Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-02-2014 12:23 AM
107 online now:
Pressie, ramoss, subbie (3 members, 104 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tali_Zorah
Upcoming Birthdays: Aurelia
Post Volume:
Total: 736,916 Year: 22,757/28,606 Month: 58/1,786 Week: 247/384 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 233 of 304 (655881)
03-14-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by frako
03-13-2012 6:09 PM


Sometimes A Literal Interpretation Misses the Lesson
While your post didn't address the topic of the thread, it is an example of why a literal reading can miss the mark.

Righteousness is basically conforming to what is considered morally upright or good and, as we learned through many discussions on EvC, systems of moral conduct can vary from culture to culture and change over years and centuries.

A proverb is a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated, which expresses a truth, based on common sense or the practical experience of humanity.

I assume you were reading the Proverbs quotes literally since your conclusion is that the lesson was to beat fools. If you had read more of Proverbs, you might have noticed that these aren't telling people what to do to fools, but are describing what usually happens to fools. The lesson: Don't be a fool. Don't behave like a fool. The consequences aren't pleasant.

There are two types of Bible Literalism: Letterism and Historical-Grammatical Method.

Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.[6]

The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.

I'm not sure why you feel the Exodus laws deal with killing children, which to me means minors. Adults also have living mothers and fathers. If we look at the beginning of Chapter 21 we see that these are part of the laws supposedly put before the Hebrews in the wilderness. They reflect the punishment system of ancient times. We see the same type of consequences in the Code of Hammurabi.

The lesson is to not smite or curse one's parents. The lesson isn't about killing those who do. We have legal avenues in place today that deal with those who do smite their parents or anyone else.

It is best to try and avoid eisegesis which is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text.

IMO, some lay people tend to use a smattering of various techniques to interpret the Bible writings, but I feel that letterism will probably miss the meaning of a text due to ignoring literary devices.

As for 2 Kings 10 and Hosea 1:4, if one really reads Hosea 1:4 it may not be referring back to what Jehu did to the House of Ahab. I've used Young's Literal Translation because I feel other translations may have made assumptions.

and Jehovah saith unto him, 'Call his name Jezreel, for yet a little, and I have charged the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and have caused to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel;

It may be more symbolic in nature than actually making reference to the killings in 2 Kings 10. I will make a more in depth post concerning this as a response to GDR since I doubt you're really interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by frako, posted 03-13-2012 6:09 PM frako has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 234 of 304 (655900)
03-14-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
11-29-2011 7:24 PM


God Character
quote:
My contention again is that the OT is the story of Godís relationship with His people. It is told with the cultural and personal biases of the individual writers who had been inspired to write their stories. My belief is that when the Bible is read that way, as a narrative made up of numerous styles of writing, then it becomes a much more powerful and meaningful story. Godís message of truth, love, justice and forgiveness, mercy etc is all there if we donít keep trying to deify the Bible, which IMHO only detracts from the God that the Bible is actually about.
Basically I agree with you, but I feel you're bothered by the violence in the OT. Ancient writings are going to reflect ancient practices. They want to depict a strong god. A god for enemies to fear and followers to respect.

quote:
How does a person who loves humble kindness and justice, the qualities of Yahweh that we see in Jesus Christ, worship the God that we see in those two passages if we take them as being literally true. Does it not make a whole lot more sense to understand that it is a part of Jewish history where they went off the rails, and then justified it by saying that Yahweh was in favour of what they had done?
If you look at the text that way, how can one discern what Yhwh actually condoned and what he didn't? Then you're just cherry picking what you like. One could easily say that everything that happened was done by man or nature and attribution was given to God as served their purpose.

I don't feel this is truly a literal interpretation issue. If I've missed something, please explain how this deals with literal interpretation.

As for Hosea 1:4, I don't think he's really referring back to Jehu's killings. Remember that Hosea was a prophet. Whether the article is correct or not, I don't know; but IMO, the plain reading doesn't clearly take us back to Jehu.

Hosea 1:2-5
2When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, ďGo, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD.Ē 3So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. 4And the LORD said to him, ďName him Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5ďOn that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.Ē

Solution to the Jehu Problem
The solution is simply that there is no contradiction between 2 Kings 10:30 and Hosea 1:4 because "the blood of Jezreel" is not a reference to those killed by Jehu in Jezreel; such an interpretation does not fit the context of this phrase. Rather, Hosea 1:4-5 pronounces judgment against both the house of Jehu and the house of Israel for idolatry. Gomer's first son is symbolically named Jezreel (meaning "God sows") to signify that God will end the kingdom of Israel by Assyria and scatter (or "sow") the Israelites among the heathen nations, as a token of which he will break Israel's military power in the valley of Jezreel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 11-29-2011 7:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by GDR, posted 03-15-2012 2:01 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 236 of 304 (656049)
03-16-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by GDR
03-15-2012 2:01 PM


Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
P'shat - The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the wordís being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis).

Just as letterism can allow one to miss the primary meaning of the text eisegesis can also interfere with understanding the primary meaning of the text.

