Ponder Scripture Newsletter
ith
the seemingly
endless array of Bible-based articles, newsletters and other
publications currently available on the Internet, there is a
veritable "information overload" of sorts when it comes to searching
for various Bible-related topics. Since there is already an
abundance of Bible-related topics to choose from, you can well
imagine that one could devote his or her full time to reading these
studies. June and I have added our share of studies to
cyberspace, some of which are very lengthy. Indeed, some
topics require lengthy explanations to provide in-depth answers.
On this page, however, we want to keep things as "short and sweet"
as possible. While we primarily gear our writings to those who
share our understanding that the Torah is relevant for believers
today, anyone is welcome to read and offer feedback; however, due to
our schedules, we cannot guarantee a quick turn-around response
time. We invite you to direct all
correspondence to seekutruth
at aol dot com.
Newsletter #20
STRIVING ABOUT WORDS
By Larry
and June Acheson
01/02/2018
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them
before the Master that they strive not about words to no profit, but to
the subverting of the hearers. -- 2 Timothy
2:14
ver the years we have found ourselves engaged in
conversations with various believers in which they occasionally dissect
words we say, insinuating that certain words we use demonstrate how and
why we are less spiritual than they are because certain words have
negative or even sinister implications. On the one hand, we appreciate
being corrected when we are wrong or even when better word choices can
and should be made. For example, many years ago we decided that
referring to Yeshua as the “Messiah” instead of “Christ” is a better
choice, not that it makes us any better or more “spiritual” than anyone
else, but it is nevertheless an anglicized version of the Hebrew
Moshiach that is generally understood as being a direct reference to
the Son of the Almighty. “Christ” (christos), on the other hand,
is a Greek term that in spite of its innocent meaning of “anointed,” in
ancient times was commonly used in reference to the many idols that the
Greeks worshipped. Since our Savior was a Hebrew of Hebrews who spoke
Hebrew, we are personally persuaded that “Messiah” is a better choice
than “Christ.” But we need to emphasize that this is our
personal preference.
There are other words in the English language with originally-noble
meanings that over time changed so drastically that most of us avoid
using them in our everyday speech. The most common example of this is
the word “gay.” Many years ago, using the word “gay” to describe one’s
joyful mood would have been considered appropriate in any setting. Not
so much here in the 21st century!
Several years ago a dear friend would good-naturedly correct us whenever
we used the word “sacred,” a word that he personally did not like. He
had this uncanny knack of breaking down words into parts, giving each
part its own special meaning, then using that as his basis for
determining what the word really means. In the course of our
conversations, he would occasionally interrupt us to say, “That word
‘sacred’ means ‘Satan's creed.’” One week, as we were about to
leave his residence for the trip home, he asked me to deliver the
message the following Sabbath, to which I replied, “That word ‘message’
means ‘mess of the age.’” Of course, I was only joking, although
my etymological treatment of the word “message” was every bit as
reckless as my friend’s manipulation of the word “sacred.”
More recently, we met a believer who noticed that I frequently use the
word “want” in my conversations. In an apparent desire for me to
understand that this is a poor choice of words, he explained that a
better choice is the word “desire.” He explained it something like
this: “Desire comes from above, want comes from ‘the old
man,’ i.e., from the flesh.” I’m paraphrasing, but hopefully you get
the gist of his argument. At first, I was surprised by the correction,
even though I had previously made it clear that I welcome correction
when needed. After a few moments of reflection, however, I explained
that the words want and desire are synonyms, which
means they are two words that mean the same thing. Nevertheless, the
man was unmoved in his determination that I was using a word with
negative implications. We eventually opened a dictionary, where I
pointed out that the definition of “want” means “to have a strong
desire.” If we could accept such a definition, this would place the
word “want” on more than equal footing with “desire” because
“desire” merely means “to wish or long for”! However, the man proceeded
to read the additional definitions of “want,” which can indicate “to be
deficient in; lacking,” “being in need,” etc. His general intent was
for me to understand that, of course, those who are spiritually mature
are never “deficient” or “lacking.” Nevertheless, when you think about
it, the same negative implications can be drawn from the word “desire.”
