To the Forum:
I am not advocating any text, because I think that every text is possibly errored. I think every text is ignorant of the [u:97468fdf11]ENTIRE complete true image of God[/u:97468fdf11].΅ BY GOD'S DESIGN! [u:97468fdf11]At best we only know what has been revealed[/u:97468fdf11]. If you disagree with this then explain what infinity is. You can't. It is too large a concept, just as God is.
Although texts are questionable, many people's faith in God are not. People know thier own faith is true(or not true) So being raised Catholic I know that most Catholics truly have faith in Jesus as saviour. There are various doctrines in disagreement with the Protestant doctrines. The faith on both sides of that Catholic/Protestant coin are in Jesus as Saviour. The same with Thiemites, thier faith is in Jesus as saviour. Most people regardless of "errored doctrines" approach thier faith in Jesus honestly and faithfully. It is thier very own approach of honest devout faith that weakens thier own critical eye to look at errors within thier own "faith/doctrine". It is much easier to find fault with someone's else's doctrines, than thier own.
To break the grip of the psycological bond that Thieme holds over many of his most extreme followers, they need to see with thier own eyes the errors Thieme has made from Thieme's own references. You can beat YOUR IDEA of truth over the head of a cult member all day, it won't do any good. They are programmed to doubt whatever you say. You must show them exactly how thier cult leader is false. So Thiemites need to go through the exercise of what Thieme has referenced. This is the reason that I have produced factual evidence for the Thieme-Chafer-DTS trilogy. I have produced evidence for Thiemites to develop thier own critical eye(critical thinking), while recovering from Thieme, however they choose to. It is within the microcosm of the Thieme-Chafer-DTS trilogy, that I seek to prove Thieme's falsehoods.
For example:
You start with Thieme's references.
Thieme has referenced Arndt and Gingrich in BOC 1972 ,
Quote
"Arndt and Gingrich famous German linguistic scholars, were the first ones to get a breakthrough on "haima." On page 22 of their Greek Lexicon, there is a dissertation on how they discovered it."
Thieme stated in BOC 1972
Quote
"For example, in Colossians 1:22, "death" is in the singular - one death. The Greek noun here is "thanatos" and refers to His spiritual death. When it comes to His physical death, the Greek word is "[b:97468fdf11]nekros[/b:97468fdf11]." Often when the resurrection of Christ is mentioned, it is from "nekros," not from "thanatos." The only time that "[b:97468fdf11]nekros[/b:97468fdf11]" is used for spiritual death as well is when it is found in the plural as the object of the preposition "ek," as in Colossians 2:12: "... God, having raised him out from the DEATHS."
Ok now we go to Thieme's reference "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and early christian writings" Arndt and Gingrich. What does it say?
Brief description of nekros from Arndt and Gingrich
Quote
vεκpos, α, ov — 1. adj. (perh. as early as Horn., certainly Pind. + ; inscr., pap., LXX) dead.
a. lit. — a. of living beings etc..
β. lifeless (Wsd 15: 5) of the brass serpent etc...
b. fig. — a. of pers. etc...
β. of things v. epya dead works that cannot bring eternal life
2. [b:97468fdf11]subst.[/b:97468fdf11] 6 v. (so mostly Horn. +; inscr., pap., LXX, En. 103, 5; Philo; Jos., Bell. 4, 331 al.) the dead person.
a. lit. Lk 7: 15; etc...
[b:97468fdf11]In this combination v. without the article means all the dead, all those who are in the underworld[/b:97468fdf11] (vekpoi = the dead: Thu. 4, 14, 5; 5, 10, 12; Lucian, V.H. 1, 39; Polyaenus 4, 2, 5). [b:97468fdf11]Likew. in the expr. ek. v. and aπo v. [/b:97468fdf11](Bl-D. §254, 2; Rob. 791f). [b:97468fdf11]εyεipειv εκ v., εyεipεθαι εκ[/b:97468fdf11] v. Mt 17: 9; Mk 6: 14; Lk 9: 7; J 2: 22; 12:1, 9, 17; 21:14; Ac3:15; 4:10; 13: 30; Ro6: 4; 7: 4; 8: lla, b, 34 v.l.; 10: 9; 1 Cor 15: 12a, 20; Gal 1: 1; Eph 1: 20; [b:97468fdf11]Col 2:12[/b:97468fdf11]; 1 Pt 1: 21; IMg 9: 3; ITr 9: 2; Pol 2: If (1 Pt 1: 21); 5: 2.
subst. = substantive
*Note Col 2:12 is used only in once and it is grouped with Mt 17: 9; Mk 6: 14; Lk 9: 7; J 2: 22; 12:1, 9, 17; 21:14; Ac3:15; 4:10; 13: 30; Ro6: 4; 7: 4; 8: lla, b, 34 v.l.; 10: 9; 1 Cor 15: 12a, 20; Gal 1: 1; Eph 1: 20; [b:97468fdf11]Col 2:12[/b:97468fdf11]; 1 Pt 1: 21; IMg 9: 3; ITr 9: 2; Pol 2: If (1 Pt 1: 21); 5: 2.
So Col 2:12's meaning is the same as in all the rest. Thieme said it was used only once.
In addition, more research from Dr. Wall says "
Quote
Also the New Testament [b:97468fdf11]nekros[/b:97468fdf11] is an adjective meaning "dead," and when it is used as a [b:97468fdf11]substantive[/b:97468fdf11], it refers to a dead person, not death. As such it is used idiomatically in the plural to refer to the abode of the dead (i.e. "the dead ones"), and it never means the event of death.60 The Greek word for death is thanatos, and it is not used in the plural in the New Testament. [b:97468fdf11]Thieme's premise that the New Testament teaches that Christ rose from deaths, therefore, ignores the clear meaning of the terms[/b:97468fdf11].
Αlso you can go to crosswalk's interlinear to help Col 2:12's spelling. [
bible.crosswalk.com]
I am not a Greek scholar. I don't need to be. If necessary you can contact Dallas Theological Seminary. Scholars there will help you with the translation of this lexicon.
Also, as I have said before ANY BODY OF KNOWLEDGE (texts, book, etc..) can be used to create a cult. So, Whenever someone tells you "THE TRUTH" you should SOURCE IT OUT-YOURSELF - and verify if it's true or not true. Until you have, you should not let yourself be persuaded to accept it as the truth. The Truth stands on it's own and doesn't require persuasion.
But don't trust me, check it out for yourself.
By the way to my Protestant friend Liberty, since you referenced "Protestant Gales", Which religion would you ascribe to the weather(storm) which destroyed the British Navy's counter-attack at Yorktown? and as a result 2 days later Cornwallis surrendered, effectively ending the American Revolution?
Truthtesty