I'm not sure if your "technique" falls under eisegesis or not. You seem to be saying that anything depicting God as violent or condoning violence wasn't really God, but it was instead just mankind attributing their actions or approval for such actions to God; but if the actions are good, then it was actually God. I haven't seen any standard for this type of interpretation. So your problem with literal interpretation (not letterism) is that it conflicts with your view of God.

quote:
It is an example of man trying to make god in his image.
I don't see that that's any different than what you're doing. You have a personal image of God and wish to shift anything contrary to that in the Bible on human bias. It could just as easily be the other way around or no supreme being had any input and it's just how one civilization evolved.

quote:
However mixed in with all that are revelations of a God who loves and forgives and wanted that to be the characteristic of the ancient Jews as well.
Where in the OT is God shown to demonstrate love and forgiveness? I don't see that the text itself gives any clues that God didn't really sanction what Jehu did. I assume that's where you feel Hosea 1:4 comes in.

quote:
Jesus also says that love of God and neighbour is the fulfillment of al of the law and the prophets. It isnít a matter of cherry picking, it is a matter of discernment. I would venture to say that the stoning to death of people for various misdemeanours is not consistent with the idea of love of neighbour. The idea of genocide is not consistent with loving your neighbour. (By the way, the story of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that your neighbour is not just your fellow Christian or Jew.)
Those laws were for mankind, not God. God put a legal system in place. There are consequences for wrong behavior. The consequences were in line with the times as we can see from the Code of Hammurabi

The Good Samaritan story is geared towards individuals, not nations.

We would need to look at actual history to see the practical application of these laws. I think if we researched Jewish history we would find the application of the consequences probably weren't as common. There was a process.

Stoning
There are only scarce mentions of such a punishment being actually legally inflicted. There are three cases in the Bible (see list below) in which a person was stoned to death as a punishment. But there are also five or six cases where someone was stoned by a mob, or not in a legal fashion. A detailed recorded case of stoning occurs in the Book of Joshua (7, 24) when a man named Achan (עכן) was found to have kept loot from Jericho, a conquered Canaanite city, in his tent. Under the mores reflected in that book, massacring the Canaanites was an acceptable and indeed praiseworthy act, but disobedience to God's command by taking loot to oneself was an act heinous enough that not only Achan himself but also his entire family were stoned to death by the gathered Hebrews, as a punishment.

As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.[4]
The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron (1480-1482), by Sandro Botticelli, Sistine Chapel, Rome.

Prior to early Christianity, particularly in the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the morality of capital punishment in general and stoning in particular. The Mishnah states:

A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.[5]

In the following centuries the leading Jewish sages imposed so many restrictions on the implementation of capital punishment as to make it de facto illegal. The restrictions were to prevent execution of the innocent, and included many conditions for a testimony to be admissible that were difficult to fulfill.

Philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[6] He was concerned that the law guard its public perception, to preserve its majesty and retain the people's respect. He saw errors of commission as much more threatening to the integrity of law than errors of omission.[7]

So by the time Jesus came around, the Jewish leadership already had doubts about the morality of capital punishment.

We also have to understand the difference between what a government does to maintain order and an individuals behavior in the community. IMO, the OT is mostly a national view and the NT relates to individual behavior.

quote:
Iím sorry but I just canít buy that. According to Hosea the house of Jehu is to be punished for the ďbloodshed in JezreelĒ. It is clear IMHO that Hosea is saying, at least in his view, that God is not happy with what Jehu did at Jezreel. This is in contradiction to what the scribe(s) in Kings recorded. The fact that Hosea was a prophet only makes the point more clearly. A prophet is one who accurately portrays the heart and mind of God whether it concerns the future or not. (That isnít to say that the prophets were always right or that there werenít false prophets.)
Since we're dealing with a translation we can see in the parallels of Hosea 1:4 that they don't all say "at". Also check out the Interlinear reading.

Young's Literal Translation
and Jehovah saith unto him, 'Call his name Jezreel, for yet a little, and I have charged the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and have caused to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel

Prophetic writings don't tend to be as straightforward as we would like. That's why people can manipulate them to fit their own scenarios.

In looking at the Book of Hosea, I think God did approve of what Jehu did, but was disappointed that neither Jehu nor his descendants brought Israel back on track. Quite the opposite. From what I can find, the blood of Jezreel would make more sense referring to the blood shed in the Valley of Jezreel by the dynasties of Ahab and Jehu. Blue Letter Bible - Jezreel

The reference to Jezreel later in the book supposedly has a symbolic meaning referring to Israel. The Twelve Prophets

Apparently in Hebrew the word Jezreel sounds like Israel. Symbolic names of Hosea's Children

Given that, I think Mr. Jayawardena's solution has merit.

In this solution, "Jezreel" in "the blood of Jezreel" refers to the children of Israel as it clearly does in Hosea 1:4a, 1:11, and 2:22, and "blood" refers to the blood of the children of Israel shed by their enemies (in particular the Syrians) during the Jehu dynasty as a result of their idolatry. This "blood" is avenged upon the house of Jehu because they continued and promoted the cult of calf worship introduced by Jeroboam (and so "made Israel to sin"), which was the chief cause of divine judgment on the northern kingdom by enemy nations such as Syria. Starting from Jeroboam, all the kings of Israel were, in addition to being culpable for their own idolatry, responsible for the blood of the people of Israel in leading them in idolatry--and paid for it by the assassinations and massacres accompanying the numerous coups in Israel's history (see 1 Kings 14:14-16). Because he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, i.e., calf worship, Jehu had been warned of divine judgment against his house, the execution of which was postponed to the fourth generation in consideration of the fact that he served God in the matter of the destruction of the house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:29-31).

