Found it - (I think)
Okay, I think I have found the 'source' of Suzannes 'article'. (if anyone cares)
I believe she got it from 'More Than Meets the Eye' by Ann Nyland and considering the vitriolic and badly written nature of much of the book, no wonder she didn't want to admit were she got it from. (Also it might have been from the online version of the book that was on GWtW because she does say she came across it whilst surfing)
But I have to say I would still like to see an actual copy of the full original article before I am fully happy about its provenance because I have found Ann Nyland to be very untrustworthy in her book when reporting what people are supposed to have said or written. I actually have a copy of this book and I was stunned at the shear level of what it would be more than kind to call 'a creative approach' to reporting what others had written & said.
She may well be accurate in her reporting in this instance, but given her track record elsewhere in the book.....well lets just say I currently find it easier to believe the opposite of what she has to say without a shed load of varifiable evidence to the contrary. She really is her own worst enemy.
I believe she got it from 'More Than Meets the Eye' by Ann Nyland and considering the vitriolic and badly written nature of much of the book, no wonder she didn't want to admit were she got it from. (Also it might have been from the online version of the book that was on GWtW because she does say she came across it whilst surfing)
But I have to say I would still like to see an actual copy of the full original article before I am fully happy about its provenance because I have found Ann Nyland to be very untrustworthy in her book when reporting what people are supposed to have said or written. I actually have a copy of this book and I was stunned at the shear level of what it would be more than kind to call 'a creative approach' to reporting what others had written & said.
She may well be accurate in her reporting in this instance, but given her track record elsewhere in the book.....well lets just say I currently find it easier to believe the opposite of what she has to say without a shed load of varifiable evidence to the contrary. She really is her own worst enemy.
posted by Glennsp at 20:29
6 Comments:
Glenn, I think you are right about the source of Suzanne's quote. I assume that Dr. Nyland got the quote from Dr. Sproul's original message on the Ligonier Ministry website, just as I did. That ministry now has its own Internet address. I have asked them for a copy of Dr. Sproul's message "Evangelical Lap Dogs" which they originally posted on their previous website, to which I linked on my TNIV links webpage.
Glenn,
I did find the quote from the God's Word to women webpage. I have not read Nyland's book.
However, I have just reread this chapter and I cannot find anything in it that sounds at all inaccuarate. I knew most of this in 1998.
Could you give me an example of something which she writes which is not true.
I have read one article of her research on Greek and it is what I would expect of any classicist, I suppose I would think of myself that way, although I have studied Hellenistic and NT Greek as well.
You put Thayer's lexicon up against Nyland's book, but this lexicon has never been recommended at any of the institutions where I studied Greek, for some very good reasons. You can read reviews of Thayer's at Amazon.
You quote meaning g in Thayer's up against meaning a in Liddell Scott, which Nyland uses. That would not convince anyone.
Rght after that you argue the exact reverse, that ανηρ must mean 'men' although meaning 6 is generic. So you successfully contradict yourself in that post, Glenn, but I understand that you are not familiar with Greek, so I didn't want to comment on it.
Actually I read Grudem's book and when he talks about ανηρ he leaves part of the dictionary entry out. It struck me as very odd, because he leaves out an idiom which he says he does not know the reference for, but I had just been reading the idiom in Aristotle that week, so it leapt off the page for me. That is, I knew the idiom from my own casual reading but Grudem says couldn't find the reference. That is what makes Grudem seem inept to a classicist.
I hope you don't find that a vitriolic comment Glenn, I just feel for these guys sometimes, that they didn't devote their entire teenage life to studying Greek as I did.
Back to Nyland, I cannot agree with your criticism of Nyland's work based on what I have read myself.
However, if you give me a concrete example of an error I would be glad to check it out.
The R.C. Sproul ministry sent me a photocopy of Dr. Sproul's message, "Evangelical Lap Dogs." It arrived today, taking only two days from when I requested it.
Suzanne's quote from Dr. Sproul's messages is accurate and her citation source is accurate. The quote is found on page 7 of the November 2002 issue of Tabletalk, by Dr. Sproul.
If you wish to see a scan of the photocopy of the section of the original message which Suzanne quote, click here.
Thank you Wayne for all your efforts in this matter.
This is how it should have been handled from the start.
Tracking down the primary soutce (please note, no attempt to withhold this by Ligonier Ministries) and then restricting comments to the perceived issue at hand.
R C Sprouls actual mistake is limited to a strange lapse regarding the KJV. His statements regarding 'sons' as opposed to 'children' are, apart from that quite reasonable.
Let me see; (from versions on my shelf)
NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, Living, Amplified, all have 'sons'.
NRSV, KJV, NJB, have 'children'.
(Although I have the Message I consider it little more than a novelty, in fact I find some of what is done to the intrinsic meaning of the text to be a travesty in the Mesage, which is why I have left it out)
My personal take is that being designated as 'sons' of God has more inherent impact than
'children' of God.
When all the elements are taken into consideration I would go with 'sons' as the better translation and as carrying the greater import.
Glenn,
I would like to deal with your original contention, that you would not believe the quote from Nyland's book, without further evidence. I have so far, from the very little I have read, found her research to be reliable. That does not mean I endorse this book, which I have not read.
Sproul does demonstrate an ignorance of translation tradition from Wycliffe to the late 19th century, not only in English, but also in German and Dutch. The quote Sproul chose to demonstrate his point was from the Sermon on the Mount, a passage which some people often commit to memory.
I really don't know what else to say about this. Jesus was not refering to the biological male offspring of God, he was talking about a people, the people of God.
Glenn,
I want to add that your exacting inquiry was very beneficial in this case. This kind of dialogue is essential.
I thank you sincerely for pressing for the original article.
Post a Comment
<< Home