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

I previously wrote:

The context of James 1:5 is trials and the wisdom James says to ask for is specifically tied to the context of trials.

And I say not limited to the context of trials.

Grig, profoundly ignorant of all things Greek disagrees with Greek scholars who actually use physical evidence to support their writings.

Every time you quote any verse you remove it from it's context, but that doesn't automaticly mean you mis-represented the author's intent.

Your definition of context is at a very high level, which explains why you refuse to acknowledge the facts - you won't accept the details. Once again, by definition, pulling a verse out of context implies changing the intended meaning. It appears everybody but Grig has known that all along.

And what I said is that we don't know for sure who decided to use that particular Greek syntax (fact), and that must be taking into account when trying to determine author intent.

I'm still waiting for any physical evidence that supports a language other than Greek. You cannot provide that evidence because none has been found and everything we have found points to Greek. Your only argument is you don't like the facts.

I took your reply 'you understand my claim perfectly' to mean that you took "If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only" as perfectly representing what you consider James' intent to be. If you did not mean it to be taken that way then please clarify your original reply. There was no intent give a different impression.

For James 1:5, yes. Now stop playing games.

Sigh, I wouldn't give you a passing grade on Logic 101, but here is something from 102 anyway...

I've been writing logic for over 2 decades and surely don't need any pointers from you. I caught your hint of a formal logical argument from silence; saw it for the dodge that it was and purposely brought the issue back on topic.

The issue here is that you have no physical evidence to support your thoughts that James might not have been written in Greek. Zero, nada, goose-egg, zilch - that summarizes all the evidence to support your thoughts.

As I showed in the links I provided, scholars are not all in agreement, some think it was all originaly in Greek, some all in Aramaic, some think different languages for different parts.

That is a really pathetic attempt of supporting your thoughts here. The facts are that every single piece of evidence we have supports Greek as the original language. The links you listed said the only available evidence we have is Greek. Their position, just likes yours is based on absolutely no physical evidence. But you'll accept what they say as credible because it helps you ignore the facts.

As I said before, I don't make any claim about what the original language is, it might have been Greek, it might not have been. Without the originals it remains unknown.

You have conveniently provided an out for yourself. When it gets down to admitting you're wrong, all you'll have to do is what you've already done. That is, state we don't know if the text is accurate or that we don't have the originals. That speaks volumes as you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like, always claiming we don't know if what we have is an accurate record.

That is a restatement of your view of v4.

Yes, and in post #1 I gave detailed reasons for just that statement. Reasons based on 4 or 5 Greek dictionaries and just as many commentaries.

Even though the WET goes out of its way to spell everything the Greek text indicates out, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.

You surely have no concept of context. Let's take another look at what Wuest says:

And if, as is the case, anyone of you [when undergoing these trials] is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, [a pure, simple giving of good without admixture of evil or bitterness], and who does not [with the giving of the gift] reproach [the recipient with any manifestation of displeasure or regret], and it shall be given him.

The "And if" at the beginning of verse 5 references the previous verse. Wuest expands the Greek words and sentence structure to point out the wisdom being requested is specifically for trials. Yet you want to rip it out of the context of trials and support whatever you want. Plain as day to any open minded reader, James states the wisdom here is specifically for trials. But no, Grig, demonstrating his profound ignorance of all things Greek decides Wuest is wrong and we can claim this verse for anything.

But that's not all, from http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/2522/biblevers.html#Wuest "On the downside, some interpretation seems to creep into the translation, and words in brackets should not always be taken as necessarily implied in the Greek originals"

You would have a point if you could demonstrate from the Greek where Wuest goes wrong. You can't do that, you know it and I know it, but you're going to insist Wuest and all the references I've provided are wrong and you're right based on your profound ignorance of the subject matter.

So if we remove the bracketed comments we get: "But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing. And if, as is the case, anyone of you is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, and who does not reproach, and it shall be given him."

