The Gospel of Paul - re Galatians 1:6
Jet Wood
related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what he
means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
However, I have looked it up, and here it is (complete with the
context it belongs to, because I am generally against taking single
verses out of context.) I would be grateful if you would help me to
understand this passage. (NRSV) I have some reflections and a question
afterwards.
6:I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called
you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -
7:not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are
confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8:But even if
we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to
what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9:As we have said
before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary
to what you received, let that one be accursed! 10:Am I now seeking
human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If
I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11:For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that
was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12:for I did not receive
it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through
a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13:You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was
violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.
14:I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age,
for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15:But
when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through
his grace, was pleased 16:to reveal his Son to me, so that I might
proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human
being, 17:nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already
apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and
afterwards I returned to Damascus. 18:Then after three years I did go
up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days;
19:but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's
brother. 20:In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
Paul does not lie in what he writes. Okay, we'll take him at his word
then. According to v13 onwards, Paul has only met with Peter and
James. But (v12) they did not tach him the Gospel that he has been
teaching people. Moreover, Paul openly acknowledges that he did not
learn his gospel from anyone else at all, but as a direct revelation
of Jesus Christ. Now, quite clearly from vv6-9, Paul is concerned that
nobody should preach anything different from what he has been
preaching.
So, here is my question: if Paul did not get his gospel from Peter or
James, or anyone else who was a witness to the events, but only from a
personal revelation, and if there is no record in Acts of what Paul
preached in Galatia (see Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and if the rest of the
letter to the Galatians does not tell us, (and if the only other clue
we have to what Paul said or did in Galatia is 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)
then, how on earth can we know what Paul taught in Galatia[3] so that
we can make sure we teach the same thing ?
------------------
[1] Though oddly the concepts of hell and repentance do not, on the
face of it, feature in the letter to the Galatians (!)
[2] This posting is meant as a genuine enquiry - I simply do not
understand the thinking employed. Please, anyone who feels they
understand it is free and welcome to contribute to this exploration.
[3] (because of course, we can't assume that it is the same as the
material recorded in the canonical gospels, since they are the result
of eyewitness accounts told first hand (John[4]) or second hand
(Mark[4]) or third hand (Matthew[5] and Luke[5]), not the result of
revelation - and it would be quite peculiar, wouldn't it, if it were
the same as any of these, that Paul would point out that it was of a
quite different nature)
[4] according to internal evidence and early church tradition
[5] because both Mt and Lk used Mk as a source.
Michael Gaskell
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:wjgR7.14641$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his posts
> related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what he
> means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
He may simply be trying to warn you, that a tree is recognised by its fruit,
not its claims.
--
Michael
In fact, the recent destruction in New York City and Washington D.C. is just
a tiny foreshadowing of much worse that is to come. To discover why and
how, do yourself a favour and carefully study the following website!
www.beastwatch.com
(The "when" is known only to God!)
RIchard Dudley
< snippage >
> So, here is my question: if Paul did not get his gospel from Peter or
> James, or anyone else who was a witness to the events, but only from a
> personal revelation, and if there is no record in Acts of what Paul
> preached in Galatia (see Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and if the rest of the
> letter to the Galatians does not tell us, (and if the only other clue
> we have to what Paul said or did in Galatia is 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)
> then, how on earth can we know what Paul taught in Galatia[3] so that
> we can make sure we teach the same thing ?
That's a very good question indeed. My own view is that the church has
already deviated from that gospel - that what is now taught as
'orthodoxy', Paul would regard as anathema.
Paul is, in effect, saying that the gospel he taught is one which,
for want of a better word, was 'channelled' through him. One of the
key words in this is in v16 where the RSV translates 'God was pleased
to reveal his Son *to* me'. This is in contrast with the NIV which
renders it 'God was pleased to reveal his Son *in* me'. For once,
I find myself inclining towards the NIV ! The NIV translation seems
to show that this gospel wasn't revealed through outward observation,
but by inward inspiration.
In order to see what Paul was preaching, it would have to be pieced
together from this and his other letters, including Romans and
Corinthians. Including letters not regarded by many scholars as
Pauline ( like the pastoral epistles ) will tend to cloud the
teaching, rather than clarify it.
> [3] (because of course, we can't assume that it is the same as the
> material recorded in the canonical gospels, since they are the result
> of eyewitness accounts told first hand (John[4]) or second hand
> (Mark[4]) or third hand (Matthew[5] and Luke[5]), not the result of
> revelation - and it would be quite peculiar, wouldn't it, if it were
> the same as any of these, that Paul would point out that it was of a
> quite different nature)
But there is no reason to suppose that Jesus' own teaching would
diverge from Paul's, is there ? Seeing that Paul received a inward
revelation of Christ, and subsequently described himself as having
'the mind of Christ' ( 1Cor2:16 ). We might expect the true teaching
of Jesus to be present there in the gospels, perhaps added to and mis-
interpreted through word of mouth, don't you think ?
Richard
Paul Wright
RIchard Dudley <dig...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Jet Wood" wrote ...
>
>< snippage >
>> So, here is my question: if Paul did not get his gospel from Peter or
>> James, or anyone else who was a witness to the events, but only from a
>> personal revelation, and if there is no record in Acts of what Paul
>> preached in Galatia (see Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and if the rest of the
>> letter to the Galatians does not tell us, (and if the only other clue
>> we have to what Paul said or did in Galatia is 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)
>> then, how on earth can we know what Paul taught in Galatia[3] so that
>> we can make sure we teach the same thing ?
>In order to see what Paul was preaching, it would have to be pieced
>together from this and his other letters, including Romans and
>Corinthians. Including letters not regarded by many scholars as
>Pauline ( like the pastoral epistles ) will tend to cloud the
>teaching, rather than clarify it.
NT Wright (no relation) thinks that what Paul means by gospel is spelt
out in 1 Cor 15, where Paul says "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of
the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have
taken your stand". The key elements of Paul's gospel are thus
the death of Christ for sins, and the resurrection, which showed Jesus is
the Son of God (cf Rom 1:2-4).
I've recently said in another newsgroup that there are rather a lot of
different meanings for "Gospel" within the church. The examples I gave
were the "Two Ways to Live" presentation which they teach CU members to
to give (see <http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/>), "Everyone needs
to speak in tongues", and "God loves everyone". These things might well
be true (except for the speak in tongues one, obviously), but Wright
argues convincingly that they're not what Paul taught as his gospel.
You can find his arguments in the book "What St Paul Really Said".
--
----- Paul Wright ------| "The two most common elements in the universe are
-paul....@pobox.com--| hydrogen and stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Colin Bell
>
> Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his posts
> related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what he
> means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
>
> However, I have looked it up, and here it is (complete with the
> context it belongs to, because I am generally against taking single
> verses out of context.) I would be grateful if you would help me to
> understand this passage. (NRSV) I have some reflections and a question
> afterwards.
> 6:I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called
> you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -
> 7:not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are
> confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8:But even if
> we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to
> what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9:As we have said
> before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary
> to what you received, let that one be accursed! 10:Am I now seeking
> human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If
> I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
[snip text of verses 11-20 plus some discussion I generally agree with]
> So, here is my question: if Paul did not get his gospel from Peter or
> James, or anyone else who was a witness to the events, but only from a
> personal revelation, and if there is no record in Acts of what Paul
> preached in Galatia (see Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and if the rest of the
> letter to the Galatians does not tell us, (and if the only other clue
> we have to what Paul said or did in Galatia is 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)
> then, how on earth can we know what Paul taught in Galatia[3] so that
> we can make sure we teach the same thing ?
We can't know word for word. But we do know that Paul is pretty insistent
that there is a single Gospel which he got from Christ, so it seems a
safe assumption that what he preached to the Galatians is the same or
very close to what he writes in his other letters - and Romans gives a
pretty complete Gospel.
Note that the command to the Galatians was only to hold onto the Gospel
Paul preached because that was the only true Gospel they had received. For
us, we are to hold onto the true Gospel, regardless of where it has come
from.
I think what Hiscoming is alleging is that we are not holding onto the true
Gospel, but are deliberately going for and promoting a version which we know
to be man-made in some elements. Hence we 'want to pervert the gospel of
Christ', and are hence to be 'accursed'. (I do not think this claim is
justifiable for anyone it has been applied to.)
> [3] (because of course, we can't assume that it is the same as the
> material recorded in the canonical gospels, since they are the result
> of eyewitness accounts told first hand (John[4]) or second hand
> (Mark[4]) or third hand (Matthew[5] and Luke[5]), not the result of
> revelation - and it would be quite peculiar, wouldn't it, if it were
> the same as any of these, that Paul would point out that it was of a
> quite different nature)
I'd be interested to find out where you're coming from on this. I don't
think the 'false gospel' Paul is objecting to is any of the first four books
of the NT. Note that 'gospel' just means 'good news', and just means
'teaching about how to be saved' here. In any case, Galatians is almost
universally agreed to predate all four Gospels.
Colin
Jet Wood
news:10080620...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
> "Jet Wood"
>
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote
> in message news:wjgR7.14641$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his
posts
> > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what
he
> > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
>
> He may simply be trying to warn you, that a tree is recognised by
its fruit,
> not its claims.
I think that is extremely unlikely, in view of the fact that such a
concept is not expressed in that verse quoted. I am sure that he would
have quoted a different verse (say, Luke 6:44, for example) in order
to suggest such an idea.
Jet Wood
news:e0ede4e4.01121...@posting.google.com...
Axiomatic - a word I was reminded of today elsewhere - I take it as
axiomatic that when there is a question over interpretation between
any reputable translation and the NIV, the NIV is always to be
mistrusted ;-) So come back from the abyss, brother; resist that there
NIV! (Seriously, okay, here you may have a point, but it's just the
exception that proves the rule about the NIV ok?)
> In order to see what Paul was preaching, it would have to be pieced
> together from this and his other letters, including Romans and
> Corinthians. Including letters not regarded by many scholars as
> Pauline ( like the pastoral epistles ) will tend to cloud the
> teaching, rather than clarify it.
Sadly I don't agree that we'd get close to Paul's gospel from this
method, especially not using Corinthians, since so much of what P
writes in that is determined by the letter we don't have that preceded
it. Romans might make a good starting point, but as Paul's theology
was evolving, and there isn't universal agreement over the sequence of
their being written, then we could be jumping in too early or too late
in his thinking.
