Does dysnoetas mean nonsense?

[Light on the Hill]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum so please be patient with me if I'm doing anything that isn't proper on the forum. I wanted to get some clarification on 2 Peter 3:14-17. I read a few blog posts from Jesus' Words Only by Douglas del Tondo and wanted to get people's opinions and rebuttals. I know the forum has talked about him and his blog in the past so I apologize if I'm bringing up things the forum feels it has dealt with already, but some things on there seemed pretty convincing. I'm not convinced of everything the author puts forward, but I really have no way to verify if his translation of dysnoetas or "things hard to understand" in verse 15 means nonsense, in the sense that Peter was saying Paul's writings were nonsense (I know zero Greek). I'd appreciate some feedback from you all who have studied Greek. Thank you! Would love @Der Alte perspective on this; after lurking for a while, I can tell the guy knows his stuff.

Here is the article in question: Second Peter: Reference to Paul

 

[Der Alte]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum so please be patient with me if I'm doing anything that isn't proper on the forum. I wanted to get some clarification on 2 Peter 3:14-17. I read a few blog posts from Jesus' Words Only by Douglas del Tondo and wanted to get people's opinions and rebuttals. I know the forum has talked about him and his blog in the past so I apologize if I'm bringing up things the forum feels it has dealt with already, but some things on there seemed pretty convincing. I'm not convinced of everything the author puts forward, but I really have no way to verify if his translation of dysnoetas or "things hard to understand" in verse 15 means nonsense, in the sense that Peter was saying Paul's writings were nonsense (I know zero Greek). I'd appreciate some feedback from you all who have studied Greek. Thank you! Would love @Der Alte perspective on this; after lurking for a while, I can tell the guy knows his stuff.

Here is the article in question: Second Peter: Reference to Paul

No apologies necessary topics often get repeated. I did a search of the Eastern Greek Orthodox NT and it does not translate dysnoetas as nonsense. Their language has been Greek for 2000 years +/- so I think they are probably correct. Here is a link to that translation. It is PDF so can't copy/paste.

 

[Der Alte]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum so please be patient with me if I'm doing anything that isn't proper on the forum. I wanted to get some clarification on 2 Peter 3:14-17. I read a few blog posts from Jesus' Words Only by Douglas del Tondo and wanted to get people's opinions and rebuttals. I know the forum has talked about him and his blog in the past so I apologize if I'm bringing up things the forum feels it has dealt with already, but some things on there seemed pretty convincing. I'm not convinced of everything the author puts forward, but I really have no way to verify if his translation of dysnoetas or "things hard to understand" in verse 15 means nonsense, in the sense that Peter was saying Paul's writings were nonsense (I know zero Greek). I'd appreciate some feedback from you all who have studied Greek. Thank you! Would love @Der Alte perspective on this; after lurking for a while, I can tell the guy knows his stuff.

Here is the article in question: Second Peter: Reference to Paul

No apologies necessary topics often get repeated. I did a search of the Eastern Greek Orthodox NT and it does not translate dysnoetas as nonsense. Their language has been Greek for 2000 years +/- so I think they are probably correct. Here is a link to that translation. It is PDF so can't copy/paste.

Orthodox New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Eastern / Orthodox Bible: New TestamentBased on the Septuagint and the Patriarchal Text

archive.org

 

[sandman]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum so please be patient with me if I'm doing anything that isn't proper on the forum. I wanted to get some clarification on 2 Peter 3:14-17. I read a few blog posts from Jesus' Words Only by Douglas del Tondo and wanted to get people's opinions and rebuttals. I know the forum has talked about him and his blog in the past so I apologize if I'm bringing up things the forum feels it has dealt with already, but some things on there seemed pretty convincing. I'm not convinced of everything the author puts forward, but I really have no way to verify if his translation of dysnoetas or "things hard to understand" in verse 15 means nonsense, in the sense that Peter was saying Paul's writings were nonsense (I know zero Greek). I'd appreciate some feedback from you all who have studied Greek. Thank you! Would love @Der Alte perspective on this; after lurking for a while, I can tell the guy knows his stuff.