We have a book called Dictionary of Word Origins that identifies
the English word “desire” as originating from the Latin words “de”
(which means "from") and "sidus, sider" (which means “star”).
The book’s author goes on to write, “This is more readily noted in the
formal word desiderate, from Latin desiderare, to yearn
for, to lack, i.e., to be away from one's lucky star.” This is hardly
the noble origin of desire that the believer tried to instill in me.
I
can only wonder how the believer referenced above feels about the word
desire as it appears in Ephesians 2:3. Here’s the complete text:
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in
trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course
of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all behaved in times past in the
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others.
The English language is known as being a “melting pot” that has
incorporated words from many different languages around the world and it
so happens that the word “want” was borrowed from an Old Norse word that
means “to be lacking,” whereas “desire,” as referenced above, comes to
us from Latin. The two words are accepted as synonyms, but can
nevertheless be used by the speaker to express slightly different levels
of “lacking,” depending on context. Our Reader’s Digest Great
Encyclopedic Dictionary does a terrific job of identifying different
usages of words such as want, desire, wish, crave
and covet:
Desire, wish, want, crave,
and covet indicate longing to possess something. Desire
expresses ardent feeling, and is so often applied to sexual longing that
wish is commonly substituted for it to avoid that implication. Wish
is also used of things remote or unattainable: to wish to be
king. Want originally indicated urgent need, but is now used to
express less intense feeling than wish, or simply preference. Crave
is stronger than wish or desire, and suggests a compulsive
appetite: to crave liquor. We covet that which belongs to
another, with inordinate and often reprehensible longing.[1]
When someone tells you that their word choices are better than yours,
they had better be prepared to defend their reasoning. Otherwise, the
conversation will not be edifying to either party. Certainly, we should
all desire to choose our words carefully and the words we use should be
as edifying as possible. This is why the Apostle Paul cautioned various
believers to avoid “filthy communication”:
But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. (Col 3:8)
In
that same letter to the Colossians Paul also wrote,
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,
that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Col. 4:6)
Striving about words to no profit is not limited to Scriptural
discussions; it pervades the secular realm as well. In Lewis Carroll's
children’s book Through the Looking-Glass, the words we use
became a point of contention between the main character, Alice, and
Humpty Dumpty. During their conversation Humpty Dumpty suddenly
blurted:
“There's glory for you!”
“I don't know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don't
— till I tell you. I meant, “There's a nice knock-down argument for
you!”
“But ‘glory’ doesn't mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,”
Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean —
neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make
words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be
master — that's all.”
In
this make-believe scenario, Humpty Dumpty is applying an ill-advised
principle described by the Apostle Paul as “striving about words.” In
the above situation, Humpty Dumpty was redefining a word to suit
his whimsical purpose because he felt that he was the master who could
do as he pleased, even if his word choice made no sense to anyone else.
In the Bible, we read warnings to not “strive about words.” Here's what
the Apostle Paul counseled his fellow believer, Timothy in the book of
II Timothy, chapter 2:
14 Of these things put them in remembrance,
charging them before the Master
that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of
the hearers.
The Greek word translated “subverting” above is the word katastophe,
from which our English word “catastrophe” is derived. Indeed, we have
seen that striving about words can have devastating, catastrophic
repercussions. If you read Paul’s admonition to Timothy in full
context, you will see that those who “strive about words to no profit”
are false teachers. We really need to take Paul's admonition to Timothy
as a warning. The concerns that Paul had with striving about words were
not confined to his second letter to Timothy; he alluded to the same
issue in I Timothy 6:3-5:
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Master Yeshua the Messiah, and to
the doctrine which is according to holiness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words,
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and
destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is holiness: from such
withdraw thyself.
In
the conversation I had with the believer who was displeased with my use
of the word “want,” I quickly pointed out that he was “striving about
words,” and even after having him read the passage in full context with
me, he couldn't see that he was ‘striving’ at all. Rather, as he put
it, he was “listening to the Spirit,” which told him in essence that want has a fleshly application, whereas
desire has a
spiritual application. I can only counsel those who claim to be
listening to what the Spirit tells them that they need to be certain
they're listening to the right spirit. We have often been told
by self-proclaimed spiritual individuals that “God” told them
such-and-such, which is apparently supposed to stop all arguments.