> > [3] (because of course, we can't assume that it is the same as the
> > material recorded in the canonical gospels, since they are the
result
> > of eyewitness accounts told first hand (John[4]) or second hand
> > (Mark[4]) or third hand (Matthew[5] and Luke[5]), not the result
of
> > revelation - and it would be quite peculiar, wouldn't it, if it
were
> > the same as any of these, that Paul would point out that it was of
a
> > quite different nature)
> But there is no reason to suppose that Jesus' own teaching would
> diverge from Paul's, is there ? Seeing that Paul received a inward
> revelation of Christ, and subsequently described himself as having
> 'the mind of Christ' ( 1Cor2:16 ). We might expect the true teaching
> of Jesus to be present there in the gospels, perhaps added to and
mis-
> interpreted through word of mouth, don't you think ?
Yes indeed, and my money's on more of it being in John than anywhere
else, but that's a different matter entirely.
>
> Richard
Thanks, Richard for a stimulating post.
Jet Wood
news:9v61bg$jjt$1...@verence.demon.co.uk...
> NT Wright (no relation) thinks that
> what Paul means by gospel is spelt
> out in 1 Cor 15, where Paul says
> "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of
> the gospel I preached to you, which
> you received and on which you have
> taken your stand". The key elements
> of Paul's gospel are thus
> the death of Christ for sins, and the
> resurrection, which showed Jesus is
> the Son of God (cf Rom 1:2-4).
This makes sense, as far as it goes, but I have to confess that I
shudder every time that passage about the resurrection comes round -
it always seems that Paul chose just about the most laborious and
plodding way of getting the most exciting message across! I subscribe
to that Gospel, and I add to it the Johannine explanation that the
actions described were an expression of God's love.
> I've recently said in another newsgroup
> that there are rather a lot of
> different meanings for "Gospel" within
> the church. The examples I gave
> were the "Two Ways to Live" presentation
> which they teach CU members to
> to give (see <http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/>),
> "Everyone needs
> to speak in tongues", and "God loves
> everyone". These things might well
> be true (except for the speak in tongues
> one, obviously), but Wright
> argues convincingly that they're not
> what Paul taught as his gospel.
>
> You can find his arguments in the book "What St Paul Really Said".
>
> --
> ----- Paul Wright -----
Thank you Paul for a lucid explanation which I find has much to
commend it.
Unfortuantely, though we're still guessing about what Paul told the
Galatians, to a certain extent, aren't we.
Jet Wood
news:3C168FEE...@ntlworld.com...
Aha!
> But we do know that Paul is pretty insistent
> that there is a single Gospel which he got
> from Christ, so it seems a
> safe assumption that what he preached
> to the Galatians is the same or
> very close to what he writes in his other
> letters - and Romans gives a
> pretty complete Gospel.
Fair enough. I understand and mostly agree, but I think there's more
to it as well.
> Note that the command to the Galatians
> was only to hold onto the Gospel
> Paul preached because that was the
> only true Gospel they had received. For
> us, we are to hold onto the true Gospel,
> regardless of where it has come
> from.
Good point, neatly made.
> I think what Hiscoming is alleging is that
> we are not holding onto the true
> Gospel, but are deliberately going for and
> promoting a version which we know
> to be man-made in some elements.
> Hence we 'want to pervert the gospel of
> Christ', and are hence to be 'accursed'.
Right, but all of the stuff we have in the NT is "man-made in some
elements", isn't it. If one reads the book, then what one reads does
not lead to one understanding of any doctrine, but to several schools
of understanding, but here's the intriguing bit - each of those
schools of understanding must be representative of 'the Gospel' to
some degree. Acts makes it plain enough that in the early church there
were a number of disagreements. We have some documents from those
early churches, and therefore (to me at any rate) there is no surprise
that when we read them we cannot harmonise them all, and therfore
(again, to me, at any rate) it seems that there comes a point at which
one stops struggling to reconcile the irreconcilable, and instead
makes a choice about which particular understanding to go with. (Of
course, in the role of minister, it helps to be familiar with all of
them, to be able to present the same rounded view to one's
congregation(s)).
> (I do not think this claim is
> justifiable for anyone it has been applied to.)
Thank you for saying that. I feel affirmed by it.
> > [3] (because of course, we can't assume that it is the same as the
> > material recorded in the canonical gospels, since they are the
result
> > of eyewitness accounts told first hand (John[4]) or second hand
> > (Mark[4]) or third hand (Matthew[5] and Luke[5]), not the result
of
> > revelation - and it would be quite peculiar, wouldn't it, if it
were
> > the same as any of these, that Paul would point out that it was of
a
> > quite different nature)
>
> I'd be interested to find out where you're coming from on this.
Honestly, I was just trying to get to the bottom of what Gal 1:6 was
about, because having been challenged on it (though as I said, without
any comment to say precisely what the challenge was and why it was
being made) I felt it important to understand it so as to be in a
position either to acknowledge my error or to refute the challenge.
When I couldn't find any clue about what Paul had actually said in
Galatia, I began to fret in case Gal 1:6 was unresolvable, and I am
keen to learn from others when my own limits are reached.
> I don't
> think the 'false gospel' Paul is objecting to is any of the first
four books
> of the NT.
No, neither do I, on the basis of the final point you make below, but
all the same, the stuff that must eventually have gone into at least
the Synoptics will have been in the minds of James and Peter, and yet
Paul does draw a very clear distinction between his Gospel and theirs.
(I note from my own reading of Paul that Paul tends to talk about
"Christ Jesus" rather than "Jesus" and also that he quotes little that
appears in the Canonical Gospels as having been said by Jesus or done
by him, other than the resurrection. Maybe Paul, with his Pharisaic
background instantly understood all the OT references once he had
apprehended whom Jesus was as a result of acknowledging the
resurrection. It's just a pity he doesn't say so explicitly.
> Note that 'gospel' just means 'good news', and just means
> 'teaching about how to be saved' here. In any case, Galatians is
almost
> universally agreed to predate all four Gospels.
True.
Thanks Colin. Much grist to the mill.
Paul Wright
Jet Wood <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Paul Wright" <-$Paul$-@verence.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9v61bg$jjt$1...@verence.demon.co.uk...
>
>> NT Wright (no relation) thinks that what Paul means by gospel is
>> spelt out in 1 Cor 15, where Paul says "Now, brothers, I want to
>> remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and
>> on which you have taken your stand". The key elements of Paul's
>> gospel are thus the death of Christ for sins, and the
>> resurrection, which showed Jesus is the Son of God (cf Rom 1:2-4).
>
>This makes sense, as far as it goes, but I have to confess that I
>shudder every time that passage about the resurrection comes round -
>it always seems that Paul chose just about the most laborious and
>plodding way of getting the most exciting message across! I
>subscribe to that Gospel, and I add to it the Johannine explanation
>that the actions described were an expression of God's love.
..
>> You can find his arguments in the book "What St Paul Really Said".
>
>Thank you Paul for a lucid explanation which I find has much to
>commend it.
>
>Unfortuantely, though we're still guessing about what Paul told the
>Galatians, to a certain extent, aren't we.
Depends on when Paul spoke to the Galatians, and when he wrote Romans
and 1 Corinthians. I've no idea about this one, but if it turned out
he preached to the Galatians between the two, say, then we could
probably say that the common message between Romans and 1 Cor is what
Paul was preaching.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| It is hard to believe because it is hard to
-paul....@pobox.com--| obey. --Kierkegaard
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Colin Bell
> > But we do know that Paul is pretty insistent
> > that there is a single Gospel which he got
> > from Christ, so it seems a
> > safe assumption that what he preached
> > to the Galatians is the same or
> > very close to what he writes in his other
> > letters - and Romans gives a
> > pretty complete Gospel.
>
> Fair enough. I understand and mostly agree, but I think there's more
> to it as well.
> > we are not holding onto the true
> > Gospel, but are deliberately going for and
> > promoting a version which we know
> > to be man-made in some elements.
> > Hence we 'want to pervert the gospel of
> > Christ', and are hence to be 'accursed'.
>
> Right, but all of the stuff we have in the NT is "man-made in some
> elements", isn't it. If one reads the book, then what one reads does
> not lead to one understanding of any doctrine, but to several schools
> of understanding, but here's the intriguing bit - each of those
> schools of understanding must be representative of 'the Gospel' to
> some degree.
Ok - poor use of terminology on my part. Where something differs (or
apparently differs) from 'the Gospel', it could either be because someone has
made a deliberate change ('man-made' above) or due to the way it has been
explained. There are various parts of the Gospel, and it's clear that to
different people (Biblical authors and everyone since) different parts have
differing importances, or in the case of the letters, Paul or whoever
felt that the recipient needed one part stressing. The latter fits in
with your 'schools of understanding' point, I think.
> Acts makes it plain enough that in the early church there
> were a number of disagreements. We have some documents from those
> early churches, and therefore (to me at any rate) there is no surprise
> that when we read them we cannot harmonise them all, and therfore
> (again, to me, at any rate) it seems that there comes a point at which
> one stops struggling to reconcile the irreconcilable, and instead
> makes a choice about which particular understanding to go with. (Of
> course, in the role of minister, it helps to be familiar with all of
> them, to be able to present the same rounded view to one's
> congregation(s)).
I don't think I've found anything I'd describe as 'irreconcilable'
(except one or two of the historical details) - could you give an example?
> > I don't
> > think the 'false gospel' Paul is objecting to is any of the first
> four books
> > of the NT.
>
> No, neither do I, on the basis of the final point you make below, but
> all the same, the stuff that must eventually have gone into at least
> the Synoptics will have been in the minds of James and Peter, and yet
> Paul does draw a very clear distinction between his Gospel and theirs.
It might be that the gospel that Peter and James were preaching at the
time Galatians was written was (explicitly or implicitly) a Jews-only
one, but that by the time the Gospel books were written, they had moved
to a more universal form. (Jesus does instruct a 'Jews then Samarians
then everybody' order of preaching - it would be a reasonable assumption
that Paul was further along this road than Peter and James.)
> (I note from my own reading of Paul that Paul tends to talk about
> "Christ Jesus" rather than "Jesus" and also that he quotes little that
> appears in the Canonical Gospels as having been said by Jesus or done
> by him, other than the resurrection. Maybe Paul, with his Pharisaic
> background instantly understood all the OT references once he had
> apprehended whom Jesus was as a result of acknowledging the
> resurrection. It's just a pity he doesn't say so explicitly.