Here is the article in question: Second Peter: Reference to Paul

The first thing that must always be at the forefront of your mind as your read the Word (or commentary of the Word) is that….

*All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2Ti 3:16)

*By revelation of/from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12)

*Men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit (2Pe 1:21) In other words, not by the will of man.

With that in mind …. Anything with commentaries or what people are saying about the written Word of God is not a reflection on the writer (i.e. Paul, Peter, John …etc) … it is a reflection on the Author (God). The revelation Paul got to write the church epistles came from Jesus Christ as He was given head over all the church of God. So the question becomes …..Would it make any sense for the revelation that Peter got (from Jesus Christ) to write in II Peter that would belittle Paul? Wouldn’t that be just belittling Jesus Christ ….for the revelation Jesus had previously given Paul?

[II Peter was written about 65 AD, which is a couple of years after the completion of the church epistles [Romans through Thessalonians] written directly to us in the “church of God”, by revelation given to Paul from Jesus Christ]

The problem is with commentators, not with the written Word. If we listen to commentators, we will be pulled in every direction that their human reasoning takes us.

Origen did some good writing…. but he also was way off in his writing to the point of bringing Plato’s theory into the (at the time) church. Historical writings can be a great asset for history regarding biblical events but that is where it should end. Any commentaries on biblical scripture are from their human reasoning and intellect …it could be right …. But most often …not! ….The Bible does interpret itself.


Understanding this area of II Peter begins with understanding to whom it is written.

JAMES Much like Hebrews was written to the Christian Jews of the dispersion, “the twelve tribes scattered abroad”. Those born again who seem to want to put themselves under the law. 1&2 PETER, 1,2&3 JOHN and JUDE closely align themselves to this category also.

A better (literal) translation to 15-17 is as follows… with a little more insight after.


15) Consider also that the long-suffering of our Lord is for salvation [deliverance], even as our beloved Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

16) as also in all his epistles speaking in them concerning these things. (in them, some things are hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable twist around as they do also the rest of the scripture unto their own destruction)

17) you therefore beloved since you have foreknown these things watch so that you are not led astray by the delusion of the lawless ones and fall from your own steadfastness.

Starting with “in them” v16 is parenthetically designed to add more information. (see *below) …you could stop at “things” and go right to v17.

__________________

*below … a little clarification on the bolded words of v16 within the parenthetical.

(KJV) 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; (in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.)


“Unto you” Not referring to you (or those) … as of all the diaspora (dispersion) BUT to you living in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1Pe 1:1) where Peter had written to the church of God in some of those areas…. and those writings included the epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and to the Galatians.

Hard to be understood 16 this was especially true of the Judeans who believed ….but were still zealous of the law as stated in Act 21:20. They were among those who wrestled with or twisted the scriptures written by Paul as well as other scriptures.

16 Wrest – definition: to twist, distort, or wrestle with.

16 The other scripture Thus, Paul’s epistles were considered to be scripture …when God had Peter write the second epistle. It is significant that God had Peter refer those among the Diaspora (in these scriptures here). To those who believed in Jesus Christ from the church epistles written by Paul. The church epistles were written for the benefit of those in the church of God who had formally been either Judean or Gentile These readings were part of prophecy of the scripture mentioned in 2Pe 1:19 -21



Just as with any other commentator, I am a source of reference trying to explain … check my work to validate it with what the Word says.

 

[Light on the Hill]

I think you overall give a good argument, one thing I want to posit and get some feedback on would be this.

16 The other scripture Thus, Paul’s epistles were considered to be scripture …when God had Peter write the second epistle. It is significant that God had Peter refer those among the Diaspora (in these scriptures here). To those who believed in Jesus Christ from the church epistles written by Paul. The church epistles were written for the benefit of those in the church of God who had formally been either Judean or Gentile These readings were part of prophecy of the scripture mentioned in 2Pe 1:19 -21

I had read in that JWO article that the original wording of scripture would be better translated as "writings" (I believe YLT uses writings instead of scriptures" and that this would have been a subtlety for Peter to tell his audience that Paul's writings are wise, but not scripture. The article author argues that

"Paul is lowered not raised by equating him with "other graphe" -- other writings. It is not the term "holy writings," which is how Paul himself referred to an inspired writing. Even if the text refers to a "writing" in the Bible, it does not change the meaning of a "writing" as always inspired, just as we use the word "writing" to signify any kind of writing -- inspired or otherwise.