However, the Bible provides examples of those who were certain they were
listening to the right spirit, but in the end it was not Yahweh’s
Spirit. One example is that of Hananiah, the son of Azur the
prophet, who openly mocked Jeremiah’s claim that the captive Jews would
serve the Babylonians for 70 years. Hananiah, claiming inspiration from
Yahweh, insisted that instead it would only be two years, after which
all the people and all the Temple furnishings would be restored to
Jerusalem. Yahweh revealed to Jeremiah that Hananiah had prophesied
falsely and within the space of two months, Hananiah was dead.[2]
Moral of the story: If we’re going to claim revelation or
inspiration from the Almighty, we had better be certain we’re getting it
from the right source.
In
making his point to Timothy that he should avoid “striving about words,”
Paul addresses an attribute of false teachers who tend to exhibit their
“knowledge” on matters that in the end do not edify the body, do not
lead to righteousness, but only exhibit self-pride about being “more
spiritual.” However, Paul wrote, “Now the end (i.e., goal) of
the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” (I Timothy 1:5)
Any time we use the Bible to grow in knowledge apart from righteousness,
we’re heading for spiritual trouble. One of the most common sins Satan
uses to trip us up is spiritual pride—puffing us up with supposed
knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1). To truly know Yahweh in His holiness and
majesty will humble us. When we study the Bible, we should always
ask, “What does this teach me about Yahweh and about myself? How
should I apply this to my life?”
Please don’t get me wrong: Words are important, but balance is key. We
would be wrong to conclude that “striving about words” means that the
precise words of Scripture do not matter. In fact, Yeshua taught that
the smallest letter of the law would not pass away without being
fulfilled (Matt. 5:17). We cannot underscore enough how important those
words are. It is important to study the precise words of Scripture and
to understand the nuance of the original languages so that we interpret
it properly, but when we argue that one translation of a Greek or Hebrew
word is better than another translated word, we need to proceed with
caution, especially with the English language, which as we mentioned
previously, is a melting pot of several other languages.
Few people are aware of the fact that the English we speak today would
not have been recognizable to English-speakers 1,000 years ago. The
English language has evolved and is in a seemingly constant state of
flux. I’ve already mentioned the evolution of the word “gay,” but who
among us knows that the word “villain” originally referred to someone
who lived in a village? It had no negative implications in its original
application. The word “silly” originally meant “blessed,” but we’ll
discuss the original meaning of “blessed” later. The English word
“niece” seems like such a nice word, but if you pronounce the same word
in Hebrew it means “fugitive.” This is just the tip of the iceberg!
When we examine word origins, it is amazing the number of English words
whose origin emanates from the
worship of heathen idols. As we are about to see, the English language
is so saturated with such words that it would be an exercise in futility
to remove them from our vocabulary. Such being the case, if we’re going
to diminish the spirituality of one individual over another based on his
or her word choices, it seems that we should at the very least
start with words whose origins can be traced to idol worship. Consider
the following: From the Egyptian idol Amon we have such words as
ammonia, which according to Dictionary of Mythology, Mainly
Classical, derives its name from the fact that sal ammoniac was
obtained from camel dung near the great shrine of Amon in Libya.[3]
By the way, the word vitamin comes from vita, which means
“life” and “Amon,” who was the Egyptian deity just mentioned.
Mars was known as the “god of war.” From this name are 
derived
such English words as martial, court-martial, March,
martin, and Mardi Gras.[4]
Clotho was an idol known as Clotho the Spinner, who was
the daughter of Zeus and Themis. She is pictured as carrying a spindle
and spinning the threads of life.[5]
You can now imagine where the English words clothing and
cloth originate. The words “Chronology” or
“chronological” are derived from Chronos, also known as Cronus.
