RE: Fundamental Baptists.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
To force it into some construct of "let-down dress" is how the word came into being, but how it was used and understood by Greeks from 400BC to AD100 was some totally different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, none of the lexicons you refer to tells us the meaning of the word in the time period 400BC-100AD. All they tell us is what the editors of the lexicons believed the word meant at the time the lexicon was published. To determine the philogical meaning of the word we must research the writings of that period, as I noted in the Tertullian quote.

Any dictionary/lexicon lacking a philology section can be very misleading.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Actually, none of the lexicons you refer to tells us the meaning of the word in the time period 400BC-100AD. All they tell us is what the editors of the lexicons believed the word meant at the time the lexicon was published.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slick ... but in your words "very misleading." The lexicons do not tell us what the editors think the word meant at the time the lexicon was published. It tells us what the editors think it meant during its usage in the period under question. For instance, BAGD is a Greek Lexicon of New Testament Literature. It does not tell us what a word meant in the 1900s when the various editions were published. It tells us in the 1900s (2000s) what the word meant when it was used in the NT times. LSJ is more comprehensive, especially in regard to classical Greek though it extends to koine Greek as well.

Again, I ask the question, if your understanding is right, why do none of the major lexical sources even give a hint of it, not even as an alternative meaning?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
If the word means "lowered robe" as you assert, why are all the translations mistranslating this word?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't believe all of them do so. If we look at the older English versions we see the following:

Wycliff 1380: couenable abit (covenable habit) a habit (an old English word for robe or gown). (OED)

Tyndale 1525: comlye aparell (comely apparell). In late Middle English "aparell" was a noun/verb meaning "to dress in a long robe, especially a formal robe of office." (OED)

Cranmer 1539: Comlye apparell.

Geneva 1557: Comely apparel.

KJV 1611/1769: Modest apparell.

Revised English Version 1865: becomming apparel.

English Revised Version 1881: modest apparel.

RSV 1952: seemly apparel.

Each of these versions maintains the concept of a habit, robe, or gown.

It was not until the New American Standard Bible of 1960 that we see the change from apparel (denoting habit, robe, or gown) to the very generic "clothing."

The NIV deletes the noun altogether and translates only the adjectives "to dress modestly."

The NKJV (bless their little hearts) rightly returns to the "modest apparel" of the earlier English versions again reasserting the concept of "habit, robe, or gown."

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

How about everyone finishing up what they have to say about "lowered robes" and "modest apparel" and then I will close the topic. This has run into six pages and is no longer addressing the original question.

 

Beep, Beep!!!

Roadrunner!!! If he closes you your through!

Beep, Beep!!!!!!!

Please close this silliness now.

Beep, Beep!!!!!

Joseph Botwinick

 

Mr Vaughn -

I can almost hear the agitation in your typing. I enjoyed this thread, too. I appreciate Dr. Griffin's breakdown of the types of fudamentalist on page 2. It shows a good deal of insight.
As I'm sure you're aware, my denomination, the SBC, has had a so called "fundamental resurgence" in the past 30 years. As a church-going Christian, I agree to most of their Biblical adherence and interpretation but, just as was stated by Mr. Siegfried, NNE has a right to say that someone is Christian or not because of the way they believe the Scriptures. That is "playing God."

I believe the closing arguments on "lowered robes" show what will happen to the fundamental machine in the SBC. Sooner or later, just as we have witnessed on the Baptist Board, two members will disagree on a fine point and it will collapse in a self-righteous heap.

I will state once again for the record, my beliefs are of a fundamental strain. I firmly believe in the Truth of scripture, but I also believe that all who profess and believe in Christ are made in the image of God and therefore represent a portion, a glimpse if you will, as to the true essence of God.

No one, group, nor organization can put God in a box. Was the creation 6 days? It could have been. I wasn't there. How God created the universe is His business. To ME, a Christian, what matters is that we are here NOW. Were the Scriptures written by God or fallible men? I am no authority but as a Christian I turn to these writings for guidance, comfort and truth. THAT is what matters to me.

I do not wish to inflame anyone with these comments. If you are a fundamentalist, I probably agree with you on scriptural beliefs, if you are a moderate, I will defend your right to state YOUR belief. This is Christian. This is Baptist. This is American.

May God bless you

- Clint

 

Clint,

I appreciate your comments. They do strike back to the root of the discussion. By the way, please call me "Siegfried." I don't deserve the Mr.

Dr. Cassidy,

I hope you will at least concede that there is sufficient question about the "lowered robes" that it ought not be a test of fundamentalism. Our extended arguing over it is so typical of fundamentalism's majoring on the minors.

I appeal to the historic definition of fundamentalism, which is as I understand it:

1. Unwavering commitment to the cardinal doctrines of the faith (Verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, creation, the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth, His death and resurrection, His atonement for our sins, salvation by grace through faith, and ??premillennialism?? [I think]. Have I left anything out?)

2. Willingness to contend for all of the above.

Those who call themselves Fundamentalists are not the only ones who meet that historical definition. My sense is that many within the SBC and a wider spectrum of Evangelicalism are historic Fundamentalists who have been turned off by the sparring and separation over historical non-issues. On the other hand, I'm convinced there are a good number within those groups who have compromised the Gospel through their associations, endorsements, and joint evangelistic ventures. That I cannot condone and, by God's grace, will always condemn.

 

I think Clint's and Siegfried's final posts just about sum things up. Everybody else has had 8 to 10 hours to finish what they might have to say about apparel, so I'll gonna close her up now.