We could get that from reading any translation. The key which you continue to ignore is in understanding the Greek sentence structure and expanded Greek words. Of course your lack of education on the subject gives you more knowledge than Wuest and the other sources I listed.

Now did you just not know any of this, or were you hoping I didn't?

You're so ignorant on so much of this issue I have no idea what you don't know. All I know is that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to understanding the concept of context and anything Greek.

Quoting me you write:

"You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge "

Again you try to change the meaning of my above comment. Here's the full sentence:

You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge in all areas of the hellenized times and yet you think your ignorant position carries more weight than Greek scholars.

You have too much invested in your position to admit you're changing the intended meaning of James 1:5 when you quote it as you do.

"What post number?"

#23 "Because I think if very clearly states a true principle and that using it as I do in no way alters the intended meaning of the author. I also know from personal experience that it is true in the general case, not just when it comes to enduring trials. Do you really think James would jump up and object if he could when I encourage someone to seek wisdom from God for some other righteous purpose and point them to v5?"

"Besides that, I'm using a different verse here: "

It doesn't matter what verse you are asking about. I still consider James 1:5 to be a clear statement of a true principle and that I'm not using it in a way that alters the intended meaning of the author.

"Doing so changes the original intent and leaves nothing from which to understand the original intent."

Are you saying that the context defines what the the full extent of the author's intent is? If so, I must disagree, the author's intent existed before the first word of James was written, so much of the context flows from the intent, not the other way around. They are related, but they are not 100% the same thing. Nor does context always give us a full understanding of everything that was in the author's intent, the written word too limited to do that in any language. As I said before (and gave examples of) inside a specific context, general statments can be made that the author doesn't intend to be limited to ONLY that context. I don't think you have directly responded to that claim yet.

"So why do you not quote this verse when asking for "whatever you wish" "

I didn't avocate using v5 for "whatever you wish", I said it shows we can seek wisdom that we lack from God, and there is no wisdom that is contrary to God's will.

"instead of ripping James 1:5 out of the context of trials"

I have not been presented with anything that justifies the claim that James intended v5 to be limited to ONLY trials.

If he intended to be limited to ONLY trials, James didn't know his stuff, if he didn't intend it to be limited to trials, my usage of it is not misrepresenting his original intent.

"The context has always been about trials and trials alone."

But first you say "Claiming this verse for ANYTHING other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning" and then later on you point to several verses that show a person can request and recieve wisdom outside of those limits, and still later on say "The text does hint that we can ask God for wisdom in order to avoid trials" Can't you see how reasonable people would see that as being at least somewhat contridictory?

"You on the other had have demonstrated such a profound ignorance here that my factual responses only make you appear even more ignorant on the sujbect"

ROTFLMAO! I gently admonish you for childish name calling, and you reply with MORE childish name calling!

"and the wisdom James says to ask for is specifically tied to the context of trials"

What you showed was the other way around, having trials was specificly tied to lacking wisdom. "According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom"

Nothing in all you have quoted or posted establishes any limit on what kind of wisdom James was talking about, or when such wisdom can be asked for. The context rules in asking for wisdom needed to cope with trials, it does NOT rule out asking and getting wisdom at other times.

"James probably had Matt 7:7 in mind as he wrote the first chapter of James. "

And that further estabishes that there was no intent to limit v5 to ONLY about enduring trials or ONLY when in a trial.

"In ripping James 1:5 out of context (by definition changes the original intent) "

You got that backwards, if you quote something in a way that mis-represents the author's intended meaning, THEN that by definition is taking it 'out of context'. It is the intent of the author that existed before the quote was written, the quote is a product of the intent, not the other way around.

"disagrees with Greek scholars who actually use physical evidence to support their writings."

You once suggested that my opposition to your side was rooted in some inability to question authority, and yet here you show signs of that very thing. Did Greek scholars rush to defend Galileo Galilei from charges of heresy for suggesting the earth went around the sun? Greek scholars can be as wrong as anyone else can be when it comes to bridging the gap between what the bible says (it's translation) and what it means.

