What is the idea of a pure language . How would that apply to woman being silent or Philip and the man on the chariot as some sort of dead language?
It doesn't apply to women being silent, except at that juncture a translational argument was being made, and in order to elevate one translation above another (which I'm not 100% against) I think certain guidelines need to be followed. Of course, I'm not the only one on earth so that's why agreement is critical...
the man on the chariot I had thought would be fairly clear. Where he is reading in Isaiah and he doesn't understand and Phillip preaches the gospel to him and his eyes are opened to the truth and he receives it.
That's a biblical example of someone reading in the NT and having no idea what they were reading in the flesh. Where it seemed to be genuine error, and something a bit different than the way the pharisees did things. There are plenty of sincere people that don't understand a passage and are trying to.
Certainly much discussion can be had (and has been here) about other elements of this passage
I can imagine a different scene with phillip if he had just walked according to the flesh, I won't post it, but if you care to ruminate on that (and I have heard sermons preached in what if land, not a big fan, but sometimes useful it seems).
Originally this was in response to a mini-KJV debate (Post 333)
Pure language was also in reference to a reply to someone. I'm trying not to twist words on what he was communicating because as I go on, more comes up, but anyway. The idea that people spoke "pure" Hebrew prior to the tower of Babel.
Defining what "pure" means is what is seriously debatable. My assertion was that a dead language even if it were more "full" when it was alive cannot be understood without the Lord and is useless to an extent. Take into consideration that spoken word with all the nuances of sarcasm, humor, etc. Can be entirely missed in text by someone that doesn't speak that language.
I was basing this off my understanding of ancient languages that others have said as not having been heard spoken and therefore cannot be known how it is pronounced. So this changes how it is read. That without the Lord opening up our eyes to something, we are blind to its meaning.
I did take Latin in high school and had an issue with oral exams for this reason. I was told by the professor that they did not know for sure.
Oh and I do think we can read scripture and understand it in our fleshly mind even regenerated because we are still maturing and overcoming. My views were very literalist when I was a child, I just held a lot of knowledge intellectually. Like reading an instruction manual...as I matured, I read deeper and deeper. Sometimes, you can go too deep I think, and see things that probably aren't there. Even if they were, you probably wouldn't know what they were yet. Something like knowing how to operate a motor vehicle but not knowing the rules of the road and thinking you were ready because you understood the mechanical aspects and could drive efficiently as you understood without additional variables present.
Is that too vague?