He was considered by Greeks as being the “personification of time, or
eternity, itself.’”[6]
From the Greek idol Ceres we get the word cereal. The
association between Ceres and cereal, which is made from
grains such as wheat, corn and rice, becomes obvious when we learn that
Ceres was the divinity of crops.[7]
Mentor was a wise old friend of Odysseus. His name has passed
into the English language as a term for any wise and faithful counselor.[8]
According to The Private Lives of English Words, the word “money”
is derived from the worship of Juno Moneta: “Since the Romans
coined their money in the temple of Juno Moneta, the term came to
refer, by transference, to the place where the coins were stamped out
and to the money itself. As the word passed down through Late Latin and
then through Old French, the t disappeared owing to a normal
sound change, and the word was borrowed into English in the late 13th
century as money.[9]
According to Larousse World Mythology, Zeus’ companion for a time
was Mnemosyne, through whom he fathered nine daughters who became
known as the Muses, “who take pleasure in festivals and in the
joy of singing.”[10]
Can you guess the origin of the English word music? And how
about such words as amusement, museum and amuse?
By the way, one of the nine muses was named Polyhymnia; it
shouldn’t take much of an imagination to trace the origin of the English
word hymn. According to Who’s Who in Greek & Roman Mythology,
Mors is the “god of death.”[11]
Can you guess where we get such words as morbid, mortuary
and mortal? According to Dictionary of Mythology, Mainly
Classical, Morpheus was the son of Hypnos, the god of
sleep.[12]
Pan is known as the god of the wild, shepherds and flocks, nature
of mountain wilds and rustic music, and companion of the nymphs. From
his name the English language has incorporated such words as pantheon,
Pan-American, panorama, pantomime, pandemonium and
pantaloon.[13]
Somnos was the Roman god of sleep, from which are derived such
words as insomnia.[14]
There’s more: Set is the name of the Egyptian storm
deity, whose image appears on the right.[15]
What About the Word “Happy”?
There are many words in the English language whose origins etymologists
for some reason do not seem able to trace, leaving many to wonder how
they ever ended up in our vocabulary. Take the word “happy.” Our
dictionary traces this word to an Old Norse word Happ that means
“luck.” We all hopefully understand that “luck” is associated with
chance, i.e., good (or bad) fortune. More on “luck”
later. However, there was also an Egyptian deity whose variant names
included Hap, Hapi and Hapy. Hapy was a
water and fertility deity. Since we all need water and since fertility
is something that every culture desires, you might say that the
Egyptians celebrated and gave thanks to Hapy whenever there was
an abundance of water and when there was an abundance of children. You
might say that everyone was happy. It doesn’t take a lot of research to
find out about the idol named Hapy, but it doesn’t seem that
etymologists are too eager to make this connection in spite of what we
feel is an obvious association.
The
following information pertaining to the deity named Hapy is
taken from Ancient Egypt Online web site[16]:
By the way, the word “happen” is also derived from
happ.
The Word “Luck”
What is the origin of the word “luck”? According to the dictionaries we
have, “luck” is traced to “Luk,” but who or what was Luk? As it
turns out, there was an idol of fortune/wealth named “Luk.” In fact,
Luk was one of three deities and even in this modern age you can
purchase images of Luk online. The following is for illustration
purposes only, NOT to support purchasing idols!
From
https://www.fengshui-import.com/catalog/Three-Gods-Fuk-Luk-Sau-3888.html:
The Word “Bless”
What about the seemingly innocent word “bless”? Believe it or not, the
word bless stems from an old Anglo-Saxon word that originally
meant “to consecrate with blood, in sacrifice to the gods.”[17]
Its original association with blood is unmistakable and this
meaning crept in to the French language, where the verb blesser means “to hurt, injure, wound.”[18]
However, as word evolution goes, it was somehow mis-associated with the
unrelated word bliss. One thing led to another, and “bless” came
to mean “to consecrate, to praise, to speak well of, glorify,” etc. The
original pagan meaning of “bless” can be confirmed through other sources
as well, such as the Online Etymology Dictionary (https://www.etymonline.com),
where the author informs us that it originally meant a blood sprinkling
on pagan altars:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/bless
The Word “Church”
The word “church” is rightly dubbed a “mystery word” by various
scholars. Our Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary
traces its origin to Old English circe, but it doesn’t tell us
what circe means, at least not within that particular listing.