Even so, you have not shown me anyplace where a Greek scholar presents this idea of it being limited to only wisdom to endure trials as anything more than their own personal opinion. Nowhere have you shown the Greek itself to impose such a restriction, in fact, your quoting from the WET only highlights the fact that there is nothing in the Greek that justfies the restriction, if there was, the WET would have put it in and not inside []. The restriction is an interpetation, an opinion and it is not the changable, error prone opinions of scholars I desire, it is the truth.

And simply because some form of physical evidence is used in the construction of some argument doesn't mean that the argument itself is valid or true. Argument in favor of the earth being flat and the center of the universe were also based on physical evidence and even direct observation, but those evidences and observations were interpreted wrongly, leading to a conclusion that was false.

"pulling a verse out of context implies changing the intended meaning."

Yes, but if you want to claim a verse is taken out of context, you must show a difference between the intended meaning by the author and the protrayed meaning by the quoter. You have not shown that James had any intent to limit his meaning as you say it must be limited.

"I'm still waiting for any physical evidence that supports a language other than Greek."

Isn't it kind of silly to wait for me to provide something I already said didn't exist? No matter what language you pick (Greek included) there is no proof that it was the original language because we do not have the originals.

"Your only argument is you don't like the facts."

I have no problem with the facts. I'm perfectly comfortable with the FACT that we know know with certainty what language James wrote it in. I can't see how you can be comfortable with that fact given your position.

The fact that all known manuscripts are in Greek is meaningless when determining the original language. Only a tiny percentage of manuscripts survived, and we can't really say how many copies existed between the oldest one we have and the original. They do no represent a random sample of all manuscripts ever made and we know nothing about all the manuscripts that have been lost or destroyed over the ages. Even if we had every manuscript EXCEPT the original, and even if every one of them was Greek, it still doesn't rule out the possibility that the original was not in Greek. THAT is a fact and I have yet to see you do anything other than hide from it.

"You have conveniently provided an out for yourself."

No 'out' is required. My position is independant of what the original language was, it doesn't make one bit of difference to me if it was Greek or not. YOU however put great emphasis on what kind of conditional Greek sentace structure is used even though you can't say for sure if it was James who picked it or not. Your arguments are riddled with logical flaws like that. You also have not explained how you can claim I violated an intent when you also claim the author didn't have that intent.

"For James 1:5, yes."

So what's the problem then?

"I've been writing logic for over 2 decades "

I find that sooooooooooooo hard to belive (unless you admit you write bad logic). Your unwarented conclusion, contradictions, arguments from silence, appeals to authority, name calling and tendancy to employ misdirection in accusing me of the errors you make lead me to think you might have written spin for over 2 decades, but not sound logical arguments.

"I caught your hint of a formal logical argument from silence; saw it for the dodge that it was and purposely brought the issue back on topic. "

So since when did acknowledging there is a silence and refusing to draw conclusions from it become an argument from silence?

"you have no physical evidence to support your thoughts that James might not have been written in Greek. Zero, nada, goose-egg, zilch - that summarizes all the evidence to support your thoughts. "

I never claimed otherwise. But you run away from confronting the fact that evidence for your claim that it was originaly Greek is also insufficent. THAT is the issue, that YOUR position is based (in part) on an unproven and unprovable premise. Bad logic.

"The facts are that every single piece of evidence we have supports Greek as the original language."

I have no problem with that. But you ignore that what evidence exists is insufficient to PROVE the originals were in Greek. An older Aramaic manuscript could possibly show up any time, or never at all, even if the original was in Aramaic. Do you have the courage and honesty to admit that is a possibility?

"But you'll accept what they say as credible because it helps you ignore the facts."

Please note that I did not say I considered them correct, I only pointed out their existance as evidence that the matter of what the original language was is not an open and shut case. Nor is physical evidence the only evidence that some scholars will consider, as there is no reason to believe everything that is true has physical evidence to back it up.