Non-inspired writings are simply called graphe in the Bible unless the context implies a reference to the Law or Prophets. Paul is thus equated by Second Peter with non-inspired writings, as Second Peter makes no implied reference to the Law or Prophets. It is a modern phenomenon that we hear the word writing when given as the capitalized synonymn Scripture, and we imply into it Holy Scripture -- a meaning far removed from Second Peter's intent. This is more fully explained below."

I am unsure if there is a separate Greek word for scripture as opposed to writings. For instance, does Paul use a different word beside graphe when he refers to his own epistles? Thanks!

 

[Light on the Hill]

No apologies necessary topics often get repeated. I did a search of the Eastern Greek Orthodox NT and it does not translate dysnoetas as nonsense. Their language has been Greek for 2000 years +/- so I think they are probably correct. Here is a link to that translation. It is PDF so can't copy/paste.

Orthodox New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Eastern / Orthodox Bible: New TestamentBased on the Septuagint and the Patriarchal Text

archive.org

Thanks Der Alte, I had come to this conclusion myself that the Greek Orthodox probably has the best grasp on the Greek than anyone else (doesn't mean they can't be wrong on things though IMO). I want to expound further on this though, I'm going to copy the article's argument here so we can go more in depth on it.

In the KJV, it says Paul speaks sometimes things "hard to be understood." This is more correctly translated as that Paul speaks some "nonsensical" things or things "destructive of good sense." The Greek word is "dysnoetas." Let's see why by examining that word carefullly.



In Greek, dysnoetas has two parts -- the prefix DYS and the word NOETAS. To determine its meaning, you simply have to know the meaning and purpose of each part.


Liddell & Scott - renown and premier authors of a Greek dictionary say Dys as a prefix means - we quote --

"always [understood] with the notion of hard, bad, unlucky, etc., ... destroying the good sense of a word, or increasing its bad sense."


This quote can be found at page 336, column two, top third, in their 1883 dictionary at this page link .

Hence, we know at the outset that such a word as dysnoetas is intended in a pejorative sense. It has a negative uncomplimentary sense. Think for example of the word utopia - an ideal place, versus a dystopia -- a nightmarish world where one endures great suffering or injustice, typically such as a totalitarian world. So a utopia when the prefix is changed to DYS is a nightmare world -- the exactly opposite meaning of utopia. See the definition at this link.


Then the conjoined word is NOETAS. It means SENSIBLE. See Francis E. Peter, Greek Philosophical Terms: An Historical Lexicon(1967) at 130 ("logoi noeton" = "sensible things"); 128 (noeton = "intelligible") Cf. NOETA = thought.


Hence, DYSNOETAS means "nonsensical thoughts" or "unintelligible thoughts" to reflect that the writer lacks any sense to what he or she is writing.

What does that mean?


The problem is that writer's words simply don't make any good sense. They defy common sense.


Thus, it is clear the problem begins with Paul's fault by the word DYSNOETAS used by Apostle Peter, according to its traditional authorship. Some of Paul's writings -- not all -- are said to suffer from DYSNOETAS.

Grammar and such is not my strong suit (I knew it much better when I was still in school lol), so I'd love to get your educated opinion on this interpretation. Thanks!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thanks Der Alte, I had come to this conclusion myself that the Greek Orthodox probably has the best grasp on the Greek than anyone else (doesn't mean they can't be wrong on things though IMO). I want to expound further on this though, I'm going to copy the article's argument here so we can go more in depth on it.




Grammar and such is not my strong suit (I knew it much better when I was still in school lol), so I'd love to get your educated opinion on this interpretation. Thanks!

the quote you had seems to mean "lacking common sense" but not non-sense.

People who lack common sense, can be intelligible, but sound unintelligent.