Yes. Paul wasn't writing in a vacuum. His audiences were already Christian,
and hence would have known something about Jesus which Paul didn't need to
repeat. Regrettably, we don't know what was out there, but the impression you
get from the first few verses of Luke (as well as the number of non-canonical
gospels) is that there were a lot of stories about Jesus in circulation, not
all true.
Colin
Charles Lindsey
>Paul is, in effect, saying that the gospel he taught is one which,
>for want of a better word, was 'channelled' through him. One of the
>key words in this is in v16 where the RSV translates 'God was pleased
>to reveal his Son *to* me'. This is in contrast with the NIV which
>renders it 'God was pleased to reveal his Son *in* me'. For once,
>I find myself inclining towards the NIV ! The NIV translation seems
>to show that this gospel wasn't revealed through outward observation,
>but by inward inspiration.
My understanding of the passage is that all factual matters (such as what
Jesus said and did, when and where, and even the accounts of the
resurrection) would have been relayed by word of mouth (or even some
writing) and would have been familiar to all Christians at that time. When
Paul refers to his "gospel" which he received directly, I take it that he
is referring to the theological implications of those facts and sayings.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
family.shaw
all these posts but i find some hard to understand! So anyway, i just
wanted to say that in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God breathed'
and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct. If
you disagree, then the whole of the Bible falls to pieces. I don't agree
with what is said becaues Paul wrote it, or Luke or anyone, but because it
is God breathed. Us humans are sinners, and so we all make mistakes, so
Paul or Luke or anyone on their own could not write a clear account of what
God wanted, so God had to help em. Anyhoo, what i'm tryin to say is that
the good news about Jesus Christ is the same throughout the NT and it never
contradicts itself, so if we preach the gospel as it is anywhere in the
Bible then we can be sure it is right. Woohoo!
Dave
Colin Bell
> >Unfortuantely, though we're still guessing about what Paul told the
> >Galatians, to a certain extent, aren't we.
>
> Depends on when Paul spoke to the Galatians, and when he wrote Romans
> and 1 Corinthians. I've no idea about this one, but if it turned out
> he preached to the Galatians between the two, say, then we could
> probably say that the common message between Romans and 1 Cor is what
> Paul was preaching.
Nice idea, but (speaking as the local Galatians-dating expert) unfortunately
most people would date the book of Galatians before either of the other two
(or at least contemporary with Romans).
Colin
Hiscoming
news:HNJR7.4390$5P.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Thanks a lot for your contribution. If we remember what happened to Eve in
the Garden of Eden we will not play with serpent again. It all started from
little doubt of the word of God and before Eve knew it, she has fallen into
sin after unholy discussion of whether God really means His word and whether
His word is true.
Every word of God in the Holy Bible is true and I believe it and my
experience of it continues.
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:XnzR7.14983$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> "Colin Bell" <cr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3C168FEE...@ntlworld.com...
> > Jet Wood wrote:
>
> elements", isn't it.
>
scriptures in the NT or in the OT.
Hiscoming
I think what Paul was objecting to can be found if one read the whole book
of Galatians. By the time you get to chapter 3 you will see clearly how
some people are casting stumbling block by preaching another gospel bringing
the saved back to bondage. But I still have to say that if one is not saved
and not willing to be saved, he or she will never understand the mystery of
the scriptures I Corinthians 2:14.
All these arguments and huge investment in argument will amount to nothing.
It is the Holy Spirit that bring understanding and you have to surrender and
humble yourself to learn from Him.
How does one explain those who talk of the gospel as if it belongs to Peter,
Paul or the apostles or the writers. The gospel belong to God and except one
sees it in that way, they will never honour, believe, receive and act on it
and they will remain unsaved.
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:sKyR7.14980$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> "Michael Gaskell" <mgaskel...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:10080620...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
> >
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > in message news:wjgR7.14641$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his
> posts
> > > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what
> he
> > > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
> >
> its fruit,
> > not its claims.
>
> I think that is extremely unlikely, in view of the fact that such a
> concept is not expressed in that verse quoted. I am sure that he would
> have quoted a different verse (say, Luke 6:44, for example) in order
> to suggest such an idea.
You can't still get the message. Why can't you spend some time with God to
tell you about salvation which should be the first step for argument will
never produce salvation.
Hiscoming
news:10080620...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
> "Jet Wood"
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote
> in message news:wjgR7.14641$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what he
> > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
>
fruit,
> not its claims.
>
> Michael
>
Can you please see how he interpreted Galatians 1:6. I still agree that
salvation of Jesus Christ is the prerequisite to understanding of the
gospel.
Colin Bell
>
> "Colin Bell" <cr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3C168FEE...@ntlworld.com...
> > Jet Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his posts
> > > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what he
> > > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
> > I think what Hiscoming is alleging is that we are not holding onto the
> true
> > Gospel, but are deliberately going for and promoting a version which we
> know
> > to be man-made in some elements. Hence we 'want to pervert the gospel of
> > Christ', and are hence to be 'accursed'. (I do not think this claim is
> > justifiable for anyone it has been applied to.)
> I think what Paul was objecting to can be found if one read the whole book
> of Galatians. By the time you get to chapter 3 you will see clearly how
> some people are casting stumbling block by preaching another gospel bringing
> the saved back to bondage.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. It is clear what the 'other gospel' was
that Paul was referring to. It is not clear what the 'other gospel' is in
your application of these verses currently, nor who the 'some people' are.
> All these arguments and huge investment in argument will amount to nothing.
Twaddle.
> It is the Holy Spirit that bring understanding and you have to surrender and
> humble yourself to learn from Him.
I think that is exactly what Jet is doing, and seeking the counsel of other
believers whom the Holy Spirit will act through.
> How does one explain those who talk of the gospel as if it belongs to Peter,
> Paul or the apostles or the writers. The gospel belong to God and except one
> sees it in that way, they will never honour, believe, receive and act on it
> and they will remain unsaved.
If you think this, please go and read the thread carefully and prayerfully
and let the Holy Spirit minister to you until you don't think it any more. (I
think this is your usual recommendation.)
Colin
Colin Bell
If you two are, as I suspect, trying to suggest that Jet _isn't_ saved, then
I think you're ever-so-slightly wrong on that.
Steven - it would be helpful if you were a bit clearer whom you were talking
to. Also, PLEASE FIX YOUR PC CLOCK. It is (I think) set to the right time, but
the wrong time zone, so your postings appear to come from the future.
Colin
Ken Down
"family.shaw" <famil...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 'All scripture is God breathed'
> and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
Hi, Dave. Just to let you gently into the sort of thing that you are likely
to find on uk.r.c - when Paul used the term "Scripture" he was thinking only
of the Old Testament. The gospels probably had not been written then and I
don't think Paul ever thought of his own writings as "scripture".
So the most that you can deduce from 2 Tim 3:16 is that the Old Testament is
"God breathed".
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
(who does believe that all Scripture is God-breathed)
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Jet Wood
news:ncmzo4o...@perot.art-render.com...
> > Acts makes it plain enough that in the early church there
> > were a number of disagreements. We have some documents from those
> > early churches, and therefore (to me at any rate) there is no
surprise
> > that when we read them we cannot harmonise them all, and therfore
> > (again, to me, at any rate) it seems that there comes a point at
which
> > one stops struggling to reconcile the irreconcilable, and instead
> > makes a choice about which particular understanding to go with.
(Of
> > course, in the role of minister, it helps to be familiar with all
of
> > them, to be able to present the same rounded view to one's
> > congregation(s)).
>
> I don't think I've found anything I'd describe as 'irreconcilable'
> (except one or two of the historical details) - could you give an
example?
Well yes I could, but that isn't really the thrust of what I was
saying. Really I was objecting to the way of looking at the Bible that
assumes that it is all infallible and equally true at all times. Many
of the documents within the Bible contain statements and records of
historical events that do not agree with each other. But to my mind, a
great deal of them are resolved by deciding that the Bible really
isn't like that at all, and that matters such as sequence of events
and the differences of importance and emphasis that you relate in a
later paragraph below really do make a difference. I guess my point is
really about method rather than content - the choice of understanding
I make is one of how to understand the evidence, not which to accept
and which to reject, if you see what I mean.
> > > I don't
> > > think the 'false gospel' Paul is objecting to is any of the
first
> > four books
> > > of the NT.
> >
> > No, neither do I, on the basis of the final point you make below,
but
> > all the same, the stuff that must eventually have gone into at
least
> > the Synoptics will have been in the minds of James and Peter, and
yet
> > Paul does draw a very clear distinction between his Gospel and
theirs.
>
> It might be that the gospel that Peter and James were preaching at
the
> time Galatians was written was (explicitly or implicitly) a
Jews-only
> one, but that by the time the Gospel books were written, they had
moved
> to a more universal form. (Jesus does instruct a 'Jews then
Samarians
> then everybody' order of preaching - it would be a reasonable
assumption
> that Paul was further along this road than Peter and James.)
Yes, I suppose it would.
> > (I note from my own reading of Paul that Paul tends to talk about
> > "Christ Jesus" rather than "Jesus" and also that he quotes little
that
> > appears in the Canonical Gospels as having been said by Jesus or
done
> > by him, other than the resurrection. Maybe Paul, with his
Pharisaic
> > background instantly understood all the OT references once he had
> > apprehended whom Jesus was as a result of acknowledging the
> > resurrection. It's just a pity he doesn't say so explicitly.
>
> Yes. Paul wasn't writing in a vacuum. His audiences were already
Christian,
> and hence would have known something about Jesus which Paul didn't
need to
> repeat. Regrettably, we don't know what was out there, but the
impression you
> get from the first few verses of Luke (as well as the number of
non-canonical
> gospels) is that there were a lot of stories about Jesus in
circulation, not
> all true.
Yes indeed. Nevertheless, the bathwater may well contain some evidence
for the baby, so it's worth examining those N-C sources.
Unfortunately, one might infer that Paul was so ruthlessly efficient
(no surprise there then) that he managed to convince his fiollwers to
get rid of the unauthorised version, because much of the N-C stuff
seems to be of a later date than the Canonical stuff. So I endorse
your "regrettably, we don't know what was out there..." more's the
pity.
Jet Wood
news:9v8j2e$1rd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
I get several messages, but I am not sure which one is correct,
because you just put the reference to the verse in and do not explain
why on that occasion you have chosen to quote it. That verse *says*
that people in Galatia should hold firm to the Gospel that Paul took
to them. But there are problems with that: for example, there is no
certain record of what Gospel Paul shared with the Galatians - the
best we can do is guess about that (by general agreement in this
thread, it seems to me). In short, I cannot be certain what Paul's
Gospel is to be able to hold it.