It doesn't matter to me if it was Greek or not, it has no impact on my position so I have nothing to fear from admitting the fact that we just don't know what the original language was. Your positions is tied to the orginals being Greek however, so you are doing your best to employ yet another straw man and claim my position is other than it is, while YOU ignore the FACT that we don't know for sure if James picked that Greek syntax or some scribe later on.

"When it gets down to admitting you're wrong"

LOL!

"That is, state we don't know if the text is accurate or that we don't have the originals. "

I realize since I'm about to post quotes and not repost the entire thread that they came from you might resort to claiming I quoted you out of context, but I will provide the link to the thread instead so everyone can look them all up for themselves and judge for themselves.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/806452/posts?q=1&&page=1

#235: scripter: "And while we don't have originals, we do have thousands of copies with a very small margin of differences."

#242: Grig: I glad you can admit there are differences.

#250: scripter: It would be incorrect to state otherwise

#298: Grig: The difference between the different papyri is nothing but trivia to me, except to establish that the copies are not perfect copies of the original as some like to claim.

The word 'hypocrite' come to mind about now.

"That speaks volumes as you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like"

The only thing I've dismissed is your personal opinions about what v5 means. I've done that using logic, other scripture, and pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments.

Your avoidance techniques are old and thread-bare. If all you intend to do is to respond to my valid critisms and questions by ignoring them, repeating yourself over and over, acting all arrogant and snooty, and then accusing me of doing the very things you are quilty of, fine, I can't stop you from being like that. Just don't think you are fooling anyone but yourself.

"Reasons based on 4 or 5 Greek dictionaries and just as many commentaries."

To date, nothing you've posted specificly about the Greek text supports the restriction you claim are there. Only the personal opinions given in their commentaries support it. That's just not good enough in my book. In religous matters, scholars have a pretty poor track record and not all scholars are in agreement.

Do you take the opinion of EVERY scholar as valid? If not, how do you pick what scholars to listen to and which to ignore? Doesn't that in the end indirectly make YOU the scholar you follow?

"The "And if" at the beginning of verse 5 references the previous verse"

But it is not the same thing as 'if and only if'. Since the WET uses 'if' and not 'if and only if' why do you esentialy read that into it? If that is REALLY what the Greek text indicates, whey did Wuest not put that in there?

"Wuest expands the Greek words and sentence structure to point out the wisdom being requested is specifically for trials."

It says "And if, as is the case, anyone of you [when undergoing these trials] is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request" Wuest point out a specific situation (trials) where having additional wisdom is desireable, even required. It still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. If I say 'when you are sick, go to bed and rest' that doesn't mean you should stay awake 24/7 until you are sick.

However, the comment 'when undergoing these trials' comes from Wuest's personal interpretation, not from the Greek text, that's why he enclosed it inside square brackets. Deal with it.

"James states the wisdom here is specifically for trials. "

No he doesn't. You are ignoring the [] again.

"But no, Grig, demonstrating his profound ignorance of all things Greek decides Wuest is wrong and we can claim this verse for anything. "

Straw man. I'm agreeing with Wuest, especial his use of [] to offset his commentary from the actuall translation.

"You would have a point if you could demonstrate from the Greek where Wuest goes wrong."

In case you missed it, I didn't say Wuest went wrong, I said the conclusions you draw from it are wrong and not justified. Wuest was wise and honest enough to offset his own interpretation from the actual translation using square brackets. They are in [] specificly because Wuest does NOT want them to be taken as being directly implied in the Greek originals. YOU are disagreeing with Wuest, but too wrapped up in yourself to see it.

"Again you try to change the meaning of my above comment. Here's the full sentence: You have demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge in all areas of the hellenized times and yet you think your ignorant position carries more weight than Greek scholars "

I told you before I sometimes use quotes like that as placeholders. Shame on me for trying to save a little bandwidth by not quoting the full thing when it's right here on the same page for all to see anyway. Sheesh!

And my reaction is still the same, LOL!