However, if you look up the word Circe in this same dictionary,
it sheds some heathen light on the subject: “In the Odyssey, an
enchantress who changed Odysseus’s companions into swine by a magic
drink.” One can only wonder how the name of an enchantress who changed
men into swine could evolve into the translation of a word that means
“congregation” (Greek ekklesia). There are those who would
dispute the notion that the English word “church” could possibly be
traced to the enchantress Circe. However, even if we were to
disprove that the word “church” is ultimately traced to Circe, we
would still be left with the fact that even those etymologists who
bypass a Circe origin must concede that the meaning of their
original word doesn’t carry the original meaning of “congregation.”
They maintain that “church” is traced to the Greek kyrios, which
means “Lord” and that “church” is the possessive use signifying
“belonging to the Lord” or in common usage it means “House of the Lord.”
However, “House of the Lord” is not the same as “assembly” or
“congregation.” Arguing that “church” is a legitimate translation of
“ekklesia” would be like tracing the word “paper” to a word that means
“tree” and insisting that such an origin makes sense because paper is
derived from trees. In fact, the word “paper” traces to the original
Greek word for the plant from which paper was derived, papyrus,
so arguing that the word “paper” is traced to a word that means “tree”
would be an example of incorrect etymology. Similarly, the Greek word
for “assembly” or “congregation” is ekklesia, which does not
carry the meaning of a building or house of worship, and this in turn
invalidates “church” as being a proper translation of ekklesia.
At best, then, church is a mistranslation of the Greek word
ekklesia. But what if the “at worst” scenario is true? What if
church is traced to an enchantress who changed men into swine?
Here’s how author Joseph T. Shipley traces “church” in his book Dictionary of Word Origins:
church.
The Greeks had at least three words for this. One of
them, ekklesia, first the general assembly of Athens, became Fr.
église, church; in Eng. it abides in ecclesiastic, q.v.
Another, basilike, gave us Eng. basilica; cp. bazooka.
A third was Gr. kuriakon doma, house of the Lord (kuriakon
is from kurios, lord. Doma, L. domum, gives us
domestic, etc.; cp. dome.). From the first word of this,
kuriakon, by a long trail over Teutonic Europe (the Romance and Celtic
tongues took the word ekklesia) came Sc. kirk and Eng.
church. The early spellings chirche, circe, made some
think the word was from L. circus; it was first applied to the
grounds and building, then (as a translation of ekklesia) to the
members.[19
The Word “Good”
Some dictionaries trace the word “good” to “God” and we would agree that
the similarity of these two words is more than a coincidence. Many
readers would give such an origin their nod of approval because, after
all, God is our Heavenly Father, right? Or at least that’s what
many of us were taught and that’s what we find in most Bibles. However,
if you are willing and able to carefully research the word “God” as used
in the Hebrew language, you will find that in addition to being the name
given to one of Jacob’s children (Hebrew גד,
cf., Gen. 30:11) and the name of a prophet (I Sam. 22:5), it is also the
name of an idol worshipped by those who forsake Yahweh (Is. 65:11). We
are persuaded that a legitimate case can be made for the name God
having originated with the idol of fortune long before the birth of
Jacob's son God, which, by the way, is the correct Hebrew
pronunciation of the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, but
that’s another study.[20]
In view of the fact that there is an idol whose name is pronounced God, is that where the word “good” emanates?
The word “goodbye,” according to our dictionary, is traced to the
contraction of God be with you.[21]
Author Joseph T. Shipley, in his work Dictionary of Word Origins,
agrees with our dictionary’s etymological tracing of the word goodbye,
but he goes on to specify, “God and good are old but unrelated Teut.
words.”[22]
We find it rather odd that etymologists conclude that the “good” in
“goodbye” is traced to God, but “good” by itself is not. As it
turns out, not all etymologists are in agreement with Shipley’s
conclusion. Isaac Mozeson, in his The Word: The Dictionary That
Reveals the Hebrew Source of English offers the following in his
listing of the origin of “Good/Gud”:
ROOTS: Anglo-Saxon god and German got go
back to the IE root ghedh (to unite, join, fit). The IE root
echoes גד / (O)GUD
(to unite, fit together), but גד
/ GUD (fortune, success — Genesis 30:11) fits the
common use of GOOD well enough. Good in Arabic is gayid.