"Everyone knows that one plus one is five. "

If it's non-sense in the purest form, then it's like:

"Horse read river spoke sunlight."

 

[Light on the Hill]

the quote you had seems to mean "lacking common sense" but not non-sense.

People who lack common sense, can be intelligible, but sound unintelligent.

"Everyone knows that one plus one is five. "

If it's non-sense in the purest form, then it's like:

"Horse read river spoke sunlight."

Isn't that still kind of negative though? Imagine Peter saying this, "Paul's writings lack common sense". The author of the article stated that pre-KJV, the leaders of the reformation, such as Calvin, interpreted "dysnoetas" in a negative manner and that they wanted to remove 2 Peter from the canon because of this.

Also, is the quote from the article coming through properly? I noticed it didn't show up in your reply when you quoted me.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Isn't that still kind of negative though? Imagine Peter saying this, "Paul's writings lack common sense". The author of the article stated that pre-KJV, the leaders of the reformation, such as Calvin, interpreted "dysnoetas" in a negative manner and that they wanted to remove 2 Peter from the canon because of this.

Also, is the quote from the article coming through properly? I noticed it didn't show up in your reply when you quoted me.

Well, the sense that is common to most people, is not common to Paul.

The alternative is "All of Paul's writings were translated from tongues, and do not make sense."

Since Paul would say things such as "I write this with my own hand" would stand to reason that he did not write in the manner of "untranslated languages"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Also, is the quote from the article coming through properly? I noticed it didn't show up in your reply when you quoted me.

When a message is quoted, quoted sections within that post do not display.

 

[Light on the Hill]

Well, the sense that is common to most people, is not common to Paul.

The alternative is "All of Paul's writings were translated from tongues, and do not make sense."

Since Paul would say things such as "I write this with my own hand" would stand to reason that he did not write in the manner of "untranslated languages"

So you are arguing that Paul had a heightened sense to the common man? I mean sure, he was a Pharisee so I'm sure he understood Torah better than the common man. I'm going to take @sandman's translation that was offered and insert your phrase to see how that portrays.

15) Consider also that the long-suffering of our Lord is for salvation [deliverance], even as our beloved Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

16) as also in all his epistles speaking in them concerning these things. (in them, some things 'do not make sense', which the unlearned and unstable twist around as they do also the rest of the scripture unto their own destruction)

17) you therefore beloved since you have foreknown these things watch so that you are not led astray by the delusion of the lawless ones and fall from your own steadfastness.

I don't know, it's not as bad as nonsense but that still doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm inserting it into the verse ungrammatically according to Greek.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So you are arguing that Paul had a heightened sense to the common man? I mean sure, he was a Pharisee so I'm sure he understood Torah better than the common man. I'm going to take @sandman's translation that was offered and insert your phrase to see how that portrays.


I don't know, it's not as bad as nonsense but that still doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm inserting it into the verse ungrammatically according to Greek.

Paul said in another letter that he received revelations from God directly, and was given a thorn in his flesh so we would not get proud about it.

These divine revelations distilled into teachings are what are hard to understand.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So you are arguing that Paul had a heightened sense to the common man? I mean sure, he was a Pharisee so I'm sure he understood Torah better than the common man. I'm going to take @sandman's translation that was offered and insert your phrase to see how that portrays.
15) Consider also that the long-suffering of our Lord is for salvation [deliverance], even as our beloved Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

16) as also in all his epistles speaking in them concerning these things. (in them, some things 'do not make sense', which the unlearned and unstable twist around as they do also the rest of the scripture unto their own destruction)

17) you therefore beloved since you have foreknown these things watch so that you are not led astray by the delusion of the lawless ones and fall from your own steadfastness.

I don't know, it's not as bad as nonsense but that still doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm inserting it into the verse ungrammatically according to Greek.

I would say in verse 16 that Paul's point of reference is hard to grasp for most people, this is where the "common sense" or "sensibility" figures in. So I don't have an issue with the usual translation.