If it is just the words in the verse that are of interest to you
because you think I should hold on to the gospel that appears in your
postings, the problem is that a lot of your postings say something
that is in contradiction with mainstream Christian teaching (and I am
not the only person to have mentioned this). Many people - including
me on more than a dozen occasions - have asked you to clarify what you
mean, but you never do. In short, I cannot be certain what your
Gospel is to be able to hold it.
So, whatever it is you mean when you quote that verse, it would appear
that you are asking me to do something which is impossible. If you are
asking me to do something that is possible, then please help me by
telling me exactly what that is, so that I cannot misunderstand you.
> Why can't you spend some time with God
Dear friend, 3600 seconds of every hour of every day of every week of
every month of every year, I am in the presence of God. I cannot spend
any less time with God, nor any more. Oddly enough, I believe exactly
the same about you.
Jet Wood
news:HNJR7.4390$5P.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
You are welcome. If you want to share your thoughts, then be assured
that there are folk here who will appreciate hearing from you.
> I've been *trying* to read
> all these posts but i find some hard to understand!
Join the club ;-)
> So anyway, i just
> wanted to say that in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God
breathed'
Yes indeed we are. 2 Tim 3:16. I know it well.
> and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is
correct.
No, because that is not at all what it means.
When that letter was written to Timothy by (for the sake of argument)
Paul, it was before any Gospels had been written, and the only other
parts of what we now call the New Testament that were written by then
were a few of the letters. Even so, the text cannot be referring to
them, because verse 15, which provides the context for verse 16, has
Paul saying to Timothy that he knows what he can rely on: the
teachings that he has held since his childhood. Now it is not clear
how old Timothy was, but it is not unreasonable to think that when
Timothy was a child, it may even have been before the crucifixion, so
not one word of the New Testament yet existed. When you add to that
information the extra historical fact that the Jewish canon of
scripture had not yet been enlarged to include the third part - "the
writings" - that would not happen until the synod of Jamnia/Yavneh,
still decades in the future when this letter was written.
So, what Paul is saying is really: all of the Law and the Prophets are
god-breathed. That, for his time, is a pretty orthodox teaching.
If you seek to enlarge the meaning of the verse to include the whole
of what you and I call the Bible, then you create a paradox, because
when the letter was written, it cannot possibly have meant that.
> If
> you disagree, then the whole of the Bible falls to pieces.
It is odd that you should place all your faith in the Bible in this
one verse. Looking at it the other way, if it did mean what you
propose that it does, it would create problems because not everything
in the New Testament even itself claims to be from God:
Some is clearly identified as such:
"I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you" (! Cor 11:23)
Some is clearly identified as not from God:
"To the rest I say - I and not the Lord" (1 Cor 7:12)
Some is clearly identified as the fruit of research
"I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very
first, to write an orderly account" (Luke 1:3)
Some is clearly identified by others as the personal testimony of
someone
who took part in the events:
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has
written
them, and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)
So, you would have this verse saying that everything in the NT is
God-breathed, and lots of other verses saying it is not, which would
be a clear (and irresolvable) contradiction.
All of this is additional evidence that 2 Tim 3:16 cannot apply to
everything in the Bible.
> I don't agree
> with what is said becaues Paul wrote it, or Luke or anyone, but
because it
> is God breathed.
Okay. You may need to review this thinking then, or at least your
reasons for thinking it.
> Us humans are sinners,
agreed.
> and so we all make mistakes,
agreed, but not as a consequence of the preceding statement.
> so
> Paul or Luke or anyone on their own could not write a clear account
of what
> God wanted, so God had to help em.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
> Anyhoo, what i'm tryin to say is that
> the good news about Jesus Christ is the same throughout the NT and
it never
> contradicts itself,
If only that were true, there would be a lot less argument. Luke and
Matthew, for example, give lists of the ancestry of Jesus, but they
contain different names. The way John tells the story of the final
evening that Jesus spent with his disciples makes it clear that it
happened on a different day from the way Matthew Mark and Luke tell
the story. John had Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers
at the temple at least two years earlier than the other Gospels and so
on. There are many disagreements over matters of fact and
interpretation. But that is not a bad thing, it is a stimulating thing
that prods us all to explore more to understand more, to be better
assured what our faith is all about.
> so if we preach the gospel as it is anywhere in the
> Bible then we can be sure it is right. Woohoo!
I don't understand what you mean by this. Many of the Psalms teach a
doctrine exactly opposite to Christianity : "blessed is the person who
smashes the heads of your children on a rock" for example. And there
are just loads of contradictions in the OT - here is one of the more
surprising and less well-known ones.
Compare
There came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named
Goliath, of Gath ... The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam
.... David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and
struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his
forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. So David prevailed over
the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine
and killing him. (1 Samuel 17:4, 7, 49, 50)
against
Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the
Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (2 Sam
21:19 and 1 Chr 20:5)
which is true?
Jet Wood
1 Corinthians 7:12- To the rest I say - I and not the Lord...
1 Corinthians 7:25- Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the
Lord, but I give my opinion
In the words of Oliver Cromwell: "I beesch ye - think ye not in your
bowels that ye may be mistaken?"
Ex. Bro. Tom
> 'All scripture is God breathed'
> and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
Ken Down said..
> Hi, Dave. Just to let you gently into the sort of thing that you are likely
> to find on uk.r.c - when Paul used the term "Scripture" he was thinking only
> of the Old Testament. The gospels probably had not been written then and I
> don't think Paul ever thought of his own writings as "scripture".
(a) At the time that Paul wrote, "The Old Testament" did not exist as a
*defined collection*.
(b) If a youthful Timothy is in his late twenties or early thirties,
and Paul is writing in (say) the mid-50's AD, then simple arithmetic
allows us to conclude that Timothy might indeed have been reading some
kind of Christian literature from his childhood.
Ken Down said..
> So the most that you can deduce from 2 Tim 3:16 is that the Old Testament is
> "God breathed".
No, one cannot deduce that. But Paul and Timothy themselves would have
had an understanding of exactly what kind of writings were being talked
about. If only they had some mechanism for passing such an
understanding on, down through the generations.
Paul Roberts
news:9v8kev$ot$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Man-made? Do you refer to the scriptures? If so, please there
is no man-made
> scriptures in the NT or in the OT.
Why do you believe that?
--
Paul R.
Remove "nospam" for valid email address
Phil Saunders
Most people again eh? Don't you just hate it when that lot screw up a nice
neat answer!
Phil
Resident manually moderated Ranter & Sociopath
Hiscoming
> > > Jet Wood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his
posts
> > > > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what
he
> > > > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
>
Do not make a mistake Holy Spirit will only act through someone that is
saved.
And the saved will see the Holy Bible as the word of God and not the word of
men.
Hiscoming
> Hiscoming wrote:
> >
> > "Michael Gaskell" <mgaskel...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:10080620...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
> > > <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote
> > > in message news:wjgR7.14641$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > > > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in his
posts
> > > > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of what
he
> > > > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
> > >
> > fruit,
> > > not its claims.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > Can you please see how he interpreted Galatians 1:6. I still agree that
> > salvation of Jesus Christ is the prerequisite to understanding of the
> > gospel.
>
> If you two are, as I suspect, trying to suggest that Jet _isn't_ saved,
then
> I think you're ever-so-slightly wrong on that.
>
If you think salvation comes from group of friends and not from Jesus
Christ, you need to reconsider your stand and look again into the Bible that
your friend is saying it contains man-made stuff.
family.shaw
> It is odd that you should place all your faith in the Bible in this
> one verse. Looking at it the other way, if it did mean what you
> propose that it does, it would create problems because not everything
> in the New Testament even itself claims to be from God:
>
> Some is clearly identified as such:
> "I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you" (! Cor 11:23)
>
> Some is clearly identified as not from God:
> "To the rest I say - I and not the Lord" (1 Cor 7:12)
>
etc etc
> All of this is additional evidence that 2 Tim 3:16 cannot apply to
> everything in the Bible.
By saying that all scripture is God breathed, i do not mean that God himself
said it, but that it is what God wanted to be written. If it isn't, and it
is what Paul wanted, or Luke or Mark or whoever, then i cannot trust this
Bible at all.
> > Paul or Luke or anyone on their own could not write a clear account
> of what
> > God wanted, so God had to help em.
> I don't understand what you mean by this.
Ok, well, because we are not infallible then we sometimes do things wrong.
How could God trust anyone to write something on their own - how would they
ever get it exactly how God wanted it?
> > Anyhoo, what i'm tryin to say is that
> > the good news about Jesus Christ is the same throughout the NT and
> it never
> > contradicts itself,
>
> If only that were true, there would be a lot less argument. Luke and
> Matthew, for example, give lists of the ancestry of Jesus, but they
> contain different names. The way John tells the story of the final
> evening that Jesus spent with his disciples makes it clear that it
> happened on a different day from the way Matthew Mark and Luke tell
> the story. John had Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers
> at the temple at least two years earlier than the other Gospels and so
> on. There are many disagreements over matters of fact and
> interpretation. But that is not a bad thing, it is a stimulating thing
> that prods us all to explore more to understand more, to be better
> assured what our faith is all about.
To me, whether or not these things you say are correct, the parts of the
Bible which talk about how we can have peace with God, NEVER EVER contradict
each other.
> > so if we preach the gospel as it is anywhere in the
> > Bible then we can be sure it is right. Woohoo!
Jesus came to fulfil what was said in the OT, not totally go against it, or
go against it at all. In Isaiah 53, and throughout Isaiah there are many
many verses which clearly talk about Jesus and why he was going to come to
earth. For instance...
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed." v 5 (No contradiction there i don't think)
Also, the NT does not contradict the main rules of the OT, the Ten
Commandments.
Dave
Colin Bell
> > Hiscoming wrote:
> > > It is the Holy Spirit that bring understanding and you have to surrender
> and
> > > humble yourself to learn from Him.
> >
> > I think that is exactly what Jet is doing, and seeking the counsel of
> other
> > believers whom the Holy Spirit will act through.
> >
> > Colin
>
> Do not make a mistake Holy Spirit will only act through someone that is
> saved.
> And the saved will see the Holy Bible as the word of God and not the word of
> men.
Your implication is perfectly clear. But since it goes against God's word,
I shall ignore it.
Colin
Colin Bell
I don't believe that you honestly think that's my opinion.
