The Holy Spirit

[Evacuated]

Hi @Cos

 

12 hours ago, Cos said:

maybe you just don’t grasp English; to claim that you considered Ellicott’s comments  “both erudite and articulate” and then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” is a contradiction.

Maybe not. But I thought I was pretty clear about my opinion on Mr Ellicott's writings.

On 10/22/2017 at 8:12 AM, Gone Fishing said:

However, I retain my opinion that it is not possible for me to verify with absolute certainty what his (Charles Ellicott's) views were because he is not at liberty to comment on my understanding of them being, as he is, dead.

Therefore, my understanding of his expressions remains as my considered opinion only, and it is also my considered opinion that he was both erudite and articulate in his expressions. However,  I do not share all his views no matter how well he expressed them. I understand them enough to disagree in a number of areas.

However, I remain particularly impressed with his choice of words in his phrase "Divine operative energy" in connection with holy spirit. I think he should be credited for this, which is (for me) a remarkable example of "silver-tongued" speech. (The word "articulate" actually has a broader pallette of meaning than that which you presented earlier.)

My opinions may not be shared by all, but nevertheless, in the absence of convincing evidence otherwise, I am holding to them for the moment.

Thanks for your input. Your articulacy of expression enables me to crystalise my opinion.

S.D.G.

 

[Cos]

Gone fishing,

 

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Maybe not.

 Sorry, but it is a contradiction.

 

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

my considered opinion

The contradiction is not whether you “share all his views” or whether you agree or disagree, it is you claiming that his comments are “both erudite and articulate” and then saying “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”.

 

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The word "articulate" actually has a broader pallette of meaning

The denotation vocabulary related definition for “articulate” in any dictionary, as I have said before, is the ability to express the meaning fluently and coherently; so when you say, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” this is a contradiction to you saying his comments are “both erudite and articulate”.

 

No matter how you want to align yourself with some phrase taken out of context and used against the intended meaning of the author, your contradiction is in claiming to not being “sure of Ellicott’s meaning” when also claiming that he is “both erudite and articulate”.

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Thanks for your input.

You’re welcome. <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

so when you say, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” this is a contradiction to you saying his comments are “both erudite and articulate

In your opinion I accept.

However, I remain unconvinced by your assertion that absolute comprehension of another person's expressions is the arbiter of designating that person's expressions as articulate. Absolute comprehension of what a dead person has said, gleaned only from their writings, is actually impossible. It can only ever be an opinion, no matter how resolutely held.

[Cos]

21 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

People just like to play with words

Mr. Smith,

 

Do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3? NO!

 

Yet you give the impression that for some reason you think that I did. You are wrong!

 

Please try and read what I say a little more carefully then you might avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. <><

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

In your opinion

Gone fishing,

 

Your contradiction is a fact, trying to make out that is just my opinion, ignores the dictionary definition.

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I remain unconvinced

My dear deluded friend, you say one thing and then another, and on top of that you try to deny the meaning of what you said. Like it or not you have contradicted yourself which seems to be a pattern. I don’t say this to offend, it is just an observation of mine (and that definitely is my opinion). <><

[Cognitionis]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3? NO!

 

Yet you give the impression that for some reason you think that I did. You are wrong!

 

Please try and read what I say a little more carefully then you might avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion

I believe the error lies with you. Mr. Smith interpretation of your conclusion is correct. Why would you say otherwise, out of anger?

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

ignores the dictionary definition

YOUR definition my friend. You are not the arbiter of articularcy, particularly when the one who articulates is .....dead.

British English: articulate adjective

If you describe someone as articulate, you mean that they are able to express their thoughts and ideas easily and well.

(Collins English Dictionary)

 

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I don’t say this to offend, it is just an observation of mine (and that definitely is my opinion).

opinion:  a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As long as we are clear.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your opinion on the two quotes I posted regarding the way holy spirit is presented in Jewish scripture if you have time.

[Cos]

17 hours ago, Cognitionis said:

I believe the error lies with you. Mr. Smith interpretation of your conclusion is correct.

Cognitionis

 

Sir, if the error “lies with” me, as you accuse, maybe you should ask the person with whom I was in discourse with at the time on whether what Mr. Smith alleges is the correct conclusion, for nowhere do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3 as Mr. Smith contends.

17 hours ago, Cognitionis said:

Why would you say otherwise, out of anger?

Did you not you read what I said? I was responding to what Mr. Smith alleges, what would you have me say, that he was correct in his allegation when he was not?