You have little information on what I have and have not studied over the years, and it would not be wise to make assumptions you could later regret. It is profoundly arrogant to assume only someone who is ignorant can disagree with you.

Precious little of our discussion has even focused on any details of hellenized times other than the whole Greek issue so far. But the pattern has been the same over and over, you lay out some quote from some source that you claim proves your side, I show you how what you claim is different than the claims of the quote or how it doens't conflict with my position, you resort to declaring me ignorant without fully dealing with the substance of my reply, and so on and so on...

You just can't handle having someone disagree with you and who won't roll over when you use the word 'scholar'. I figure if your position really is scholarly one, then your should at least be able to put up a decent, logical, consistant argument for your position.

You don't want to know about or consider any scholar or fact that disagrees with the position you've already taken because in your mind, if they really were a scholar, they would agree with you. Sad.

"You have too much invested in your position to admit..."

Given your track record with accusations, my guess is that what your problem is.

BTW, that partial sentance quote is another placeholder, no need to get all indignant about my leaving the end off (that is what scroll bars are for you know).

If you don't have anyting better to offer, it might be wise to agree to disagree at this point, but I'll leave that decision up to you.

You state that if my position is scholarly I should be able to put up a decent, logical consistent argument. I have put forth the very arguments of scholars but you disagree, yet you disagree without a Greek education or an argument based on the Greek. You just disagree in ignorance. When I say you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, I am not engaging in name calling; ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge and can be cured.

You state I haven't shown you anyplace where a Greek scholar supports the wisdom in James 1:5 is specific to trials. You state that by putting comments in brackets Wuest is incorrectly interpreting the passage which you have no expertise from which to critique. You can post all the links you can find to discuss what square brackets mean. To make your point you need to show where Wuest is incorrect in what he writes.

You state you have dismissed my opinion using logic, other scripture, and pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments. That has to be the most profoundly untrue statement you have yet made on this thread. You try to twist my words into formal logical statements to setup a strawman. You repeatedly twist what I say in some pitiful attempt to bolter your extremely weak position. You have not listed a single Scripture reference that I can find on this thread whereas I have listed numerous Scripture references that you rarely even mention and conveniently dismiss. You did list some biblical references in another thread but the verses you listed, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with what you were claiming at the time.

You call me a hypocrite but you once again have no idea what I'm talking about because you have little knowledge on the subject matter. You do not understand what I say because you don't know enough on the subject matter, and that is being kind.

The links you cite to try and water down my arguments have no physical evidence to support their thoughts. The earlist physical evidence we have for the New Testament is written in Greek. Even the sources you listed admitted as much.

The Adam Clarke Bible Commentary you quoted defined wisdom in the same way I defined it in the first post, yet you tried to twist it to mean something else. When I put the definitions side by side the similarities were quite obvious.

You state I have little information on what [you] have and have not studied. From your statements and your questions about Jews, the hellenized times, the language, etc, it is quite obvious to the informed reader you are desperately trying to come across as one informed, but you are not. But if by a very very slim chance I am wrong here, then you are purposely acting ignorant, and that means you are playing games and wasting time.

You continually misrepresent my position. You have incorrectly stated my position many times regarding the original manuscripts. You don't even know my position but you think you do. This should help you:

What we can't prove with absolute certainty:

In what language the letter of James was originally written
Whether the sun will rise tomorrow

For at least thousands of years the sun has continued to rise every day and we have thousands of Greek manuscripts that continue to give testimony of the language of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament.

What we don't have:

The original letter from James

What we do know about James and the book of James:

James was a hellenized Jew with an excellent understanding of the Greek language
Every manuscript we have is written in Greek
James was writing to Jews

We also know the common language of the time was Greek. Other than having the original document, it doesn't get any better for verifying historical documents than what we have of not just the book of James, but the entire New Testament. With your mindset I'm surprised you believe any history.

It really boils down to what you said at the end of this post:

And what I said is that we don't know for sure who decided to use that particular Greek syntax (fact), and that must be taking into account when trying to determine author intent.