Colin
Colin Bell
> > If you two are, as I suspect, trying to suggest that Jet _isn't_ saved,
> then
> > I think you're ever-so-slightly wrong on that.
> >
> > Colin
>
> If you think salvation comes from group of friends and not from Jesus
> Christ, you need to reconsider your stand and look again into the Bible that
> your friend is saying it contains man-made stuff.
I don't believe that you honestly think that's my opinion.
Colin
Nick Milton
<famil...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God breathed'
>and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
The only other thing in the Bible that was God-breathed was Adam, and
he was far from infallible
Nick
Nick Milton
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:9v8kev$ot$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>> "Jet Wood"
>>
><justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
>wrote
>> in message news:XnzR7.14983$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>> > "Colin Bell" <cr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3C168FEE...@ntlworld.com...
>> > > Jet Wood wrote:
>> >
>> > Right, but all of the stuff we have in the NT is "man-made in some
>> > elements", isn't it.
>> >
>> Man-made? Do you refer to the scriptures? If so, please there is no
>man-made
>> scriptures in the NT or in the OT.
>
>1 Corinthians 7:12- To the rest I say - I and not the Lord...
>1 Corinthians 7:25- Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the
>Lord, but I give my opinion
Not to mention "See what big letters I make with my own hand"
nick
Colin Bell
You can see that Paul's theory breaks down for yourself just by reading Acts
and Romans. Paul visited Galatia during his first missionary journey
(Acts 13-14). But neither Romans nor Corinthians could have been written until
the time of the second missionary journey, since Romans (15:26) refers to the
church in Macedonia, and Corinthians is written to the church in Corinth, both
of which didn't exist until Paul visited those areas (Acts 16 and 18
respectively).
So Paul had definitely been to Galatia (twice, in fact) before he could have
written either Romans or 1 Corinthians. The general consensus among scholars
(evangelical, liberal, Catholic and even JW) is that Galatians was written
before either of the other books too.
Colin
Colin Bell
Fair enough - I understand you now. I adopt pretty much the same position.
In fact, it seems to be to be almost the same as the standard evangelical
'interpret Scripture with Scripture' - in both cases if a passage's meaning
isn't clear, you want to look at other bits of the Bible to try and gain
a different understanding of the same point.
Colin
Michael Gaskell
news:3c18d02f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Not true Nick, as Jesus is God.
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
--
Michael
In fact, the recent destruction in New York City and Washington D.C. is just
a tiny foreshadowing of much worse that is to come. To discover why and
how, do yourself a favour and carefully study the following website!
www.beastwatch.com
(The "when" is known only to God!)
Jet Wood
> Fair enough - I understand you now. I adopt pretty much the same
position.
> In fact, it seems to be to be almost the same as the standard
evangelical
> 'interpret Scripture with Scripture' - in both cases if a passage's
meaning
> isn't clear, you want to look at other bits of the Bible to try and
gain
> a different understanding of the same point.
Yes, that is what it boils down to. Over my Christian life, I have
been bemused by the number of people who take me to task over my
method of BIblical interpretation because I seem to reach different
conclusions from them. Yet I have always thought that it is a question
of the assumptions one brings to the text. I don't know if on the
whole I bring more or fewer than others, but at least I am pretty well
aware of what my assumptions are, whilst I find that some others make
many assumptions but have (apparently) never stopped to think about
them.
Jet Wood
> By saying that all scripture is God breathed,
> i do not mean that God himself
> said it, but that it is what God wanted
> to be written. If it isn't, and it
> is what Paul wanted, or Luke or Mark
> or whoever, then i cannot trust this
> Bible at all.
Your choice, I guess. Not IMHO the right one, but you have to live
with it, not me. Have you reached this conclusion through your own
study, or did somebody tell you that's how things were?
> > > Paul or Luke or anyone on their own could
> > > not write a clear account of what
> > > God wanted, so God had to help em.
>
> > I don't understand what you mean by this.
>
> Ok, well, because we are not infallible then we
> sometimes do things wrong.
> How could God trust anyone to write something
> on their own - how would they
> ever get it exactly how God wanted it?
We are not infallible - agreed.
We sometimes do things wrong - agreed.
The rest of what you say is simply a statement of the assumption you
make when you read the Bible. I sometimes get things wrong, and I
sometimes get things right. I claim responsibility for both of those.
> To me, whether or not these things you
> say are correct, the parts of the
> Bible which talk about how we can have
> peace with God, NEVER EVER contradict
> each other.
Leviticus 3:1-11 tells how we have peace with God (the old way).
And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it
of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without
blemish before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of
his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood
upon the altar round about. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the
peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that
covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, And
the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks,
and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice,
which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. And if his offering for a
sacrifice of peace offering unto the LORD be of the flock; male or
female, he shall offer it without blemish. If he offer a lamb for his
offering, then shall he offer it before the LORD. And he shall lay his
hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle
of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof
round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the
peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat
thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the
backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that
is upon the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon
them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the
kidneys, it shall he take away. And the priest shall burn it upon the
altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Romans 5:1-8 tells how we have peace with God (the new way)
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this
grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And
not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and
experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God
is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the
ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.
It is interesting that you think these do not contradict each other -
when I read them, they seem utterly different. Moreover, their utter
difference is in some ways what the New Testament is all about. Why
can you not see a contradiction?
> > > so if we preach the gospel as it is anywhere in the
> > > Bible then we can be sure it is right. Woohoo!
>
> Jesus came to fulfil what was said in the OT, not totally go against
it, or
> go against it at all. In Isaiah 53, and throughout Isaiah there are
many
> many verses which clearly talk about Jesus and why he was going to
come to
> earth. For instance...
>
> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds
we are
> healed." v 5 (No contradiction there i don't think)
Why do you think this is about Jesus?
This is not a facetious question, but related strongly to another of
the assumptions you make when you come to read the Bible. If this
scripture was written centuries before Jesus was born (as I believe it
was, and I am sure you would as well) then the simple question to pose
about it is this: during the centuries that this scripture existed
before Jesus came into the world, what did it mean? Did everybody who
read it understand it as a messianic prophecy, or did they read it as
a statement about Israel coming back from exile in Babylon (with the
"He" being a personification of the nation Israel)? And what do Jews
think of this now?
> Also, the NT does not contradict the
> main rules of the OT, the Ten
> Commandments.
It all depends on how you use the word contradict, I think, leaving
aside the question of whether you are right (in yet another
assumption) about the OT (or in another assumption still about the
NT).
You appear to be reading the Bible a different way from me. In my
mind, that does not make either of us right or wrong, because we each
come to the Bible with our own assumptions (and also those of the
people who told us what they think the Bible is, if we have just
accepted those on trust without thinking about it for ourselves[1]).
That's fair enough. However, our assumptions become a problem in two
circumstances:
1) if we fool ourselves into thinking that we read the Bible without
making any assumptions about it, or that our assumptions are not
important.
2) if we begin to believe that the fact that other people may not
reach the same conclusions about it as we do means that they are
damned to hell fire or whatever, rather than they just look at it with
a different set of assumptions. (Of course, they may well be damned to
hell fire - if there is such a thing[2] - but also they may just need
to have a few of their assumptions challenged - in love!)
So, for example - in the passages quoted above, I can quite plainly
see that Leviticus does not agree with Romans about how we have peace
with God. Yet, to me that is not a problem, because there are a whole
host of good reasons for the change. You, on the other hand, have
assumed that there cannot be any contradiction, and so even when it is
pointed out to you that there might be, you just ignore the evidence -
as indeed you did with every single point I made in my previous post
that highlighted a contradiction![3] Now that's fine if you want to do
things that way, but please don't rule out the alternatives, because
other people may find those alternatives are a more natural way to
understand the Bible than you do.
[1] I just *know* some folk will want to jump on that statement and
show how unholy I am for thinking for myself! Let's see if they can
resist the temptation...
[2] And many people, because of the assumptions they make about the
Bible think there is, while others for the same reasons think there
isn't. In this case, the real answer may turn out to be a nasty shock
for the people with the mistaken assumptions ;-o
[3] Which was a real pity, because I would have loved to have known
what you thought of them - especially on Psalm 137:9 and the question
about who killed Goliath (not because it is an important point of
doctrine that leads to salvation, but because it isn't. It is
unquestionably a clear contradiction, with the story being told more
than once each way round - it is important to know how we resolve such
contradictions in the Bible, because clearly there are hundreds of
them - and some of them mght just be on matters that pertain to
salvation, so if we can't even cope with the uimportant ones, what
hope do we have when things get more serious?)
Jet Wood
> >> Man-made? Do you refer to the scriptures? If so, please there is
no
> >man-made
> >> scriptures in the NT or in the OT.
> >
> >1 Corinthians 7:12- To the rest I say - I and not the Lord...
> >1 Corinthians 7:25- Now concerning virgins, I have no command of
the
> >Lord, but I give my opinion
>
> Not to mention "See what big letters I make with my own hand"
Yes indeed. And it makes you wonder whether all that "say hello from
me" stuff at the end of Romans was "say hello from God" or "say hello
from Paul" - or indeed, as the letter itself indicates, "say hello
from Tertius".
Nick Milton
>saved.
>And the saved will see the Holy Bible as the word of God and not the word of
>men.
I think you are quite wrong here. I wonder what warrant you have for
either of these statements?
Nick
Nick Milton
<famil...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> All of this is additional evidence that 2 Tim 3:16 cannot apply to
>> everything in the Bible.
>
>By saying that all scripture is God breathed, i do not mean that God himself
>said it, but that it is what God wanted to be written. If it isn't, and it
>is what Paul wanted, or Luke or Mark or whoever, then i cannot trust this
>Bible at all.
Why not?
Nick
Ex. Bro. Tom
> To me, whether or not these things you
> say are correct, the parts of the
> Bible which talk about how we can have
> peace with God, NEVER EVER contradict
> each other.
Jet Wood said..
> Leviticus 3:1-11 tells how we have peace with God (the old way).
> And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it
> [..]
>
> Romans 5:1-8 tells how we have peace with God (the new way)
> Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
> [..]
Jet Wood said..
> It is interesting that you think these do not contradict each other -
> when I read them, they seem utterly different. Moreover, their utter
> difference is in some ways what the New Testament is all about. Why
> can you not see a contradiction?
But why ever do you see a contradiction? You haven't explained this.
Far from there being any contradiction, Lev 3:1-11 and Rom 5:1-8 are,
in all significant respects, in complete agreement.