Hosea's audience probably understood the play on words better than we do today.

Overall, I don't feel a literal translation (P'shat) misses the point of either text. I also don't see any basis within the text to justify claiming that Jehu wasn't doing God's will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by GDR, posted 03-15-2012 2:01 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 03-16-2012 3:18 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 238 of 304 (656154)
03-16-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by GDR
03-16-2012 3:18 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
This is the science side and you need to show some sort of support for your position.

quote:
I disagree. It isnít my view of God that I espouse Ė it is Jesusí view of God. I worship Jesus as the embodiment of God the Father. Yes, if the text of the Bible is contrary to the teachings and life of Jesus I have to assume it is not of God. As I have said elsewhere it is Jesus that I worship and not the Bible.
Please provide scripture that supports what you're saying. The New Testament was also written by many men (some anonymous or pseudonymous) several decades after the fact and the source for the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus didn't leave any writings of his own. It is part of the Bible. Pseudonymity and the New Testament

This isn't about who you worship, it is about the text. You're saying that bias is in the text, but you haven't shown that the text is actually bias. How do you determine which text is bias and which isn't. They are all written by men for their culture.

quote:
The story of David would be the best example. In addition the ancient Jews were always asking for forgiveness so they certainly anticipated that would be one of Godís attributes. Again, when we look at the Gospels we even see Jesus saying that we will be forgiven as we forgive which is a fairly clear example of it being demonstrated that God embodies the same moral code that He wishes for us follow.
Scripture please. Where in the OT does God actually demonstrate love and forgiveness?

quote:
Iím not saying that the text does give us the answer. Both texts in question are written with the cultural biases of the authors and as a result they contradict one another. To bring clarity to it we simply look at Yahweh as embodied in Jesus and it is clear that God does not advocate mass murder.
Again, please provide scripture that supports this. Besides you, what supports the idea that there is bias in the OT, but not the NT or bias when God is doing something unJesus like.

quote:
It seems to me that this is the big mistake. It isnít about laws as such. It is about the heart. God wants us to have hearts that forgive easily, that love always, that truly seek justice and fairness so that there is no need for laws. To paraphrase Paul - there is nothing wrong with me sitting down with a beer and buying one for a friend, but there is if the friend is alcoholic. It isnít about laws, it is about love.
You're wandering. We are discussing God's actions, not ours. Like it or not, God gave out laws and some had a death penalty. Civilizations still have laws today.

quote:
Not at all. The principle always remains the same as I said earlier. Much of Jesus talked about was how the Jews were to deal with the Romans on both a nationalistic and individual basis. The state is just a conglomeration of individuals, and ideally should reflect the collective view of the individuals.
Scripture please.

quote:
It may have merit, but again it is someone twisting what is written to fit his predetermined POV that it should be read literally. I am saying that these were men who were inspired to write their stories but they did not have it dictated to them. We have to look elsewhere, (Jesus), to determine Godís POV. Again, Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures.
The NT is also written by men and not dictated. You're not supporting your claims.

quote:
I guess weíll agree to disagree on that, however what Jehu did is certainly in contradiction to what we learn about Godís desires for us from Jesus.
Scripture please.

I can't really make a counter argument since you haven't provided scripture or supported your position. I don't see that your method of interpretation of the text is a valid method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 03-16-2012 3:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 03-16-2012 9:10 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 240 of 304 (656233)
03-17-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by GDR
03-16-2012 9:10 PM


Eisegesis
quote:
What is the justification for understanding the Bible to be dictated by God a valid method and what is it that makes my method invalid?
Literal (P'shat) interpretation of the Bible text doesn't mean the text was dictated by God or that there are no mistakes in the text or inconsistencies between manuscripts. It simply means we read the book the same way we do any other book in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the wordís being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.

The idea that the Bible is dictated is a tradition of mankind and not supported by the text.

You seem to use eisegesis which means you're putting your own subjective interpretations into the text, but those interpretations aren't supported by the text itself.

Basically, you're preaching your own version of your religion. IOW, your own brand of bias. You have nothing to support that your arguments are right or viable. You could be leading people down the wrong path.

When we reference scripture it is common courtesy to provide book, chapter, and verse. We don't make our opponents go search and hope they are on the same page.

quote:
First off you want me to use a literal reading of scripture to prove my point when I am arguing against a literal reading. The story of Jehu as told by the scribes in Kings as compared to Hosea is still the example I give for cultural bias. You donít have to accept that but it seems pretty clear to me. I am not saying that there isnít bias at times in the NT either but the NT is written in a different style than was the OT. The gospels are written as an account of what had actually been observed in the life of Jesus. Yes, we are dependent on them getting it right and I have no doubt that some details arenít 100% but I donít see that as a problem. There is no reason for them to make that stuff up.
Maybe you need to explain what you understand a literal reading means to you. I've shown you several meanings.

