Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Could Jesus have sinned? Message-ID: Date: 30 May 91 04:36:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Duke University Medical Center Lines: 40 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > You quoted Ezek 28:15 which says Lucifer was "perfect in your ways". It > does not say Lucifer was perfect which was your conclusion. Perfect, if > I understand the word, carries with it the notion that there is nothing > (*nothing*) wrong. No weakness that can be exploited. Webster's says > "being entirely without fault or defect". A major problem of exegesis is the inherent difficulty of translation. This translation may take the form of Hebrew or Greek to English (or French, etc.) or it may take the form of English to English. When using Webster's (any 20th century version), one is likely to discover that the generally accepted meaning is the primary meaning and in cheaper dictionaries, the only meaning. When able to go beyond the first definition one comes across meanings that aren't as well known or used. My Webster's New Collegiate starts with a different definition 1: Expert, proficient. 2a: is "being entirely without fault" but 2b: is "satisfying all requirements" a has a synonom of FLAWLESS while b is ACCURATE. 3 is "lacking in no essential detail, PURE." We see that even in 20th century usage FLAWLESS is not the only or even prime definition. But if we look backwards towards the time of the first English translations by Wycliffe and under King James, we find that perfect could have meant 3C: SAND or 4: MATURE or it could have meant 6A: CERTAIN or SURE, or 6B: CONTENT or SATISFIED. These definitions are quite outside out 20th century usage but may be closer in content to the Biblical meaning which is actually more in line with Rabbinic usage and even medieval Christian usage. Many of the mystics felt that one could reach perfection because perfection did not mean flawless, not becoming God, but rather living according to God, in contact with God. Definitions that seem to come closer to mature, certain or sure, and content or satisfied. The definition we started here with in Isaiah seems to be closer to "not lacking in essential characteristics" again not flawless but still within the range of meanings of perfect. John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II