 

[Light on the Hill]

I can see where you are coming from. I still find it weird that Calvin wanted to remove 2 Peter because he perceived it in a way that was unflattering towards Paul. Apparently, this interpretation was enough to convince him the Peter didn't write it. I know little of church history and even less of the reformation, so I don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of Calvin or not, I'm just repeating what the article said.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I can see where you are coming from. I still find it weird that Calvin wanted to remove 2 Peter because he perceived it in a way that was unflattering towards Paul. Apparently, this interpretation was enough to convince him the Peter didn't write it. I know little of church history and even less of the reformation, so I don't know if this is an accurate portrayal of Calvin or not, I'm just repeating what the article said.

Calvin wasn't an apostle, so I file that away with the 1800s mandate to remove books from the bible, and the great disappointment.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks Der Alte, I had come to this conclusion myself that the Greek Orthodox probably has the best grasp on the Greek than anyone else (doesn't mean they can't be wrong on things though IMO). I want to expound further on this though, I'm going to copy the article's argument here so we can go more in depth on it.
Grammar and such is not my strong suit (I knew it much better when I was still in school lol), so I'd love to get your educated opinion on this interpretation. Thanks!

Here is the complete definition of the word from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon. This lexicon represents120-160 years of combined Greek scholarship. The blue highlights indicate the sources the scholars consulted to determine the correct definition.

δυσνόητος, ον (s. νοέω, νόημα; Aristot., Plant. 1, 1, 816a, 3; Lucian, Alex. 54; Diog. L. 9, 13 δυσνόητόν τε καὶ δυσεξήγητον) hard to understand 2 Pt 3:16; δ. τινι for someone Hs 9, 14, 4.—TW.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 265.​

​

​

This is my best shot.

 

[Light on the Hill]

Here is the complete definition of the word from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon. This lexicon represents120-160 years of combined Greek scholarship. The blue highlights indicate the sources the scholars consulted to determine the correct definition.

δυσνόητος, ον (s. νοέω, νόημα; Aristot., Plant. 1, 1, 816a, 3; Lucian, Alex. 54; Diog. L. 9, 13 δυσνόητόν τε καὶ δυσεξήγητον) hard to understand 2 Pt 3:16; δ. τινι for someone Hs 9, 14, 4.—TW.​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 265.​

​

​

​

This is my best shot.

Thanks Der Alte, you vigilance is greatly appreciated. I noticed that Lucian, Alexander is listed as one of their sources. JWO also quotes Lucian to try and support his translation of dysnoetas as nonsense.

Here is Lucian in para 54 "Many such traps, in fact, were set for him by me and by others. For example, I put a single question, and wrote upon the outside of the scroll, following the usual form: "Eight questions from So-and-so," using a fictitious name and sending the eight drachmas and whatever it came to besides.43 Relying upon the fee that had been sent and upon the inscription on the roll, to the single question: "When will Alexander be caught cheating?" he sent me eight responses which, as the saying goes, had no connection with earth or with heaven, but were silly and nonsensical every one."

This is JWO argument:

Where can other Christian writings in Greek help prove the meaning of dysnoetas?



The Greek word dysnoetas was used to mean "nonsense" by another Christian early writer -- Lucian -- referring to a false prophet. Luciean said this false prophet replied to Lucian's inquiries with multiple responses which Lucian said were "silly and nonsensical" -- dysnoetas -- every one." See Lucian's work Alexander the False Prophet, para. 54.

I would probably say that one occurrence of dysnoetas as nonsense doesn't negate the other sources that didn't use it as such. I think the context fits better for the use of nonsense in Lucian that it would in 2 Peter. Thoughts?

 

[sandman]

I think you overall give a good argument, one thing I want to posit and get some feedback on would be this.


I had read in that JWO article that the original wording of scripture would be better translated as "writings" (I believe YLT uses writings instead of scriptures" and that this would have been a subtlety for Peter to tell his audience that Paul's writings are wise, but not scripture. The article author argues that

"Paul is lowered not raised by equating him with "other graphe" -- other writings. It is not the term "holy writings," which is how Paul himself referred to an inspired writing. Even if the text refers to a "writing" in the Bible, it does not change the meaning of a "writing" as always inspired, just as we use the word "writing" to signify any kind of writing -- inspired or otherwise.