Jet Wood said..
> our assumptions become a problem in two
> circumstances:
>
> 1) if we fool ourselves into thinking that we read the Bible without
> making any assumptions about it, or that our assumptions are not
> important.
Of course. So, what assumptions have you been led to, that make you see
two passages, which are in fact in agreement, as being in
contradiction?
Ex. Bro. Tom
> in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God breathed'
> and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
Nick Milton said..
> The only other thing in the Bible that was God-breathed was Adam, and
> he was far from infallible
In Gen 2, what God breathes into Adam is the *breath of life*. There is
no sign here that infallibility was part of that first breath, merely
life.
Whereas in 2Ti, what is God-inspired is *scripture*; and these writings
are inspired such that they are usable for teaching, reproof,
correction, and training in righteousness. So, if scripture isn't
inerrant, how could it be used for reproof? If it isn't inerrant, how
could it be used for correction?
Jet Wood
news:MPG.168373689...@netnews.att.net...
The only assumption (of the many I hold) that I bring to this specific
question is this - that the texts mean what they say. Using that
assumption, I observe as follows:
Leviticus: I need to kill an animal to have peace with God.
Romans: I don't.
Isn't that a contradiction then?
According to http://www.yourdictionary.com/index.shtml it is, unless
I am misinterpreting definition 2.
Main Entry: con.tra.dic.tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both
the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose
parts contradict each other
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors,
actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:5AYR7.15304$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...> news:9v8j2e$1rd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > "Jet Wood"
> >
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > in message news:sKyR7.14980$G02.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > > "Michael Gaskell" <mgaskel...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in
> message
> > > news:10080620...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
> > > >
> > >
> <justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote
> > > > in message
> > > > > Hiscoming has several times recently cited Galatians 1:6 in
> his
> > > posts
> > > > > related to Hell and repentance[1]. Without any explanation of
> what
> > > he
> > > > > means by doing so, one must guess at the significance[2].
> > > >
> > > > He may simply be trying to warn you, that a tree is recognised
> by
> > > its fruit,
> > > > not its claims.
> > >
went back to help the converts. In my previous post, I advise that you read
the whole of the Book of Galatians because the answer to your question is
there, even the first three chapters. Since you say you spend time with the
Holy Ghost, please ask Him to show you. You can as well lay your hand on the
Bible Commentary to help you. It is good that we study it first in the Bible
before any other source.
I still say that the answer is in that book.
Nick Milton
<mgaskel...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>"Nick Milton" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3c18d02f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:26:09 -0000, "family.shaw"
>> <famil...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God breathed'
>> >and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
>>
>> The only other thing in the Bible that was God-breathed was Adam, and
>> he was far from infallible
>
>Not true Nick, as Jesus is God.
>
>John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father
>hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed
>on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
OK - good point - the disciples were God-breathed at this point. Were
they infallible as well?
(Jesus was not "God-breathed" here - He was God, and He was doing the
breathing)
Nick
Nick Milton
You make a few logical leaps in your paragraph.
The word is "usable" not "inerrant", nor "infallible", nor "correct in
all detail" which was the original point. And the word is "breathed"
not "inspired". Perhaps the breath God breathed into Scripture is also
a breath of life, but not of infallibility.
Nick
Charles Lindsey
>Man-made? Do you refer to the scriptures? If so, please there is no man-made
>scriptures in the NT or in the OT.
On the contrary, everything in scripture is man-made.
BUT the important think is that the men who did the making were receptive
to the promptings of the Holy Spirit within them (that is how I interpret
"God breathed" I suppose). But none of them was perfectly receptive (Jesus
himself excepted), and so their misconceptions and prejudices show through
from time to time. But, by and large, the overall picture is pretty
consistent.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Jet Wood
> > So, whatever it is you mean when you quote that verse, it would
appear
> > that you are asking me to do something which is impossible. If you
are
> > asking me to do something that is possible, then please help me by
> > telling me exactly what that is, so that I cannot misunderstand
you.
> >
> Please do not guess. There are problems in the church of Galatians
and Paul
> went back to help the converts. In my previous post, I advise that
you read
> the whole of the Book of Galatians because the answer to your
question is
> there, even the first three chapters. Since you say you spend time
with the
> Holy Ghost, please ask Him to show you. You can as well lay your
hand on the
> Bible Commentary to help you. It is good that we study it first in
the Bible
> before any other source.
> I still say that the answer is in that book.
Friend, I do my best, I really do, to understand you, and when I have
a plain straightforward question, I ask you, but you never give me a
plain straightforward answer.
This all started because you quoted Chapter 1 verse 6. I have asked
you why that verse, what it had to do with what we were previously
talking about, and what the gospel is that Paul is talking about in
that verse.[1] But despite repeated attempts to encourage you to tell
me straightforwardly what you are talking about, either you do not
answer at all or you say "read the whole letter" (which does not help
me understand what *you* think at all. I am already very familiar with
what is written in the Bible, which is why I have to ask you so many
questions, because your interpretation of the Bible is so different
from mine that I cannot even understand how you arrive at it[2]). It
may be that you do intend at some stage to give straight answers to
the straight questions that I have been asking, but to be honest, I am
beginning to conclude (in the spirit of the verse that says, "by their
fruits you will know them") that you have no such intention.
That is OK. You are a free agent, and you do not have to answer merely
because I ask for it. However, I feel that it would be kinder of you,
if you don't intend to answer, just to say so, and then I will know to
save my time by not asking any more. Indeed, if you intend not to be
accountable for what you write, then I will stop reading it, because
it just raises too many questions for me.
Please please please make your intentions clear in your reply to this
posting.
[1] Also I have asked other people, and they believe (unlike you in
this reply) that the answer to the question is not to be found in
Galatians, but in Romans or 1 Corinthians, and they are able to point
to chapter and verse, so that I know what they are meaning, which
allows me to make up my mind about whether they are right or wrong -
and some of what they said I agree with. I find that a helpful way to
proceed.
[2] Honestly this is not an insult about the way you understand the
Bible. You really *are* confusing me, and I am very worried by that
fact, and by what your reason is for doing it.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> [Leviticus 3:1-11 and Romans 5:1-8 are contradictory]
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> [Those passages are in complete agreement in all significant respects]
Ex. Bro. Tom said.
> [..] what assumptions have you been led to, that make you
> see two passages, which are in fact in agreement, as being in
> contradiction?
Jet Wood said..
> The only assumption (of the many I hold) that I bring to this specific
> question is this - that the texts mean what they say. Using that
> assumption, I observe as follows:
>
> Leviticus: I need to kill an animal to have peace with God.
> Romans: I don't.
>
> Isn't that a contradiction then?
No.
Because my son is six, I have a firm rule that he must hold my hand
when we are walking in a car park. He knows that if he lets go my hand,
he will be in big trouble with me.
When my son is eighteen, I doubt very much that he will hold my hand
when we are in a car park, and I will not dream of requiring it.
Is this holding of hand, and not holding of hand, a contradiction? No.
At six, my son's horizon of understanding is small. He does not have a
full understanding of what bad things can happen in a car park. He must
be kept safe while he grows. Because I love him, and wish to see no
harm come to him (nor pain to myself), I make the rule that he must
hold my hand.
At eighteen, my son's horizon of understanding will be bigger. I will
no longer have that rule for the car park. He must be in charge of his
own life, if he is to continue to grow. Because I will love him, and
wish to see no harm come to him (nor pain to myself), I will not have a
rule that he must hold my hand.
At six, and at eighteen, the rules will be different -- but I, the
father, will not have changed. My choice of actions is determined, at
both ages, by my love for my son, by my love for myself, and by my wish
to see my son mature.
The rules will be different, but love will not have moved an inch.
Our choice of actions is limited by our horizon. The people of the Old
Testament had a particular understanding of God -- a particular
horizon, within which they came to grips with him. It was a very
*physical* horizon. They determined how God was to be served, within
that horizon. They understood what God wanted very well -- relative to
that horizon.
If you look at Lev 3:1-11 (and many other passages like it), and all
you see are a set of rules that are no longer applicable, then you have
missed **everything** there that is significant. The rules are about
dedication to God, about giving God the best, about how humans can best
serve God, about what is good for humans -- all about how love between
God and man is to be shared.
To approach these texts, you must constantly ask: "How does *this*
detail show us something about our relationship to God?" and "What
exactly were the intentions of the writers and law-givers here?" and
"Despite the different horizon, how can we determine what the interior
intentions were of this practice?"
When the details that are only there because of the horizon are taken
away, what is left is pure gold, and tells us much about God that is
not even as well recorded in the New Testament.
In fact, both the Old and the New Testaments must be read in the same
way -- constantly paying attention to determine what the intentions of
the author were.
All this is why you will very often find exegetes who say that the
literal meaning of a text is to be defined as *what the author intended
by the text*.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> in 2 Timothy we are told 'All scripture is God breathed'
> and therefore we can be sure that everything in the Bible is correct.
>
Nick Milton said..
> The only other thing in the Bible that was God-breathed was Adam, and
> he was far from infallible
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> In Gen 2, what God breathes into Adam is the *breath of life*. There is
> no sign here that infallibility was part of that first breath, merely
> life.
>
> Whereas in 2Ti, what is God-inspired is *scripture*; and these writings
> are inspired such that they are usable for teaching, reproof,
> correction, and training in righteousness. So, if scripture isn't
> inerrant, how could it be used for reproof? If it isn't inerrant, how
> could it be used for correction?
Nick Milton said..
> You make a few logical leaps in your paragraph.
Explanatory leaps, anyway.
Nick Milton said..
> The word is "usable" not "inerrant", nor "infallible", nor "correct in
> all detail" which was the original point.
If the author has written something that is explicitly wrong, they have
written something that is not usable. Either scripture is inerrant, or
it is not usable.
Look, if someone writes a book, and in Chapter One, they say:
"It is an awful thing to cut the throats of strangers. God does not
want us to do it."
And suppose they say something similar in Chapters Two and Three, but
when the author reaches Chapter Four, they write:
"In all ways, God wants us to cut the throats of strangers."
Once we are convinced that there is no typo, we will end up being
*extremely* puzzled as to what the writer intended.
Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
Nick Milton said..
> And the word is "breathed" not "inspired". Perhaps the breath
> God breathed into Scripture is also a breath of life,
I am not sure I see much of a difference between saying something is
"God-breathed" or "divinely inspired".
Nick Milton said..
> but not of infallibility.