None of the New Testament writers were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus. Writing a story in the style of a journal doesn't make the information any more valid. You have no way of knowing whether any of the writers did or didn't have a reason to make stuff up. You're making stuff up by claiming bias for no other reason than it conflicts with your view of God. I know, you said it wasn't your view but that of Jesus. How do you know what Jesus' point of view is without reading the text? So you don't seem to mind the literal interpretation in some cases. You're being selective about what you accept as unbias.

If this is the way you want to create your own personal belief system, more power to you; but in a debate it doesn't float. It's easy to say stuff if one doesn't have to support it.

God didn't say love him because he's the nicest deity.
Abraham didn't do what God said because he was a nice deity.
Favor is more what God gave in the OT. Something that God could give and take away at his pleasure. (See God's promise to David 2 Samuel 7:15)
God had no problem with David killing his enemies, but was enraged when David sent Uriah out to die.
God may have forgiven David, but he also killed Bathsheba's baby.

Of course all this could just be bias and David was just a very lucky man and they attributed his great leadership to God. It could also have been a myth.

If you love God, you love him warts and all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 03-16-2012 9:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 5:39 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 246 of 304 (656344)
03-17-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by GDR
03-17-2012 5:39 PM


Re: Eisegesis
quote:
Yes I have my biases as do you and everyone else. It is faith. Yes I believe that the Bible is the inspired book of God working with the world and through his created beings. God informs us and teaches us using the Bible as a means to His ends. I know that on one level yet I donít know in the way that I know I have 5 fingers on each hand, or even in the way I know the sun will come up again tomorrow.
This thread is on the science side of the debate forum. Evidence and/or reasoned argumentation is required in this forum. Chalking claims up to faith and belief is not.

I can't add anymore to what I've already said; and since you aren't really debating or providing evidence or support for your claims, I can't move our discussion forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 5:39 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 248 of 304 (656391)
03-18-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by GDR
03-17-2012 8:11 PM


C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
believe that my understanding of scripture is pretty much the same as Lewis and Wright, at least as I understand them.
On this side of the forum, you need to provide evidence that their method of interpretation is sound. Whether the evidence is from inside the Bible or outside, you need to provide it in this thread.

The C.S. Lewis method of Bible interpretation. Supposedly C.S. Lewis argued for a reason-based Christianity rather than faith-based, but in looking at the quote you provided from his book "Miracles", I'm not seeing consistent reasoning. It explains your earlier vague arguments though.

Show evidence that C.s. Lewis' method of interpretation is credible. The problem with "his" method, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread, is that it arbitrarily decides what's true and what isn't. How can we say that the story of Jonah was a myth but the story of Jesus was not? This method leaves the door open for us to reject any part of the Bible that doesn't fit with our personal view.

Rationalizing is not reasoning. Lewis is a gifted writer and can easily make unreasonable things seem reasonable.

Lewis's Hermeneutic
It is necessary to begin an understanding of Lewis's hermeneutic with the realization that Lewis brought his rich legacy of literary criticism to all of his reading, including the Bible. As a foremost literary critic and expert in ancient and medieval-Renaissance literature, Lewis was well aware of the problems involved in the writing, translation and interpretation of literature. His hermeneutic, however, is not purely academic. The academic aspects are combined with some presuppositions of Christian faith (namely that there is a God and He has spoken and revealed himself and continues to speak and reveal), that somehow blend together to form a strange hybrid of biblical interpretation that satisfies hardly anybody. Richard Cunningham, in his book C.S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith, expands this point by saying that Lewis's, "...recognition of the absence of a theological system, of the mythological and metaphorical elements, and of error and inconsistency in the Bible causes uneasiness among fundamentalists and conservatives."{5} The marriage of biblical assumptions and literary criticism has created many critics of Lewis's hermeneutic view.

Since you agree with C.S. Lewis to some degree, let's try debating the credibility of Lewis' method vs the Literal Interpretation Method, not yours. Don't make this thread about you personally. You can pick and choose all you want, that's your choice.

Please provide evidence to support your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 8:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 4:54 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 253 of 304 (656451)
03-18-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by GDR
03-18-2012 4:54 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
Well OK, but it does seem to be pretty one-sided. You ignore the questions I ask you and donít offer an opinion of your own in order to have a proper discussion.
You've asked me one question:

GDR writes:

What is the justification for understanding the Bible to be dictated by God a valid method and what is it that makes my method invalid? Message 239

and I responded in Message 240. If I've missed a question, you'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not sure what you considered my posts to be if not my opinion on methods of Bible interpretation with evidence/support to back up my opinion.

Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1

Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.

Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. NIV

Basically, eat and don't worry about everyone elses rituals/beliefs or lack thereof. He isn't doing away with the food laws.

An eye for an eye deals with legal compensation. Jesus is teaching that it is better to go beyond the minimum requirements, raise the bar. That doesn't do away with the minimum requirements or say that the OT scriptures weren't from God.

Deuteronomy 23 doesn't say hate your enemy. It is a judgement by God on the Ammonites and Moabites. In Matthew 5, Jesus is talking to people in an occupied country. The enemy was all around them. They had to live among them. Different situations.

quote:
AbE AbE I should add that if Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God, then when the Jewish people suggested that Yahweh promotes genocide and public stoning, (things that are in contradiction to what Jesus taught), and actually committed such acts we can safely conclude that that wasn't of God either.
Please show me where Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God.