This is the out you've provided for yourself. You can always fall back to this position saying we don't know anything for sure. That speaks volumes as you can conveniently dismiss whatever you don't like, always claiming we don't know if what we have is an accurate record. In doing so you can continue to rip James 1:5 out of the context of trials, and that speaks volumes - you just have too much invested here to stop now despite the above facts.

You state you find it sooo hard to believe I've been writing logic for over 2 decades. What matters to me is the Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies that repeatedly hire me contractually for help. That is all I will say on this. What I think the issue is that I refuse to go along with your attempts to change the subject.

[from post] 23 "Because I think if very clearly states a true principle and that using it as I do in no way alters the intended meaning of the author. I also know from personal experience that it is true in the general case, not just when it comes to enduring trials. Do you really think James would jump up and object if he could when I encourage someone to seek wisdom from God for some other righteous purpose and point them to v5?"

That doesn't answer the question. Look at John 15:7:

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

Since this is a general case, you are saying it's perfectly fine to quote John 15:7b as

ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you

In doing so you are removing it from the immediate context of

If you remain in me and my words remain in you

and you are also removing it from the general context. Using your logic, I could say the Bible says I can ask for whatever I wish and it will be given to me. I want 10 million dollars within 5 minutes. Hey I waited 5 minutes and didn't get it. How come? You can argue whatever you want. Eventually you're going to have to rely on context somewhere to support why I didn't get it.

Another example: Claiming James 1:5, someone wants wisdom to know how to trick their neighbor's wife into sleeping with them. But they don't get it. Why? You can argue whatever you want, eventually you're going to have to rely on context somewhere. And when you do, you'll be guilty of using context selectively whenever it suits your beliefs. And that's exactly why we must always recognize the context and claim Bible verses in the correct context.

It doesn't matter what verse you are asking about. I still consider James 1:5 to be a clear statement of a true principle and that I'm not using it in a way that alters the intended meaning of the author.

Yet the context is trials. At the beginning of verse 5 Wuest says: And if as is the case. I keep pointing out to you the context is trials and Wuest (along with the other references) are the reason I say the context is trials - I've studied this issue in detail. The And if as is the case is similar to a "therefore" when you see it in the Bible. You have to look at the previous passages to see what the "therefore" is there for.

And if as is the case for what? Well that's easy: And if as is the case anyone of you [when undergoing these trials]. Wuest is merely displaying the context in brackets, as the And if as is the case references the previous verses with their context being trials. If you disagree, then what does the And if as is the case reference?

You cannot logically deny the connection to the previous verses and perhaps you don't. But, I believe we are making progress as when we started this discussion you stated verse 5 was unrelated to verses 2-4 and verses 6-12. Now you say verse 5 is related to the surrounding verses of trials but the wisdom is a general case.

Here's verse 5 from Wuest:

And if as is the case anyone of you when undergoing trials is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, [a pure, simple giving of good without admixture of evil or bitterness], and who does not [with the giving of the gift] reproach [the recipient with any manifestation of displeasure or regret], and it shall be given him..

Do you think Wuest incorrectly interprets the rest of verse 5 with what he puts in brackets here, or is he just expanding the Greek words and providing the context? If you think he gets off track, show where he goes wrong using the Greek. My sources support Wuest.

We have to continue to back up to see what the And if as is the case is there for and we'll see the precise reason why Wuest put the context [when undergoing these trials] in brackets. As a side note, I believe the And if as is the case is similar to saying: "Since this is the case" depending on to what part of the sentence you are referring.

Here's Wuests' verse 4:

But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

According to the many dictionaries and commentaries I consulted, when the words are expanded we get the following for verse 4:

The ability to turn testing into greatness and glory must finish its work so that you may be perfect for a given end, with weaknesses and imperfections gone, deficient in nothing.

The "aformentioned patience" is perseverence, which the dictionaries expand as "the ability to turn testing into greatness and glory". Note it's the aforementioned patience - a reference to perseverence in verse 3, which is the last half of the sentence that starts as verse 2. So the aforementioned patience is tied to verses 2 and 3. The more we look at this the more we see how each verse is connected and how it completely supports my position.