Non-inspired writings are simply called graphe in the Bible unless the context implies a reference to the Law or Prophets. Paul is thus equated by Second Peter with non-inspired writings, as Second Peter makes no implied reference to the Law or Prophets. It is a modern phenomenon that we hear the word writing when given as the capitalized synonymn Scripture, and we imply into it Holy Scripture -- a meaning far removed from Second Peter's intent. This is more fully explained below."

I am unsure if there is a separate Greek word for scripture as opposed to writings. For instance, does Paul use a different word beside graphe when he refers to his own epistles? Thanks!

It is almost laughable to see articles like this where the mind of man tries to diminish the Word by insinuating that God should have used other words ….There is not a problem with the vocabulary that was used ….there is a problem with the mind of man trying to elevate himself above God by noting seemingly contentious remarks ….when… if they just read the context everything in the Greek wording is absolutely perfect …. because God is absolutely perfect.

As I stated when it come to commentary other than historical facts…. I don’t have much use for them and this one proves my point.

 

[Light on the Hill]

Calvin wasn't an apostle, so I file that away with the 1800s mandate to remove books from the bible, and the great disappointment.

A very fair point. I think the author has more of a problem with Protestantism/Dispensationalism than Paul (I heard Luther tried to remove James from the canon too, not looking so great for protestants ). He said he started looking into Paul because he saw that some from the dispensationalist camp were leaning wayyy to hard into Paul, to the extent of saying his epistles should be taken above Jesus' from His earthly ministry; I've seen some of that too. His articles kind of gave me a crisis of faith but now I kind of see he is stretching a lot of his arguments further than most people would find reasonable, rather "dysnoetas" if you ask me . Peter was probably talking about people like Calvin when it came to "twisting and distorting" Paul's letters.

For instance he says that Peter called Paul a brother and not a fellow apostle, meaning that Peter didn't recognize him as a fellow disciple/apostle. and now when I read it my thought is "ok so what?". Like unless Peter went out of his way to call others apostles, then I find it hard to believe that Peter calling Paul a brother would be a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. Even if the author was correct in his assessment that some of Paul's writing are nonsense, that wouldn't mean that all of them are, as even the article author himself admits. I always had a problem with that mentality that a lot of these anti-Paulinists have; they'd rather just throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if you are someone who thinks salvation is works based, there is a lot of good stuff in Paul's epistles such as the Armor of God, but its easier to just throw everything else out than sit through and try to understand.

I'll give Doug this, he's been doing this since I think 2005 so I'm sure he has thought of many refutations of people objecting to him. The guy seems genuine; doesn't ask for money, tells people to donate to charities, etc. I think he probably saw people putting Paul on a pedestal and his immediate thought was to run in the opposite direction. I'll pray for him, seems like a nice guy.

 

[Light on the Hill]

It is almost laughable to see articles like this where the mind of man tries to diminish the Word by insinuating that God should have used other words ….There is not a problem with the vocabulary that was used ….there is a problem with the mind of man trying to elevate himself above God by noting seemingly contentious remarks ….when… if they just read the context everything in the Greek wording is absolutely perfect …. because God is absolutely perfect.

As I stated when it come to commentary other than historical facts…. I don’t have much use for them and this one proves my point.

Agreed, I just read an article by the author that expounds on the distinction of "writings" Writings Section of Original Testament of Bible - knol

Essentially, he makes the argument that Peter was saying Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:16 would have been equivalent to how the Jews treated Ecclesiastes and Daniel, aka the Ketuvim. It has good things in it but not everything in it is inspired. I mean I think that is pretty obvious, there are times where Paul states he is giving his own opinion apart from a command from God or that time he quoted a Greek in I believe Galatians to make a point. Does anyone one here have a problem with this understanding? I don't and I know the church has been moving away from that hyper fundamentalism of "every letter in the Bible is 100% the Word of God". I think the author wants to posit this idea because that means that "well I guess that means everything Paul said is on the table, so he could be wrong about the grace doctrines".