In the OT, God is laying down laws for a nation that will be governing itself and did govern itself. In the NT, the Jews were limited on governing themselves.

Jews in Jesus' Time
Despite these common practices, the Roman Empire overshadowed the Jews' daily lives, whether sophisticated urban dwellers or country peasants, from 63 B.C. through 70 A.D.

From 37 to 4 B.C., the region known as Judea was a vassal state of the Roman Empire ruled by Herod the Great. After Herod's death, the territory was divided among his sons as titular rulers, but was actually under Roman authority as the Iudaea Prefecture of Syria Province. This occupation led to waves of revolt, often led by two of the sects mentioned by Josephus: the Zealots who sought Jewish independence and the Sicarii (pronounced "sic-ar-ee-eye"), an extremist Zealot group whose name means assassin (from the Latin for "dagger" [sica]).

The Jews weren't in any place to make treaties with anyone.

The C.S. Lewis method seems to miss the point of a lesson just as letterism does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 4:54 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 11:50 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 255 of 304 (656479)
03-19-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by GDR
03-18-2012 11:50 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
Granted I wasn't to clear on the question but you told me that the Bible is not to be read as dictated by God so how is it to be understood. Does God advocate genocide and stoning to death for minor offences?
Actually in Message 240 I said:

PurpleDawn writes:

Literal (P'shat) interpretation of the Bible text doesn't mean the text was dictated by God or that there are no mistakes in the text or inconsistencies between manuscripts. It simply means we read the book the same way we do any other book in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the wordís being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.

The belief that the Bible was dictated by God, is just that, a belief. I don't know that it is part of any method of interpretation. One's beliefs will impact their understanding.

I explained letterism in Message 233. Here's another link for Letterism.

Letterism

"While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre, or types, in the Bible. The Hebrew poetry of the Psalms is not to be interpreted in the same way as is the logical discourse of Romans. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers."^[10]^

In Message 236, I addressed the issue of the death sentences and showed that the laws given weren't out of line with the times. I also showed information concerning Jews and stoning. If the text attributes the rules to God, then yes, according to the text God advocates what he supposedly said.

My problem with the Lewis method is that there isn't any consistent basis for declaring the OT written by men and not of God, but that the NT is of God even though it is also written by men. His system negates the parts he didn't believe or didn't match his view of God.

quote:
I also asked why it is that I should worship a God who advocates genocide and stoning.
Why should one worship any god at all today?

If one believes that Jesus is the God of Abraham in human form, I don't see that there is a choice. If one worships Jesus, then one is worshiping a god that advocates genocide.

So I guess one needs to decide who they believe Jesus to be, why they chose to worship Jesus, or why they are even worshiping a god.

quote:
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.
Unfortunately, since we are working with translations, it is difficult to read the stories as we do any other book. The translations aren't all the same. That's why when there seems to be a difference of opinion concerning the understanding, I like to dig a bit deeper into the translation and see if I'm missing something. Interlinear and Parallel Bibles are handy. I use Biblos.com.

Mark 7:19 Interlinear
The interlinear doesn't copy well, so you have to go to the link. Notice the words "purifying all the foods". The verse doesn't say that Jesus declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:19 Parallel
You can read the rest at the link.

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

Young's Literal Translation goes along with the point of what Jesus is saying concerning hand washing. The body is going to get rid of anything it can't use for nutrition. IOW, dirt from your hands is not going to survive digestion.

In 1 Corinthians

The hand washing rituals were commanded by tradition, not the God of Abraham. What we see in the OT are more common sense cleanliness rules. (Leviticus 15)

Washing the Hands - Judaism
The rabbis of the Talmud derived the requirement of washing the hands as a consequence of the statement in Leviticus 15:11. The Talmud inferred the specific requirements of hand-washing from these passages.

The Jews seemed to have made excess rules out of fear as I mentioned in Message 253 concerning the "fence" around the Torah.

quote:
The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Paulís letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.
But he isn't negating the food laws. Romans 14: Who Is The Weak Brother?

You're not showing me that my interpretation of passages is wrong. You're just repeating yourself. I'm not going to keep jumping through hoops as you add verses. You should have an understanding of how I read the Bible.

IMO, when one is bothered by inconsistencies or confronted with inconsistencies, then one needs to dig a bit deeper to see if one's interpretation is skewed by the translation, misunderstanding of ancient times, belief based on hear say, etc. Sometimes people never really read the text.

We're supposed to be discussing the Lewis interpretation method. I don't think we need to hit every verse you feel negates the OT. You need to explain why these verses mean the OT is not of God and the NT is. Both are written by men. What makes one of God and one not?

Edited by purpledawn, : Added letterism link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 11:50 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-19-2012 2:39 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 257 of 304 (656534)
03-19-2012 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by GDR
03-19-2012 2:39 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
I donít agree at all. I believe that the man Jesus embodied the God of Abraham but that is not the same as having to believe at face value all that is written in the OT. Jesus came as a climax and fulfillment of the Israel story. With that fulfillment He brought correction. Are you saying that just because some scribe in the employ of Jehu got it wrong that God couldnít have resurrected Jesus. Are you saying because someone in the ancient past abused his position of authority and decreed that someone picking up firewood on Sunday should be stoned to death that God couldnít have used Jesus to give His message of love, justice, mercy and forgiveness that we see in the ďSermon on the MountĒ.
I'm saying that your reasoning is inconsistent. What you just wrote is gobbledygook with no evidence or support. Rationalizing is not reasoning.

You're not showing evidence that the Lewis method is viable as a means to understanding the Bible text.

You're not showing evidence to support disagreeing with my interpretations, you just keep adding verses.

I read through this thread and you didn't bring it to the debate, my friend. I agree with Dawn Bertot. Basically you're saying the Bible can't be trusted except for those parts that you feel are true.

All you countered with is that you don't believe it or you disagree. There's no counter argument with evidence to back up your style of interpretation. You are inconsistent when it comes to providing books, verses, or numbers when referencing the Bible Stories.

BTW the story of the adultress in John 7:53-8:11 is considered a later addition.

The scribes were busy messing in the NT also. Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity

So how can we say that the story of Jonah is a myth and the story of Jesus is not.

Typical Myth Characteristics
The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans.[9][10][11] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion or spirituality.[9] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.[9][10][12][13] In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative, "true stories" or myths, and "false stories" or fables.

ABE: You didn't answer my question.
Why should one worship any god at all today?

Edited by purpledawn, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-19-2012 2:39 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 2:04 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 259 of 304 (656573)
03-20-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by GDR
03-20-2012 2:04 AM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
purpledawn writes:

Why should one worship any god at all today?

Because I believe it to be true.


So people should worship a god because you believe it to be true?

I wasn't asking why you worship a god. I'm asking why should people worship a god at all? You pointed out that you wouldn't worship a god that advocates genocide, so what is the point in worshiping a god?

quote:
Frankly I believe I've answered the questions you asked and obviously you feel I haven't. Why don't we have a go at you explaining to me how the Bible is to be understood.
You haven't shown us evidence that the Lewis method of interpreting or understanding the Bible is viable.

We've shown you the problems we see with that method. It's inconsistent.

This is not how one reads a book or a compilation of writings.

GDR writes:

To understand the OT it has to be read in context with what has been revealed through Jesus and to fully understand the NT we have to read it in context with the OT. Itís hard to understand the conclusion if you donít have the set up in your head and you certainly are missing something if you only read the set up and donít read the conclusion. Message 145

You already understand that the Bible is not just one book but a collection of books. (Message 31) Each book of the bible has its own literary form and its own history as to how it was developed and preserved.

Writers have a purpose when they address an audience no matter the genre. Their writings are aimed at their audience.

So we need to understand what each author was trying to tell his audience. The OT doesn't need the NT to be understood. It can stand alone. Some NT writers use the OT to support their message.

So we have to understand what they are telling their audience, not what we want to hear. Just like the food issue in Message 253 and Message 255. Neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the food laws. Jesus addressed a traditional ritual and Paul basically was trying to make it easier for Jews and Gentiles to eat together.

The early followers of Jesus still kept Jewish law.

To their neighbors these early followers of Jesus, for they did not yet bear the distinctive designation of Christian, must have appeared another sect of Judaism, predominantly Galilean in membership, distinguished from other Jews by their belief that Jesus was the Messiah and by their expectation of the early return of their Lord. Their leader, James, appears to have been especially conservative in his loyalty to Jewish customs. They continued to use the temple as a place of worship and observed the Jewish law, including its ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary regulations. Even some of the pharisees joined them. So far as we know, their numbers were recruited entirely from Jews and proselytes to Judaism. --From the book "a History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953.

If you want to discuss the food issue further, I suggest you go to the thread Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?.

Since we are so far removed from the time, we need some background history to understand what the writer was trying to tell his audience or how they might have understood it. I've listened to a 1943 Red Skelton Show radio broadcast. Some of the humor is lost on me since it is before my time. I can look at history or talk to someone who remembers that time. Since the Bible writers are over 2000 years in the past, we are limited on accessible history.

The other problem is that the Bible is written in languages that became extinct for everyday usage. This makes translation even more difficult.

You have stated repeatedly in this thread that the Bible was written by men who were inspired to write down their stories but they weren't dictated by God. They contain their personal and culturally biases. Message 8

You change horses when you get to the NT.

GDR writes:

However that is another discussion but I will add simply that the Gospel stories do not fit with anything that would be concocted by someone from that era and there is no reason for them to lie, particularly as most of the followers that we know of suffered for their faith. Message 42

You've decided there's no reason for the NT writers to lie, but apparently there is a reason for the OT writers to lie. You have no evidence for either. You simply trust what fits your personal belief system and doubt that which does not.

I agree that all the writings in the Bible were written by men and not dictated by a god. I agree that the writers were inspired by what they knew of their god and by their environment.

The Gospel of John was written for a Greek/Greek speaking audience. The message had to be adjusted. Edgar Goodspeed on the Gospel of John

To meet the needs of this Greek public some adjustment had to be made. Christianity was addressing it in Jewish terms. A Greek who felt like becoming a Christian was called upon to accept Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. He would naturally ask what this meant and would have to be given a short course in Jewish apocalyptic messianic thought. Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of the Christian salvation without being forever routed, we might even say detoured, through Judaism? Must Christianity always speak in a Jewish vocabulary?

The only reason you've given for accepting the NT as true is by faith.

GDR to Dawn Bertot writes:

Yes I learn about Jesus from the Bible. How do I know that I can trust what He said in the Bible? I don't know. As I've said it is by faith. I have faith in, and base my understanding of God in the resurrected Jesus, whereas your faith is in an inerrant Bible even with all of its inconsistencies, contradictions etc. Message 102

GDR to Dawn Bertot writes:

You want specific answers as to how I decide what is from God in the Bible and what isn't, and my answer is that I use the words that we have recorded by Jesus, which I accept by faith. I realize that answer doesn't satisfy you but so be it. Message 104

There were no words recorded by Jesus. We have writers who put together a stories decades later based on who knows what: memories, rumors, legends, notes. We don't know.

Edgar Goodspeed writes:

The Gospel of Mark
The undoubted want of cohesion [1] which has been detected in Mark is just what one would expect if the book had the origin suggested by Papias. Peter would ordinarily tell incidents in Jesus' work to illustrate or enforce some point he was making in his own preaching, just as Papias says; these materials, scattered through Peter's discourses. Mark afterward assembles from his memory of Peter's sermons. It is very natural, therefore, for each of the detached items or units into which Mark, chapters 1-12, so easily falls should seem to deal with some problem of early Christian thought or life; it was for that that Peter meant them.[2] It is also probable that Mark colored his material with his own theological views and gave the work a stamp of his own, almost as positively as Matthew and Luke did in writing their gospels.[3]

A valid method of interpretation should lead a person to understand what the text is actually saying to the audience regardless of one's belief or faith.

In the issue with Hosea and Jehu, you need the contradiction to support your belief that your God doesn't condone killings.

The God of Abraham condones killings. Depending on which Gospel one reads, Jesus is not God. Jesus is a man.

If you're making up your own version of the Bible, that's fine; but don't pass it off as a valid method of interpretation.

So what you've shown us is that the problem with literal (P'shat) interpretation of scripture is that it may or may not support personal or current doctrine or tradition.

Although you don't like the belief that the Bible is dictated by God, you seem to treat the NT as though it is dictated by God. The NT is true, but the OT isn't. You method isn't consistent through all the writings of the Bible.

Now can you outline just how the Lewis method goes about interpreting the Bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 2:04 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 6:07 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 261 of 304 (656668)
03-20-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by GDR
03-20-2012 6:07 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
OK. The people should worship a god because they believe that god exists and also because they believe that there god is worth worshipping. My point earlier is that one might believe that a god who advocates genocide and stoning exists but they would have to make up their own mind whether or not a god like that is worth worshipping.
Which means you have to make up your own mind. Stop asking us why you should worship a god that advocates genocide and stoning.

quote:
I still maintain that both Paul and Jesus were very clear that the food laws were not in effect.
But you provided no evidence to support your position.

quote:
Well the Jewish ones did as Jesusí followers they didnít consider that they had stopped being Jewish. It was different for the gentile followers of Jesus. Look at the debate between Paul and others such as Peter over circumcision.
We're talking about food. Stop adding new points. Since the Jewish followers still followed the Jewish laws it is clear that neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the Jewish food laws. There's a thread for that discussion. You can take your evidence there.

quote:
In the case of the OT if we look at the historical narratives we can assume that the writing is being written with a particular bias. The scribe that wrote the account of Jehu would in all likelihood be paid by Jehu or his descendents and isnít going to be writing something that will upset them regardless of what he actually thinks about the whole thing.
You're writing fiction and still provide no evidence for your assumption.

quote:
Back to the NT. If we accept that Jesus was the embodiment of God we are dealing with a situation where His followers were hearing from God directly. I accept that we donít know if the Gospel writers actually were contemporaries of Jesus or not, but everyone accepts that there would have been written sources from which the Gospel writers drew their information, and there still would have been eyewitnesses around at the time they were compiled. The same is true for what Paul wrote.
This is about interpretation of what is written, not "ifs". Evidence please!

quote:
There is no motive for any of them that I can see for them to make the whole thing up, nor are they written in a way, (I gave examples earlier) that would give us reason to think that. One reason I didnít mention earlier was that in Paulís letters we can see that there was conflict over circumcision. The Gospels never mention the conflict. It is reasonable to think that if they were going to put words into the mouth of Jesus they would have had Him commenting on the issue. However, they donít do that and I suggest that it is because Jesus never addressed the subject, which gives us more confidence that they honestly and accurately as possible recorded what Jesus said and the narrative that was His life on Earth.
More gobbledygook. You still provide no evidence.
By the time the synoptics were written, I doubt that circumcision was their biggest issue.

Writers have a message they want to give their audience. Interpretation is about understanding their message, not ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 6:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 9:24 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 262 of 304 (656670)
03-20-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by GDR
03-20-2012 6:07 PM


Afterthought and Fiction
You've mentioned twice concerning the NT that you see no reason for them to make stuff up.

I've brought to your attention that you are making stuff up.