Continuing with Wuest:

[Verse 5] And if as is the case for anyone when undergoing trials is deficient in wisdom

The And if as is the case refers to the previous verse:

[Verse 4] But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.

The aforementioned patience here refers to patience in verse 3:

[Verse 3] knowing experientially that the approving of your faith, that faith having been put to the test for the purpose of being approved, and having met the test, has been approved, [that this approving process] produces a patience which bears up and does not lose heart or courage under trials.

Which brings us to the beginning of the immediate context of trials, verse 2:

[Verse 2] Consider it a matter for unadulterated joy [without any admixture of sorrow] whenever you fall into the midst of variegated trials which surround you,

You say it's not the same as saying 'if and only if' but it doesn't have to say if and only if; as the context is the qualifier. And the context is wisdom specifically to endure trials. Even further, the wisdom is specific to helping Christians meet the trial in the right way which makes Christians strenthened and purified, helps Christians to turn the trial into greatness and glory, making Christians mature and removes weaknesses and imperfections. That is the context of the wisdom in James 1:5. Wuest inserted [when undergoing these trials] to show the context of And if as is the case because it's referring to the previous verse (verse 4), which is referring to its previous verse (verse 3), which is the same sentence as the verse before that (verse 2).

When studying the Greek in detail it is very obvious the wisdom in James 1:5 is not a general case as you say. It is specifically tied to trials and quoting it as a general case and ripping it from the context of trials is changing the original intent of the author. The proper passages to claim in prayer for wisdom (and other things) are 1 Kings 3:5-14, Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, and John 15:7, as the context is a general case in each instance, with the qualifier that God is glorified.

"You state that if my position is scholarly I should be able to put up a decent, logical consistent argument. I have put forth the very arguments of scholars but you disagree"

I point out how the facts they cite do not add up to a decent, logical consistent argument for the position you state. You then ignore the substance of my remarks, and send forth your legion of straw men and constant appeals to authority. You posts reek of arrogant, elitist intellectualism that feels it is above responding to any critisms in a substantial way.

Just what is you think is so sacred about the opinion of a scholar? Do you think they can't be wrong? Do you think they all agree? There are Greek scholars of my faith with just as good credentials and profesional standing and reputation who disagree. Do you roll over and accept their views simply because they are a Greek scholar? '

"yet you disagree without a Greek education or an argument based on the Greek. "

You have failed to show how the Greek text itself supports your arguments FOR your position and excludes my position. Instead you rely on the personal interpretations of that text to bolster your case. Likewise it is foolish to think that because a person is a Greek scholar that they will perfectly understand a manuscript, even though they have the skill to translate it. Misunderstandings among people who speak the same language and live in the same cultural and historical context are as common as dust, so it is foolish to think some 'expert' who has studied an ancient civilization and language (not lived in it) will never misunderstand an ancient author's intent.

"You just disagree in ignorance."

I state very clearly my reasons for disagreement. If your desire is to 'cure' me of the ignorance you claim I suffer from, address my counterpoints. So far your record is one of ignoring those reasons, or mis-represent them, or just throwing more bad logic at them.

"When I say you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, I am not engaging in name calling"

Certainly you are. Just because you think it is accurate doesn't mean it isn't name calling.

"You state I haven't shown you anyplace where a Greek scholar supports the wisdom in James 1:5 is specific to trials."

Not so, I said "To date, nothing you've posted specificly about the Greek TEXT supports the restriction you claim are there."

"You state that by putting comments in brackets Wuest is incorrectly interpreting the passage"

Again you misrepresent me. I said: "Kudos to Wuest for using square brackets properly instead of protraying his interpretation as if it was more than that.... I didn't say Wuest went wrong, I said the conclusions you draw from it are wrong and not justified."

"You can post all the links you can find to discuss what square brackets mean. "

Translation: Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.