 

Interestingly how you just joined this forum and then at the same time just jumped in on this conversation...you know what that looks like? But hey, whatever motive moves you to do what you do is not my concern. <><

[Cos]

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

You are not the arbiter of articularcy,

Gone fishing,

 

Dictionaries define “articulate” as the ability to expressing the meaning fluently and coherently, even the Collins English Dictionary you quoted from explains this.

 

“If you describe someone as articulate, you mean that they are able to express their thoughts and ideas easily and well.”  (Collins English Dictionary)

 

You said Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” but then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”...so I’m sorry to say but the dictionaries are the arbiter on this one.

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

As long as we are clear.

As I said, I base my opinion on my observation, so then if my observation is not correct then so too would be my opinion; therefore the question is whether my observation is correct?

 

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Anyway, I am looking forward to your opinion on the two quotes I posted

Firstly, I have asked that you explain why you accused me of being offensive on one of the posts, but you have repeatedly ignored my request. So, to be fair, if you answer me on this then I will respond to your request, is that a deal? <><

[Evacuated]

On 10/31/2017 at 9:59 AM, Cos said:

Sorry, but maybe you just don’t grasp English; to claim that you considered Ellicott’s comments  “both erudite and articulate” and then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” is a contradiction

Cos,  You appear to be making this statement on the basis of at least two erroneous premises.

1. You assume, it appears, that to state something in an articulate manner means that the statement must be unequivocally understood by the hearer. This is simply not the case. Even nonsense can be expressed in an articulate manner. Otherwise it could not be judged as nonsense. Additionally, if this were true , there would be no need for an articulate person to be questioned on the meaning of what they stated, or there would be no need to seek verification of what they stated.

2. You are taking two quotes from my words and are comparing them in an inappropriate and unqualified manner.

Regarding the first, my assessment of Mr Ellicott's literary skills of expression as "both erudite and articulate" is a subjective judgement based on what I have read of his writings. It is presented as a contributory reason for my selection of his phrase describing "the spirit  of God" mentioned at Gen 1:2 as "divine operative energy".  Due to it's  both memorable and relevant nature, I find it a particularly articulate phrase.

The second statement you juxtapose, namely that "I can't be sure of Ellicott's meaning", was in response to your assertion that my use of his descriptive phrase "divine operative energy", shows that I somehow want to align his meaning with my own.

To emphasise that I had no intention of seeking posthumous confirmation of my views by alignment with those of Mr Ellicott, I stated “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. Underpinning that statement is the fact that understanding of a dead man's views can only ever really be assumed, as verification is impossible. This was also to emphasise that, even if I did want the meaning behind Mr Ellicott's expression aligned with my own, (which I do not), this would have questionable value, as it would, by it's very nature, have to be a "best guess" meaning.

"best guess": "A guess that is based on all the knowledge someone has, and is therefore as close to being correct as he or she can make it; the most likely deduction given the available information" (Oxford Dictionaries).

So, I reject your assertion that these two phrases represent a contradiction on my part. 

I find the quality of your analysis on this a little disappointing Cos. I would like to attribute this to your only superfically reading the postings due to pressure of your commitments, rather than a display of the rather unpleasant spirit described at Matt.22:15.

[Evacuated]

18 hours ago, Cos said:

Firstly, I have asked that you explain why you accused me of being offensive on one of the posts, but you have repeatedly ignored my request. So, to be fair, if you answer me on this then I will respond to your request, is that a deal?

It is worth stating that it is certain of your remarks I find offensive, not you, yourself.

It is this kind of statement  below that I find offensive, along with your "knee-jerk" attributions elsewhere. Another habit, your stereo-typical prefix "all JWs" this or that, has an offensive effect also.

On 10/24/2017 at 1:05 PM, Cos said:

automatically apply the Watchtower teaching

[Cos]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:

to state something in an articulate manner means that the statement must be unequivocally understood by the hearer

Gone fishing,

 

I only abide by the dictionary definition on how articulate is defined, if you believe it is otherwise then you should write to the dictionaries and take it up with them.

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:

his phrase describing "the spirit  of God" mentioned at Gen 1:2 as "divine operative energy". 

Here you go again, Ellicott does not “describe” the Holy Spirit in Gen. 1::2 as “divine operative energy”!

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 10:39 PM, Gone Fishing said:

So, I reject your assertion that these two phrases represent a contradiction on my part. 

To assert, as you do, that “based on what [you] have read” of Ellicott, which would include Gen. 1:2, that Ellicott’s “literary skills of expression” are “both erudite and articulate”, but then to go on to say that where I had differentiated his meaning to your own which you still clearly want to align with, that that is when you made the claim that you “can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. Now regardless of what you were responding to, your claim that Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” is in clear opposition to your other claim. <><