That's your claim. You need to support it.
family.shaw
> The only assumption (of the many I hold) that I bring to this specific
> question is this - that the texts mean what they say. Using that
> assumption, I observe as follows:
>
> Leviticus: I need to kill an animal to have peace with God.
> Romans: I don't.
>
> Isn't that a contradiction then?
Before Jesus came to earth people had to use animal's as sacrifices in order
to have peace with God, but...when Jesus came he was the ultimate sacrifice,
he was perfect and could take ALL our sin.
dave
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:hLzS7.82$7v6.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
I strongly believe that if you study the book of Galatians you will find
your answers there. The Holy Bible is the word of God and that word is a
Spirit and He can speak to you directly. Remembering I Corinthians 2:14 will
very much help you to understand the scriptures. Please refer to the bible
commentary and you will gain a lot. Other that suggested other books in the
Bible are also right. Read them also. Reference Bible will also be useful.
The issue is not my own opinion or anyone's opinion. We should seek God's
own opinion first. And if you require to know what other people have learned
from the scriptures, you do not just take from anybody, but you should take
from those that are saved. I will not waste my time or confuse myself by
asking the unsaved sinners (impenitent sinners) to interpret the scriptures.
What else do you expect from them or from the other spirit that rule their
lives. I have nothing against them and I do love them and witness to them,
but this is the truth.
Hiscoming
Thank you for your explanation. I know we are all still learning, but some
people are not willing to learn, hence they rush to say that there are
contradictions in the Bible. We need to remind them that we need humility to
learn at the feet of Jesus. OT can be seen as the shadow and the NT the
substance. The book of Hebrews throw more light on this. In the same Bible,
if anyone is looking for God, Holy Spirit will help such person to find God,
and if anyone is looking for fault, satan will deceive you and give you one.
There is no lie in the word of God. As I always say that when you are born
again, the word of God become alive in you I Corinthians 2:14.
Jet Wood
news:nOES7.1738$4e3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
Not only do I understand that, but it is the very point I made, in
answer to your claim that no part of the Bible speaking about how to
have peace with God contradicts any other part.
Here I have demonstrated that there is indeed a contradiction between
two parts of the Bible on that subject, and the reason for the
contradiction is as you stated.
But the fact that Leviticus is part of the Bible (and likely to remain
so) means that there *is* a contradiction, and therefore your original
statement is incorrect as it stands.
Jet Wood
> Jet Wood said..
> > Leviticus: I need to kill an animal to have peace with God.
> > Romans: I don't.
> >
> > Isn't that a contradiction then?
>
> No.
<long explanation of why they are the same snipped>
I do not dispute any of what you say. Moreover, I understood the line
of reasoning before you stated any of it, and to the best of my
ability I do read the Bible that way. However, please regard closely
the summary I give above. Nothing in what you have said suggests that
the summary I give above is misguided. It may be a bit concise, but it
is correct. (it even maps onto your summary: "The rules will be
different")
The important thing from my point of view as indicated above is what
actions are required of me, not what those actions imply about the
person I am doing them for, who, I would agree with you entirely, is
the same person and has not changed.
The point that I was originally responding to was:
---- begin ----------
dave of family shaw said:
To me, whether or not these things you say
are correct, the parts of the
Bible which talk about how we can have
peace with God, NEVER EVER contradict
each other.
---- end ---------
As I read this comment, it is not claiming that God never ever
changes, but that what the Bible tells us God asks of us never ever
changes. By quoting the example I quoted, I showed that to be a flawed
claim.
I appreciate your comments, I really do, Tom, but you have moved the
discussion on to questions of interpretation of the text and the
underlying understandings of God that are implied by them, which is
reading more into my words than was there, and more than was claimed
by what I was replying to.
I do not disagree with anything you have said; it is merely that you
are talking about something different.
When somebody says, "the bible never contradicts itself", then I get
suspicious about what they mean.
If they mean, "the bible never contradicts itself", then a way to test
that hypothesis would be to take all the complete blocks of text out
of it and print them on separate pieces of paper without any
identification marks on them and just ask the question - when the
pieces of paper are covering the same topic, do they always say the
same thing? And the answer would be a clear and multiply-repeated
"no". There are thousands of places in the Bible where one part says
the direct opposite of another.
If they mean, "the bible presents an evolving view of the revelation
of God in which former teachings are superseded by new revelations
which may correct previous misunderstandings, and God also came to us
in Jesus to intervene decisively in history in a way which means that
nothing could be the same afterwards, and the Bible tells us this
unfolding story where passages all need to be understood in their
respective contexts, and by so doing a deep and consistent
understanding of our relationship with God will be perceived" or
something similar to it, then I say, "Amen to that - but did you
realise that 'the Bible never contradicts itself' is a particularly
poor way of voicing such a claim."
Where I am coming from on this subject is this: there are a lot of
people out there who need to be presented with the Gospel in order to
be saved. It serves them poorly if when we present the Gospel we do so
in a way which is easy for them to misinterpret and refute. It serves
Christ poorly if we present the Gospel in such a way as we have
already prepared the ground for them to misinterpret the Gospel and
refute it. To my mind, it is necessary to have and to hold to an
apologetic which is both intellectually and spiritually coherent and
satisfying. "The Bible never contradicts itself" is not such an
apologetic, and I will always encourage those who propound it to think
again and come up with a better form of words, unless of course they
really mean it, in which case, like my local Jehovah's Witnesses, the
discussion goes on until one or other party loses patience - and to
date, it has always been the JW's who in the end have failed to keep
the appointments.
I particularly like your concluding two paragraphs:
In fact, both the Old and the New Testaments must be read in the same
way -- constantly paying attention to determine what the intentions of
the author were.
All this is why you will very often find exegetes who say that the
literal meaning of a text is to be defined as *what the author
intended
by the text*.
If you read a selection of my posts, you will find me preaching this
sermon often, (I have even called it 'the integrity test') which I
offer to you as a warranty that I stand alongside you, not in
opposition to you.
Jet Wood
news:MPG.1684c777d...@netnews.att.net...
> Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my earlier post
about the question of who killed Goliath, which I restate below for
your convenience:
Compare
There came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named
Goliath, of Gath ... The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam
.... David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and
struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his
forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. So David prevailed over
the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine
and killing him. (1 Samuel 17:4, 7, 49, 50)
against
Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the
Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (2 Sam
21:19 and 1 Chr 20:5)
So what is your take on this?
Jet Wood
> If you require to know what
> other people have learned
> from the scriptures, you do not just take
> from anybody, but you should take
> from those that are saved. I will not waste
> my time or confuse myself by
> asking the unsaved sinners
> (impenitent sinners) to interpret the scriptures.
I asked you for your interpretation. I honestly want to know your
interpretation. Why will you not give your interpretation?
Ex. Bro. Tom
> Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
Jet Wood said..
> I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my earlier post
> about the question of who killed Goliath, which I restate below for
> your convenience:
>
> Compare
>
> There came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named
> Goliath, of Gath ... The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam
> .... David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and
> struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his
> forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. So David prevailed over
> the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine
> and killing him. (1 Samuel 17:4, 7, 49, 50)
>
> against
>
> Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the
> Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (2 Sam
> 21:19 and 1 Chr 20:5)
>
> So what is your take on this?
Where is the "plain contradiction"?
If I hypothesise that there were two Goliaths (just as there are at
least two famous singers called Elvis), then the contradiction
disappears. It's not much of a "plain contradiction" if such a simple
possibility makes it go away.
Or, I might hypothesise that the text has been corrupted by one of the
innumerable copyists along the way (and there is in fact some evidence
for this). Again, the "plain contradiction" becomes distinctly less
plain.
(It's scripture as written by the divinely inspired author that I
regard as inerrant -- not necessarily any one of the numerous versions
that we have.)
I feel that you are greatly exaggerating how many potential
contradictions there are, by painting them with an unreasonably
imprecise brush.
Michael Gaskell
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my earlier post
You're right, the Bible is full of mistakes, the first mistake was when man
rejected God, by doubting Him. Don't make the same mistake. You could
rightly say that the church is full of hypocrites. The word hypocrite means
pretender, hypocrites don't fool God. They will spend eternity in hell with
those that mock or doubt God.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> [Leviticus 3:1-11 and Romans 5:1-8 are contradictory]
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> [Those passages are in complete agreement in all significant respects]
Jet Wood said..
> [Much stuff]
I think I disagreed with almost everything you said. However, most of
the areas of disagreement were contained in a particular paragraph of
yours, so I shall just address that.
Jet Wood said..
> Where I am coming from on this subject is this: there are a lot of
> people out there who need to be presented with the Gospel in order to
> be saved. It serves them poorly if when we present the Gospel we do so
> in a way which is easy for them to misinterpret and refute. It serves
> Christ poorly if we present the Gospel in such a way as we have
> already prepared the ground for them to misinterpret the Gospel and
> refute it. To my mind, it is necessary to have and to hold to an
> apologetic which is both intellectually and spiritually coherent and
> satisfying. "The Bible never contradicts itself" is not such an
> apologetic,
I know far too many people for whom hearing the statement "The Bible
sometimes contradicts itself" would be followed either by:
(1) a complete disregard for anything you subsequently said;
or
(2) an implicit invitation to pick whichever of two said-to-be-
contradictory statements they personally preferred.
It feels to me that you are hoping that by exhibiting some bonhomie
around the issue of contradictions, you will be subsequently allowed to
preach the "real" gospel. I fear it will be a dead cat bounce.
Contradictions are how you pick out the guilty party in a witness
stand. Contradictions are what destroy a system of logic.
Contradictions are what reveal a changeable nature.
"..whoever would save his life will lose it.."
Is that a contradiction, or the truth?
The gospel can survive any number of *apparent* contradictions -- the
whole history of the development of Christianity shows that. A single
real contradiction kills it.
I appreciate that there are many people who have a fairly simple view
of what an inerrant Scripture implies. There are worse views to have.
And patience, or actions, will work where arguments won't.
> and I will always encourage those who propound it to think
> again and come up with a better form of words, unless of course they
> really mean it, in which case, like my local Jehovah's Witnesses, the
> discussion goes on until one or other party loses patience - and to
> date, it has always been the JW's who in the end have failed to keep
> the appointments.
I.e. you failed, right?
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:lkVS7.550$7v6.3...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
I have already made my point known to you in my post. First get yours from
the Holy Ghost by prayerfully studying the Bible itself - read the whole
book of Galatians and you will know what Paul was talking about.