"To make your point you need to show where Wuest is incorrect in what he writes."

No, for two reasons: first, Wuest was honest enough to demark his comments as comments using [], so his translation does NOTHING to support your claim that the Greek text itself establishes some restriction on wisdom. Second, even if his comment is taken as being directly from the Greek text, it still doesn't limit the scope of the remark to ONLY wisdom to endure trials, and it doesn't limit to ONLY asking when in a trial. It in no way indicates any intent on James' part to put such a restriction on things.

"You state you have dismissed my opinion using logic, other scripture, and pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments. That has to be the most profoundly untrue statement you have yet made on this thread."

I'm perfectly content to let the lurkers (if any) make their own mind up about that.

"You try to twist my words into formal logical statements to setup a strawman."

It's tempting to reply with 'If your position had any logic to it, no twisting would be needed to put it into formal logical statements.' But I won't take cheep shots like that.

There is no intention to twist your words, but from my POV your position itself is twisted and self-contridictory, on one hand you claim using v5 to anything other than wisdom to endure trials violates the intent of the author, but you also deny that James intended his remarks to be limited that way. Make up your mind or take the time to reconcile the two ideas. Anytime you feel I've misrepresented your views, you are free to point out just where I went wrong and correct that instead of waving it away crying straw man. Why not do that?

"You have not listed a single Scripture reference that I can find on this thread whereas I have listed numerous Scripture references that you rarely even mention and conveniently dismiss."

Cry me a river. I've dismissed no scripture and I enjoy the irony of taking the verses you post and showing how they support my view. Our disagreement is a very narrowly defined one and I'm trying to keep the focus on it by avoiding side issues.

"You did list some biblical references in another thread but the verses you listed, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with what you were claiming at the time. "

And then later on you pulled out those verses to use them pretty much the same way I did.

"You call me a hypocrite"

I said the word comes to mind when you attack me for not ignoring facts you admitted to before, of course there are other reasons that could account for such behavior.

"but you once again have no idea what I'm talking about because you have little knowledge on the subject matter."

So, are you saying that because I'm not a 'Greek scholar' that I can recognize when a person contradicts themselves?

Precious little of our discussion has even focused on any details of hellenized times. But the pattern has been the same over and over, you lay out some quote from some source that you claim proves your side, I show you how what you claim is different than the claims of the quote or how it doens't conflict with my position, you resort to declaring me ignorant without fully dealing with the substance of my reply, and so on and so on...

"The links you cite to try and water down my arguments have no physical evidence to support their thoughts."

So what, there is no reason to believe everything that is true has physical evidence to back it up. You ignore that what evidence exists is insufficient to PROVE the originals were in Greek, and even those scholars who are of the opinion that the originals were Greek admit it is an OPINION, not a proven fact. They know an older Aramaic manuscript could possibly show up any time, or never at all, even if the original was in Aramaic. Do you have the courage and honesty to admit that is a possibility?

"The earlist physical evidence we have for the New Testament is written in Greek."

So what. That proves nothing.

"The Adam Clarke Bible Commentary you quoted defined wisdom in the same way I defined it in the first post, yet you tried to twist it to mean something else."

It is not the definition of the word 'wisdom' that is in dispute, it is the intent of the author reguarding v5 that we disagree on, as I understand things. Clarke's commentary for v5 did not limit the application of v5 to as you did.

"From your statements and your questions about Jews, the hellenized times, the language, etc, it is quite obvious to the informed reader you are desperately trying to come across as one informed, but you are not. "

Which statements? Which questions? List them.

Your entire post #47 is nothing more than you whining about not liking my replies while doing everything you can to avoid addressing the issues I raise and the flaws in your logic I point out. You rehash issues I've already answered as if they are new, you look down your nose and sneer as if that alone is argument enough, you ignore what I have already said many times over and claim I said the opposite to create a straw man to knock over. I'm able to respect an opinion that I disagree with, but not a person who stoops to such tactics over and over.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.