BRANCHES: That GOD is GOOD (and really TOGETHER) ought to
be implied by the similarity of these Germanic terms.
The same
גד
/
GUD (good fortune) above is the name of a deity mentioned in Isaiah
65:11. The given IE root for GOD is Gheu(a) (to call,
invoke).[23]
Although Mozeson doesn’t explicitly state that “good” is traced to
“God,” he clearly sees the similarity, explaining that the same word (גד)
is the name of a deity mentioned in Isaiah 65:11. If you have access to
the Hebrew text, you will readily see that the words translated “that
troop” in the King James Version of Isaiah 65:11 is actually the word God (גד). Had
the King James Version translators properly transliterated all
proper names that appear in Isaiah 65:11, here is how that verse would
read:
11¶ But ye are they that forsake Yahweh (יהוה),
that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for God (גַד)
and that furnish the drink offering unto Meni (מְנִי).
Suffice it to say that we, like Isaac Mozeson, see the connection
between good and God. The fact of the matter is, there is
an idol whose name is God and he is commonly referred to as being
the idol of fortune. Or shall we say the idol of good fortune?
What’s Missing?
Let’s circle on back to the point that the believer we recently met
attempted to make, namely, that the word desire is a better word
to use than the word want, as revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.
Curiously, on the few occasions that I’ve been critiqued for using words
that I shouldn’t, poor word choice, etc., the individuals offering the
criticism themselves exhibit little or no concern about the choice of
words they use in reference to the creator of the universe. One of the
easiest things to prove is the fact that our Heavenly Father was never
referred to in Scripture as “God,” “a God” or “the God.” However, as
mentioned above, the worship of a known deity named God is
specifically condemned by the creator of the universe. This deity’s
name has crept into our vocabulary and into our Bibles as the means of
identifying who the creator is. You can ask most school-age children,
“What is the name of the creator?” Most will answer, “God.” These
days, thanks to evolution proponents, it is increasingly likely that a
number of them will answer, “There IS no creator.” However, among those
who are taught that there is a creator, they will identify the creator
as “God.”
But don’t stop there. You can ask most adults the same question and
you’ll get the same answer. Back in either 1998 or 1999 I took a poll
in the office where I worked at that time, asking my co-workers to give
me the name of creator. Out of the ten people I polled, nine answered,
“GOD.” One lady answered, “Jesus.”
However, our Heavenly Father has identified Himself to us through His
servant Mosheh. When Mosheh asked Him, “Behold, I shall go forth to the
children of Israel, and shall say to them, The Elohim of our fathers has
sent me to you; and they will ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I
say to them?”
The Almighty answered and gave Mosheh a name that appears 6,823 times in
the Hebrew Scriptures, a name that translators have chosen to cover up
and instead substitute a title in its place. The majority of mankind
has collectively accepted the translators’ decision to uses a
substitute.
June and I are among those who reject the translators’ decision. We
would love to speak a pure language, but alas, the English language is
replete with words borrowed from pagan worship. If we were to eliminate
every single word that emanates from pagan worship, we would no longer
be able to communicate with others in English. What is the solution?
Our solution is to focus on our Heavenly Father, rejecting the pagan
titles that man has attributed to Him. God is the primary one.
As
time marches on, we may again find ourselves challenged on our word
choices. It will be interesting to know where those who issue these
challenges stand when it comes to the titles attributed to our Heavenly
Father. If those individuals agree that it does not and cannot honor
Him to refer to Him with a name or title that matches the name of a
heathen idol, then I would be interested in knowing what their solution
to the enigma of choosing between words such as “want” and “desire.”
So what’s missing here? The time we spend
“striving about words” that ultimately can’t even be traced to idol
worship and therefore cannot make one individual any more spiritual than
anyone else takes us away from the real issues that matter. Our focus
should be drawing closer to our Heavenly Father. A part of deepening
that relationship does involve words because I maintain that research
bears out that words such as “God” should never be applied to the
creator of the universe. If we’re going to criticize someone’s choice
of words, let’s base it on honest research, scholarly inquiry and
respectful sharing of ideas and beliefs.
Archived Newsletters
