Interesting Stuff

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Stranger
Posts: 2004
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#321 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
3 months ago
For example, every single person who says, "abstain from blood," could be said to have already violated that statement. How? Well, because while they are standing there making that statement their bodies are full of blood that they haven't "abstained from." If they truly did "abstain from blood" they would have no blood on or in their persons and would be dead, so that they could not have made that statement in the first place.
Well if you want to get that technical then abstain could also be the scar that God left on Adam. (Gen 2:22)



Stranger, (Jn 6:63)

spiny_cactus
Posts: 2
Joined: 3 months ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - Abstain From ... Blood

#322 Post by spiny_cactus » 3 months ago

Greetings

My name is Tom Daniels and I'm the author of the post Bobcat has quoted from the other board above.

I would like to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding

I did not say the phrase, "Abstain from blood" was ungrammatical. I actually gave a number of legitimate uses of "Abstain from..." constructions as examples.

What I said was that the JW usage of the phrase in support of their prohibition on transfusion medicine was ungrammatical.

Complete thoughts require a transfer of action between subject and object. This is the difference between a clause and a phrase. The former can stand on its own as a complete unit. The latter cannot.

"Abstain from blood" is grammatically incomplete for the reasons I've explained. The doesn't make it ungrammatical in and of itself, but invoking it as an independent construction in written composition certainly is.

It's the sort of thing that gets marked in red by your English professor as a sentence fragment.

--Ich kann Ihnen versichern :-)

Bobcat
Posts: 3452
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#323 Post by Bobcat » 3 months ago

Welcome to the board TD and thank you for clarifying your point.

I found it to be a unique aspect. I'm sorry if I didn't explain it well.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2004
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#324 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Abstain to me means : when a product of any kind is being offered or presented for personal use you would abstain from it by declining to give it consideration because you have already came to the conclusion that you are not gonna consume or use it in any form or fashion. Now if you want to just partially abstain from a product then perhaps you should reconsider what abstain really means! (1Thes 5:22)

spiny_cactus wrote:
3 months ago
"Abstain from blood" is grammatically incomplete for the reasons I've explained. The doesn't make it ungrammatical in and of itself, but invoking it as an independent construction in written composition certainly is.

It's the sort of thing that gets marked in red by your English professor as a sentence fragment.
Welcome aboard Tom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc


Stranger, (2Pet 2:20 KJV)

spiny_cactus
Posts: 2
Joined: 3 months ago

Interesting Stuff - "Abstain ... From Blood"

#325 Post by spiny_cactus » 3 months ago

Greetings Stranger
Abstain to me means : when a product of any kind is being offered or presented for personal use you would abstain from it by declining to give it consideration because you have already came to the conclusion that you are not gonna consume or use it in any form or fashion.
Abstain and its synonyms (Refrain, forbear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning is, "...to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something" as in, "Abstained from smoking" or "Refrained from commenting." (I'm quoting from the American Heritage Dictionary.)

When the action in question is easily deducible, it is common in casual, conversational English to use the word, "abstain" in connection with a noun instead of finite verb as in "Abstain from wine" or "Abstain from fatty foods" but what's actually happening here is the listener is mentally filling in the blank based on the nature of the object. These are therefore phrases, not complete sentences.

I appreciate the scriptural reference, but "εἴδους πονηροῦ" is an adjectival expression and as such, makes a moral statement in and of itself. (In this case, it is evil disease, degeneracy, mischief malice and facinorousness which are all pretty bad things.) This is not analogous to simple noun, which is morally neutral in and of itself.

Stranger
Posts: 2004
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#326 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

spiny_cactus wrote:
3 months ago
Greetings Stranger
Abstain to me means : when a product of any kind is being offered or presented for personal use you would abstain from it by declining to give it consideration because you have already came to the conclusion that you are not gonna consume or use it in any form or fashion.
Abstain and its synonyms (Refrain, forbear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning is, "...to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something" as in, "Abstained from smoking" or "Refrained from commenting." (I'm quoting from the American Heritage Dictionary.)

When the action in question is easily deducible, it is common in casual, conversational English to use the word, "abstain" in connection with a noun instead of finite verb as in "Abstain from wine" or "Abstain from fatty foods" but what's actually happening here is the listener is mentally filling in the blank based on the nature of the object. These are therefore phrases, not complete sentences.

I appreciate the scriptural reference, but "εἴδους πονηροῦ" is an adjectival expression and as such, makes a moral statement in and of itself. (In this case, it is evil disease, degeneracy, mischief malice and facinorousness which are all pretty bad things.) This is not analogous to simple noun, which is morally neutral in and of itself.


Hi spiny cactus,

I understand completely! If I were out in the desert I would not be refraining myself from searching for something to drink, but I would be abstaining from the cactus juice.



Stranger, (Isa 35:1)

Stranger
Posts: 2004
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#327 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

spiny_cactus wrote:
3 months ago
I appreciate the scriptural reference, but "εἴδους πονηροῦ" is an adjectival expression and as such, makes a moral statement in and of itself. (In this case, it is evil disease, degeneracy, mischief malice and facinorousness which are all pretty bad things.)
Since you know so much about the English language I wanted to ask you:... can anything bad, evil, diseased, degenerate, mischievous, facinorous or malice be pretty?

I do realize that we chop a tree down just to chop it up, and that we then bundle (not bollix) it like we do our English language.



Stranger,(Jn 4:35)

Bobcat
Posts: 3452
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff - Idea of a 1st Century GB

#328 Post by Bobcat » 3 months ago

On Reddit someone quoted an excerpt from Crisis of Conscience where Ray Franz discusses a talk by the Society's then vice president wherein he unwittingly trashes the idea of a 1st century governing body. It can be read here.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2004
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#329 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
3 months ago
Ray Franz discusses a talk by the Society's then vice president wherein he unwittingly trashes the idea of a 1st century governing body. It can be read here.
With all due respect, and if Stranger could approach the bench? The VP at that time in my opinion did not trash the "{1CGB}".

There's always semi-secular work to be done and spiritual things to Say!

And if I was granted approachment to the Bench I'd put forward the need for a..., well let's call it a 'coach' for now. Someone to work things out or from here at mid field and then proceed to the End Zone. Someone that makes it E-Z but also includes a, b, c and d.


In old times the coach would have to rely on future estimated plans. But nowadays a coach can also come with a (say this real fast now) "Ref-our-RE:" in regards to His Playbook. (a.k.a Bible).


I would also like to put forward the need for them to acquire a coach that knows how to read a playbook and quote from it, someone who can communicate to the team the depths of this middle ground that's so Highly protected and so very well established to protect their Field General.



Stranger, (Jer 31:28-29)

Bobcat
Posts: 3452
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Interesting Stuff

#330 Post by Bobcat » 3 months ago

Hi Stranger,

I think you've coined a new acronym: "1CGB"


Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests