Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 176 of 304 (647684)
01-10-2012 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
01-10-2012 5:01 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
PaulK writes:
That's not what he was quoted as saying. So either he was misquoted, didn't mean what he said or you are directly contradicting the verses you supposedly believe.
No, not at all, but I am saying that the verse in question has to be read in the context of the entire passage including vs 44.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2012 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2012 6:03 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 178 of 304 (647703)
01-10-2012 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
01-10-2012 6:03 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
PaulK writes:
It looks more like you saying "Look over here!" in an attempt to distract the conversation from the verses in question.
It looks to me like you’re doing the fundamentalist thing of cherry picking verses and ignoring the context to make a point.
PaulK writes:
It seems pretty obvious to me that we can't plausibly say that the Pharisees didn't believe that at some time (maybe even in the past) that there would be a prophet equal to Moses. But so far that's the only thing suggested.
I’m not saying they didn’t believe that in fact I’m sure they did. They were looking for a messiah but they didn’t recognize him when he came because they expected the messiah to be consist with their beliefs.
PaulK writes:
So come on, what was it that Moses supposedly wrote about Jesus that the Pharisees did not believe. Chapter and verse please.
Now there’s a rabbit hole I’m not going down. The point is that Jesus obviously believed that they weren’t believing what Moses was saying in the Torah, and it isn’t just that they didn’t believe what they said about Him. Jesus is contending that they didn’t believe what Moses said about the nature of God in general which meant that they wouldn’t recognize Jesus as messiah, as He was professing a very different message than what they were preaching.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2012 6:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2012 2:00 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 180 of 304 (647931)
01-12-2012 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
01-11-2012 2:00 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
PaulK writes:
The messiah issue really is something of a rabbit hole because the major messianic prophecies aren't even in the Torah. Even the verses you mention only talk about a prophet equal to Moses, without specifying what that prophet is going to do or giving any way to recognise him. That's why it is so difficult to say that the Pharisees didn't believe it - it just says far too little.
I agree there is very little about the Messiah in the Torah. There was much more in Isaiah, Daniel, the Psalms, Jeremiah etc.
Jesus says that all the law and the prophets hang on the commands to love God and neighbour. That was not what the Pharisees preached or lived so Jesus is saying that they didn't believe Moses, but no doubt the Pharisees would have disagreed with that. As Jesus was preaching a message of love and peace they were unable to recognize the messiah when He actually did arrive.
I think that's pretty straight forward but we're just going around in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2012 2:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 2:48 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 182 of 304 (647969)
01-12-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
01-12-2012 2:48 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
Not at all. If the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders expected a messiah that was coming come and lead a revolution and defeat Rome in battle, they would hardly recognize a messiah that tells them to love their enemy and turn the other cheek. They wouldn't recognize a messiah that was telling people that you don't go to the Temple to be forgiven sins but that He would and could do it Himself. Jesus as Messiah was a repudiation of just about everything they believed.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 2:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 11:59 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 184 of 304 (647990)
01-12-2012 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by PaulK
01-12-2012 11:59 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
Because they believed the specific verse but they did not believe that it referred to Jesus, because they did not believe the basic message that God was about love, forgiveness and mercy, the message that Jesus believed was the essential message of the Torah.
You cleverly almost have me arguing for the position I am opposing. We could go back and forward on this forever but I frankly don’t see it leading to any successful conclusion. I still believe that my understanding is correct but in the end if Jesus did misspeak or even if the writers did not transcribe accurately, (neither which I think is the case), it doesn’t affect my understanding of the Christian faith.
At any rate you have cleverly dragged me off the point of the thread was to trying to make which was to point out that a literalist reading of the Scriptures not only gives us a perverted view of God but that it is impossible to actually maintain anyway. (If they were really serious we’d see a lot more one eyed Christians around for example. )
quote:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 11:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 2:11 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 186 of 304 (648028)
01-12-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by PaulK
01-12-2012 2:11 PM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
PaulK writes:
Really I haven't. NoNukes started this subtopic. You've chosen to drag it out with evasion and denial of the truth. I'd say that you've done far more to drag yourself off topic than I have.
That's the trouble with forums like this. I only meant that in a very tongue in cheek kind of way. I agree completely that it is me that has allowed it to be dragged off topic.
I go off track easily as I enjoy the discussion. As far as that discussion goes I think we're at an impasse.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2012 2:11 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-18-2012 12:53 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 190 of 304 (648764)
01-18-2012 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
01-18-2012 12:53 AM


Re: Questions Re: A summation
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. I have told you numerous times how we discern the truth from the Scriptures but you just ignore my answers and at the same time your only method of resolving contradictions in the Scriptures is to say that they don't exist.
As the thread on "Tentativity and the Bible" seems to be have been ignored by everyone including the originator I'll repeat what I said on that thread here. My point is that neither Jesus nor Paul understood the Hebrew Scriptures as being the inerrent Word of God.
For example Jesus said this when asked about divorce in Mark 4.
quote:
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
Jesus doesn't say that God said this, but that "Moses said this", and then He goes back before that to Genesis to show what it was that God wanted.
In Matthew 19 Jesus reaffirms what He had said earlier.
quote:
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
He is saying that Moses got it wrong. It is obvious that Jesus saw these Scriptures as being written by men not God.
in Matthew 5 he puts it this way.
quote:
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
In this quote in referring to the Scriptures he merely says that "it has been said".
Jesus did not understand the Scriptures to be read as the literal Word of God. He used His reason, His wisdom and the Holy Spirit in the "Testing of All Things".
Paul did the same. In addition to your quote Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 6:
quote:
12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.
Paul is essentially repudiating such things as the food laws and saying that we have to determine what is beneficial to us.
Paul writes this in Romans 2:
quote:
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Our righteousness with God is not based on keeping a set of laws, it is based on our hearts. Do we love selfishly or unselfishly? Is our joy found in self gratification or is it found by bringing and finding joy in others. Is it all about me or is it about God's good creation?
The fundamentalists who insist that the Bible is to be understood as coming word for word from God are modern day Pharisees that pervert the message of God.
I remember walking into a fundamentalist church one time when I was working out of town and being asked by the Pastor if I was saved. This whole thing of being saved, meaning am I going to heaven or not, completely misconstrues the Gospel message. If this is the fundamental aim of Christianity it would mean that the basic goal of the whole faith is self centred. It becomes how do I avoid hell and get to heaven. The Gospel message is about love for others and opposed to self love so the whole basis of fundamentalism is flawed from the outset.
Here is a passage from Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chap 4.
quote:
1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court ; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted ; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior ? What do you have that you did not receive ? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
The Bible says that we are not to judge each other or even ourselves. We are to let God figure that out, yet the fundamentalists ignore that part of the Bible because it does not conform to their idiosyncratic version of Christianity.
Again, as this passage points out, we are not judged on our religious beliefs, but on the condition of our hearts. That is the message of the Gospel - it is not the message that the fundamentalists preach with their twisting of the meaning of John 3:16 IMHO.
Yes, I believe that there is judgement but it is based on our where our heart is, not based on a total denial of our gifts of reason and wisdom and accepting a literal version of the Bible giving us a God who tells us to love our enemy but also that it is fine to slaughter his whole community.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-18-2012 12:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 193 of 304 (651144)
02-04-2012 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2012 8:04 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
Well, therein lies the problem. My point is how does one determine what is meant to be literal and what is meant to be allegorical?
It isn't really much of a problem IMHO. Take the story of "The Good Samaritan or the "Prodigal Son" for example. I think we can see here what No Nukes is getting at. We generally assume that the stories are not based on actual events but that in no way diminishes the truth that the stories are meant to convey.
Broken down to its most basic elements I see Christianity bringing the message that there is a loving God who brought about the creation of all that we know, and has a plan on how it will all come to conclusion with perfect justice based on perfect love. In the meantime humans have been given the job of reflecting that perfect love into the creation. (I realize that we aren't doing much of a job of it but it does appear that the overall trajectory of human history is going in the right direction.)
I just believe that it is important to understand that the Bible is not some collection of books dictated through thousands of literary and oral bits of information, through a multitude of editors and redactors to become supernaturally one book dictated by God.
Yes I agree that people have been inspired to record the images that God has implanted on their imaginations which they have faithfully done, but we should recognize that in doing that they also impose their own personal and cultural views on what was written. But, particularly as understood through the lens of the gospels and the teaching of Jesus a great deal of what was written has become clear.
The trouble is that so many want hard and fast answers to all the hard questions and in many cases the simple ones as well. In the end I think that the answers boil down to where our hearts lie. Do our thoughts and actions lead us and others to a form of selfish love that moves us further from God or do to a sacrificial love that is about finding joy in seeing and bringing joy to others that draws us closer to God.
You can then ask how we believe any of it. In that sense how can we believe any historical account. All ancient writings are coloured by the views of the authors but from them we can glean all sorts of truths that we can be reasonably sure of. We read the accounts of the "Battle of Hastings" knowing full well that the accounts are going to give more or less an account biased towards William but we can be pretty sure that there actually was a battle and that the Normans won. In the same way we can look at the accounts of the resurrection and see that there is consensus, even though some details differ, that the resurrection was an actual historical event. (The other possible conclusion is that for some reason which remains obscure to me they conspired to make the whole thing up but I guess that is where it becomes an issue of faith.)
I've wandered around a great deal in all of this but hopefully it does do something to help answer your question.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 196 of 304 (652605)
02-14-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jrchamblee
02-14-2012 6:14 PM


jrchamblee writes:
The only answer I have for this is that when Adam an Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden, The bible says it is appointed for man to Die,it does not say how man had to die ? Or by who ?
Yes but do you want to base your whole theology on the first bit of Genesis. The gospel message of Jesus is very clear that we are called down a very different road of humble love and kindness. Remember, "blessed are the peacemakers"?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jrchamblee, posted 02-14-2012 6:14 PM jrchamblee has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 198 of 304 (653010)
02-17-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by saab93f
02-17-2012 6:23 AM


Re: Joshuas long day
saab93f writes:
The following quote describes immensely well the integrity of biblical literalists.
The trouble is that the quote you use only points out the mental contortions that some go through when they try and turn the Bible into something it was never intended to be. Frankly however that example is harmless. If someone wants to believe that God installed a number of mirrors around the cosmos in order to trick us then who cares. Actually I think that most fundamentalists don't read the Bible with any degree of objectivity in that they just study it with their preconceived notions and ignore the obvious fact that there are contradictions as a result of having different authors often with different points of view.
The problem from my perspective is that it turns the God made known to us through Jesus Christ into something that I as a Christian don't recognize. It turns God into an entity that sanctions genocide and someone who wants his followers to stone individuals to death for minor infractions and yet tells us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. What kind of god is that?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2012 6:23 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2012 2:35 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 200 of 304 (653031)
02-17-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by saab93f
02-17-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Joshuas long day
saab93f writes:
I guess you are somewhat right but to me that quote by Leonard Brand (Leonard R. Brand - Wikipedia) is a brilliant example of how far people are willing to go to try and twist facts to make the Bible/God look good. He is not the only one - it is just that quite a few people believe in the Flood and are willing to distort truth accordingly, even more believe in literal Genesis and...
Harmless it may be but it portrays the same lack of integrity as the Wedge-strategy.
I know that it often gets categorized as lying or as a lack of integrity but I think it is more just an unfortunate act of misplaced beliefs. For whatever reason there is a culture that has evolved around the Bible that insists that it be understood as factually true and so people like Brand start off with that premise. It is classic circular reasoning. I don't think he is being dishonest, I just think that he has started off with a false premise.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2012 2:35 PM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2012 4:32 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 204 of 304 (653161)
02-18-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Lone77Star
02-18-2012 9:09 AM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
HI Lone77Star
Welcome to EvC.
It seems to me that you too are trying to take the Bible literally while taking a different approach to the creation story than other literalists. It is still the same issue.
Look at what Jesus taught. He talked about love, forgiveness, mercy, truth etc. If that is what is important to God do you think that He cares in the slightest about what we believe about the creation of the Earth. Sure it's interesting but it's science, it' isn't theology.
This whole idea of making the Christian faith all about the Bible instead of about Jesus winds up with a Christianity that IMHO wouldn't be recognized by either Jesus or Paul. Certainly we primarily learn about Jesus from the Bible and that is central to our faith. I agree that God touches our hearts through the reading of the Bible. However, that does not mean that the Bible is dictated by God nor does it mean that everything declared by the hundreds, (probably thousands) of people that make the Bible what it is today is inerrant either historically or even theologically.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Lone77Star, posted 02-18-2012 9:09 AM Lone77Star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Lone77Star, posted 02-19-2012 4:28 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 230 of 304 (655815)
03-13-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by creatorsknight
03-06-2012 6:14 AM


God is bigger than the Bible
creatorsknight writes:
You sir are misrepresenting. I would never put the word of man over what the Bible says. You see the Bible only points out the flaws of man. It never points out that it has flaws. It never says not to trust it. On the contrary several times throughout the new testament Jesus...The Son Of God ... points to the scriptures and says have you not read. Which clearly means that if you believe that he is the Son of God that you should trust what was written before. 1 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So the Bible basically calls itself Holy in a sense.
The trouble is as I have stated in other places you are putting your faith in the Bible instead of in God as represented in Jesus. Yes we learn about Jesus in the scriptures. Yes, I agree with what Paul says in Timothy 3, but Paul is not saying that the Bible is to be read as a string of facts. The Bible is God breathed in that God speaks to us through the scriptures. Of course it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. That however does not mean that the Bible is essentially God dictated.
Your view of Christianity is based on the Bible and not on Jesus. You are turning faith into a work. How much time is spent arguing about whether the flood really happened or not? Frankly, what does it matter unless it is critical to your faith that the Bible essentially becomes a fourth addition to the Trinity as opposed to a vehicle that the Trinity uses to help get through to us. Let's understand from the flood that God cares about us and how we live. God is faithful to those that truly seek to follow his message of peace, love and forgiveness. Whether the flood actually happened or not is immaterial, so why waste the gift of time we have been given worrying about it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by creatorsknight, posted 03-06-2012 6:14 AM creatorsknight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by frako, posted 03-13-2012 6:09 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 235 of 304 (656009)
03-15-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
03-14-2012 1:03 PM


Re: God Character
Sorry to be slow replying but I just haven't had the time.
purpledawn writes:
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.
Sure I'm bothered by the violence in the OT just like I'm bothered by violence in the newspaper. The ancient practices are, although less prevalent, still with us. The idea of a strong god that would win wars for them was an example of the cultural biases of the writers and their cultures. It is an example of man trying to make god in his image. 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.
GDR writes:
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?
purpledawn writes:
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.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures. He is the climax of the Israel story in which he embodies the return of Yahweh to His people and as part of that brings clarity to their beliefs. If Jesus is truly the embodiment or incarnation of God then it is clear that we can understand the nature of God and his desires by using the teachings of Jesus to bring clarity to the OT.
He’ll say it is written but I say, and then go from there. (For example in the sermon on the mount referring to an eye for an eye etc.) He doesn’t say that Yahweh said that for the people then but it’s different now, he just said that that was what had been written. He doesn't say that God said it. He is saying that isn’t what God wanted at all so here is the truth of what God wants. When he talks about divorce in the "Sermon on the Mount" he says that Moses said that it because of the hardness of their hearts. He does not say that Yahweh/God said that. He then clarifies God's position.
Jesus also says that love of God and neighbour is the fulfillment of al of the law and the prophets. It isn’t 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.)
purpledawn writes:
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, Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD. 3So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. 4And the LORD said to him, Name 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. 5On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
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.
I’m sorry but I just can’t buy that. According to Hosea the house of Jehu is to be punished for the bloodshed in Jezreel. 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 isn’t to say that the prophets were always right or that there weren’t false prophets.)
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2012 1:03 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2012 9:47 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 237 of 304 (656102)
03-16-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by purpledawn
03-16-2012 9:47 AM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
purpledawn writes:
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.
I disagree. It isn’t my view of God that I espouse — it is Jesus’ 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.
purpledawn writes:
Where in the OT is God shown to demonstrate love and forgiveness?
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 God’s 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.
purpledawn writes:
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.
I’m 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.
purpledawn writes:
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.
It seems to me that this is the big mistake. It isn’t 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 isn’t about laws, it is about love.
purpledawn writes:
The Good Samaritan story is geared towards individuals, not nations.
The principle is the same.
purpledawn writes:
So by the time Jesus came around, the Jewish leadership already had doubts about the morality of capital punishment.
Well researched and I agree. God working through human imagination and human conscience will over a period of time change human hearts.
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.
purpledawn writes:
Given that, I think Mr. Jayawardena's solution has merit.
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 God’s POV. Again, Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures.
purpledawn writes:
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.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree on that, however what Jehu did is certainly in contradiction to what we learn about God’s desires for us from Jesus.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2012 9:47 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2012 6:22 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024