Can you explain the reason you are making stuff up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 6:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 9:25 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 265 of 304 (656698)
03-21-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by GDR
03-20-2012 9:24 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
This isnít a discussion or even a debate. I have no idea about what you believe or what point you are trying to make. I have given you my rationale and you donít accept it. Thatís fine by me.
You don't need to know my belief. It has no bearing on interpreting the text.

My point is that interpreting text through a lens of belief is inconsistent. You've spent more time rationalizing your interpretation than providing actual concrete support for a method of interpretation.

You agree with this view from C. S. Lewis, but you have yet to actually show support that this view is credible. Even Lewis admits it is tentative.

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end. --C. S. Lewis, Miracles

He considers the NT as factual and the OT not so much and you agree.

If I've understood you correctly, you've basically said that the gospels are true because of their biographical style of presentation.

Greeks liked biographies. The Gospel of Mark by Edgar Goodspeed

As we approach the Greek gospels, we naturally turn to Greek literature to see what precedents or analogies it affords for this new literary type. The origins of Greek biography are found in Xenophon's Cyropaedia and his Memorabilia of Socrates (430-350B.C.), and it developed somewhat luxuriantly in the Alexander romance of the later centuries before Christ. Such works no doubt created a taste for biography among the Greeks, as the works of Plutarch (ca. A.D.90) show, but they seem to have had little influence upon the early gospels.

Remember a writer writes to his audience. Biographies of gods and heroes preceded and influenced the biographies of men. Development of Greek Biographies

So the idea that because a piece was written as a biography doesn't make the person real or the story true.

From what you've written, you aren't pulling meaning from the Bible text or at least not consistently. As I said in Message 240: You seem to use eisegesis which means you're putting your own subjective interpretations into the text, but those interpretations aren't supported by the text itself.

Basically, you're preaching your own version of your religion. IOW, your own brand of bias. You have nothing to support that your arguments are right or viable. You could be leading people down the wrong path.

All we've learned from you is that you believe what you believe because you believe it and that's your prerogative, but in a debate on the science side there needs to be more concrete information.

IMO, humans are an aggressive animal. As with any animal some are more aggressive than others. Civilization has changed over time and so has mankind. Some things are better and some things are not. It's the nature of the beast.
Evolution of Human Aggression

Now if we look at the Bible (old and new) as a compilation of human writings inspired by their times and the needs of their people, we see a god that changes as the situation of his chosen people changes.

It's fascinating that you will worship a god that embodies mercy, forgiveness and love; but you can't worship a god that has become a god that embodies mercy, forgiveness and love.

Some Christians ask for forgiveness from God for their past transgressions, but some (like you) can't forgive God for his past transgressions. Haven't learned the lesson yet have they?

Do to others what you would have them do to you. Obviously you don't extend that same courtesy to God.

The point is to understand their message and not try to put our message in their mouth. Interpretation is a means to understanding what the ancient writers were telling their audience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 9:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by GDR, posted 03-21-2012 10:57 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 266 of 304 (656729)
03-21-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
03-20-2012 9:25 PM


Artistic License ... Maybe
quote:
Right. Just what am I making up?

GDR writes:

I believe that the man Jesus embodied the God of Abraham but that is not the same as having to believe at face value all that is written in the OT. Jesus came as a climax and fulfillment of the Israel story. With that fulfillment He brought correction. Are you saying that just because some scribe in the employ of Jehu got it wrong that God couldnít have resurrected Jesus. Are you saying because someone in the ancient past abused his position of authority and decreed that someone picking up firewood on Sunday should be stoned to death that God couldnít have used Jesus to give His message of love, justice, mercy and forgiveness that we see in the ďSermon on the MountĒ. Message 256

The bold section is a made up story line because you have no evidence to support it and the text doesn't support it. You are adding to the story.

GDR writes:

In the case of the OT if we look at the historical narratives we can assume that the writing is being written with a particular bias. The scribe that wrote the account of Jehu would in all likelihood be paid by Jehu or his descendents and isnít going to be writing something that will upset them regardless of what he actually thinks about the whole thing.

With a little bit of searching one can find when Bible Scholars feel The Book of Kings was compiled/written. About 625 CE.

From within the book itself (2 Kings 1:18) we find that the information in the book is pulled from another book. The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel.

In the book itself we can see that Zechariah was the last of Jehu's line. 2 Kings 15:12.

So the word of the Lord spoken to Jehu was fulfilled: "Your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation."

Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah

So God already put a time limit on Jehu's House before Hosea wrote according to 2 Kings 10:30.

Of course, the book of kings was supposedly compiled/written after Hosea according to scholars.

I wouldn't point at a scribe on Jehu's payroll. I'd point at the compiler. He knew the history. If you're going to make things up, at least make a more plausible tale.

In the same way we can look at the timeline of the gospels and see that they were written shortly after to several decades after the destruction of the temple. Early Christian Writings Since they knew about the destruction it wouldn't have been difficult to write a prophecy that sounded good, just like the compiler might have done for Jehu.

You don't even realize that you're not presenting facts or a reasonable assumption.

So the NT writers could have done the same thing you've been doing. They could take what information they had and created a story. We can only speculate whether they did or not.

The NT is just as vulnerable to artistic license as the OT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 03-20-2012 9:25 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014