If you still need help, refer to the Bible Commentary. Do you really have
one, if you do, please read them and if you do not have one, go and buy one
and read it.
It depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for the answer,
definitely you will get it if you follow the above instructions.
Alec Brady
I just want to look at the question of contradictions.
Two statements are plainly in contradiction if they directly assert
incompatible things. Most contradictions in real human discourse are
not like that - rather, you need to assume extra things to get (or
avoid) a contradiction. So "Joe Bloggs is a good and holy man" and
"Joe Bloggs is a convicted swindler" may or may not be in
contradiction, depending on all sorts of context that I haven't told
you about.
The doctrine that Scripture contains no (or no material)
contradictions is not a provable fact, it is a "hermeneutic
heuristic." If I use this rule then I will look at two
seemingly-contradictory verses and ask "what could be the case, such
that these two remain true?" So, for instance, I might suggest that
Goliath of Gath and Goliath the Gittite are two people; or that the
verses in Leviticus that command sacrifice, and the verses in the New
Testament that disparage sacrifice, are addressed to different people.
The decision on whether to use the consistency heuristic is up to the
individual and - being a meta-rule - is not derivable from Scripture
itself. Those whose Tradition teaches them to use it will use it -
some more intelligently than others.
I would suggest that Tom is one who intelligently uses it, and Jet is
one who intelligently refrains from using it.
Alec
=======================
Felix facere voluissem, joculator fuissem
Genie
> > interpretation. Why will you not give your interpretation?
>
> I have already made my point known to you in my post.
Since the point was not understood, then obviously you have *not* "made your
point clear". Try repeating the point in different words, and simplfying
your language. Talking in parables is ok if they are simply interpreted.
However, if you remember the gospels correclty you'll notice that the only
parables that were understood were the ones Jesus explicitly unpicked for
his disciples afterwards, stating in plain language what he meant.
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes
into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean', but what comes out of his
mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean'.""
Matthew 15:10-11
"Peter said, "Explain the paable to us." "Are you still so dull?" Jesus
asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the
stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth
come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean'. For out of the heart
come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false
testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with
unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean'""
Matthew 15:15-20
Jesus told a parable to the crowd. No-one understood him, so Peter asked
afterwards what it meant. Jesus explained it again in different terms,
clarifying what he meant.
Many of your words encourage people here to attempt to be 'christ-like'.
Surely, from this example, you can see that stating your meaning in plain
words to explain to someone who did not understand the parable, IS
christ-like?
> First get yours from
> the Holy Ghost by prayerfully studying the Bible itself - read the whole
> book of Galatians and you will know what Paul was talking about.
I would imagine that Jet already has her own interpretation of Galatians -
or is currently trying to form her own interpretation to make it personally
meaningful. However, her question was to discover YOUR interpretation of the
passage. After all, by comparing different people's different
interpretations of passages, we can come closer to what the true message is.
After all, listening to different people's points of view can open our
hearts to possibilities of interpretation we hadn't heard of or considered
before. That is one of the beauties of this forum IMO, that such comparison
and discussion is possible.
> It depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for the answer,
> definitely you will get it if you follow the above instructions.
What Jet is looking for is YOUR opinion of the passage. That she will
certainly NOT find in either a bible commentary or by her own prayer. That
can only be found inside your head.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 24/11/01
Nick Milton
wrote:
>The decision on whether to use the consistency heuristic is up to the
>individual and - being a meta-rule - is not derivable from Scripture
>itself. Those whose Tradition teaches them to use it will use it -
>some more intelligently than others.
>
>I would suggest that Tom is one who intelligently uses it, and Jet is
>one who intelligently refrains from using it.
Well said Alec
nick
Jet Wood
> "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.16861b63...@netnews.att.net...
> > Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > > Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
> >
> > Jet Wood said..
> > > I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my
earlier post
>
> You're right, the Bible is full of mistakes
I don't believe either of us said that, so it is putting words into
our mouths by congratulating us for it.
> You could rightly say that the church is full of hypocrites.
No I couldn't. There is always room for more.
>The word hypocrite means pretender
er, actually it is derived from two Greek words, meaning above and
judgment. Hypocrisy is whan you consider yourself above your own
judgment - ie you apply one rule to everyone else, and not to
yourself.
Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.
Alec Brady
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Um, no, Jet. "hypocrite" means "actor." and hupo means below, not
above.
Jet Wood
Oops, clearly another point where I have overestimated how obvious
something is. My apologies.
> If I hypothesise that there were two Goliaths (just as there are at
> least two famous singers called Elvis), then the contradiction
> disappears. It's not much of a "plain contradiction" if such a
simple
> possibility makes it go away.
Two people from Gath. Two people whose spear is like a weaver's beam.
Two people called Goliath. Ah yes of course, two entirely different
people. ;-)
> Or, I might hypothesise that the text has been corrupted by one of
the
> innumerable copyists along the way (and there is in fact some
evidence
> for this). Again, the "plain contradiction" becomes distinctly less
> plain.
Okay, that's a more encouraging answer - not the one I'd go for
myself, but at least it doesn't strain credulity. FWIW, I think it is
much simpler - that the scribes who wrote the story just ascribed this
great deed to David (when it really was the other guy) to show how
great and favoured David was - maybe these are the copyists you refer
to - just a bit more extreme than saying Churchill (or Roosevelt, or
Stalin, depending which one you want to celebrate) defeatd Hitler,
really. Because My faith is not founded on a requirement for the
Biblical text to be inerrant, it doesn't cause me the slightest wobble
when I discover it isn't.
> (It's scripture as written by the divinely inspired author that I
> regard as inerrant -- not necessarily any one of the numerous
versions
> that we have.)
I'd probably say that as well - but I daresay in the final analysis,
my meaning might be slightly different from yours.
> I feel that you are greatly exaggerating how many potential
> contradictions there are, by painting them with an unreasonably
> imprecise brush.
How precise do you want then - how about the feeding of the five
thousand, where the synoptics say it was done with fresh fish, and
John says the fish was pickled - is that detailed enough? To my mind,
there are - ok, let's call them "disharmonies" - at various scales in
the Biblical text from the tiniest details between the synoptics to
fairly large things like events being out of sequence in various
books. If to yours there aren't then ok, you reach different
conclusions from me.
I propose an analogy. Some people have cast iron certainty to their
beliefs. Typically, cast iron is very strong, but it is also brittle
and needs a lot of reinforcing, if used, say, to make a bridge. I
don't build like that. Instead, I go for steel - fundamentally the
same material, but manufactured differently, giving it a lightness and
flexibility that means it can withstand the sort of knocks that cast
iron could not without the reinforcement. And I then move on to
acknowledge two things - the oldest iron bridge in existence - still
standing after more than two centuries at Coalbrookdale - is made of
cast iron, so cast iron has stood the test of time, and therefore
demands respect as a building material. So, I respect al thse who
hold firm and solid beliefs, and if you are one such, Tom, you have my
respect. But I also note that bridge-builders today don't use cast
iron any more - they go for steel instead, and in so doing build
structures that reach further and higher and have a different kind of
elegance to them, and that's the way I go about things and if those
who would advocate building in cast iron don't respect those who build
in steel, then that's fine for them, but it isn't a view that I would
understand, because the advantages of steel over cast iron outweigh
the advantages of cast iron over steel, in the way that I compare
them.
Jet Wood
news:jf1T7.2902$XN3.155499@wards...
Thank you Genie. You clearly have understood the point I was trying to
communicate. I wonder if it will make any difference. (By the way, I
should say that the correct pronoun in my case is "his", not "her" -
since Jet is actually an abbreviation of my school nickname of
Jethro.)
Jet Wood
> Jet Wood said..
> > [Leviticus 3:1-11 and Romans 5:1-8 are contradictory]
>
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > [Those passages are in complete agreement in all significant
respects]
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > [Much stuff]
>
> I think I disagreed with almost everything you said.
Interesting, because a large part of it was, I thought a restatement
of your views. Ah well.
Maybe you are right, but I wasn't proposing to replace the statement I
considered a poor one by one that I consider even poorer, such as "The
Bible sometimes contradicts itself"
> It feels to me that you are hoping that by exhibiting some bonhomie
> around the issue of contradictions, you will be subsequently allowed
to
> preach the "real" gospel. I fear it will be a dead cat bounce.
I am sorry. I do not know what that expression means.
>
> Contradictions are how you pick out the guilty party in a witness
> stand. Contradictions are what destroy a system of logic.
> Contradictions are what reveal a changeable nature.
>
> "..whoever would save his life will lose it.."
>
> Is that a contradiction, or the truth?
I think, if I have to say it is anything (leaving aside the fact that
I recognise the words and their source) that it is an aphorism. What
have you gained by asking me that question?
> The gospel can survive any number of *apparent* contradictions --
the
> whole history of the development of Christianity shows that. A
single
> real contradiction kills it.
I agree 100%. You have used the critical word: development. I thought
I had made it plain in my post that I believe in a developing
revelation, and that the Bible is a cast-in-concrete version of that
development - in other words, everything in it, understood in its
correct context and sequence is the best revelation at that stage in
our history, culminating with the supreme self-revelation of God in
Jesus. In my mind, some teachings correct or supersede others, and the
intervention of Jesus at that stage in history changes and clarifies a
lot. For example the question of circumcision - essential before
Jesus, inessential afterwards - together with a clear explanation for
the change. Yet there are those who claim the text is inerrant, for
whom such a statement must be impossible to accept - how can any
teaching be "corrected" or "changed" if it is "inerrant"?.
> I appreciate that there are many people who have a fairly simple
view
> of what an inerrant Scripture implies. There are worse views to
have.
> And patience, or actions, will work where arguments won't.
I sense there is subtext to this, but am too dense to work it out.
Could you please clarify.
> > and I will always encourage those who propound it to think
> > again and come up with a better form of words, unless of course
they
> > really mean it, in which case, like my local Jehovah's Witnesses,
the
> > discussion goes on until one or other party loses patience - and
to
> > date, it has always been the JW's who in the end have failed to
keep
> > the appointments.
>
> I.e. you failed, right?
I can't compete with the brainwa^H^H^H^H^H^H reinforcement techniques
used in JW circles, and don't even attempt to. The only failure I
noted was the failure of the JW's to keep the appointments. I have no
way of knowing one way or the other whether in the fullness of time
the seeds I planted will have germinated into anything - such matters
are in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jet Wood
news:3c1cb039...@news.virgin.net...
I thought I would check - here is what I found.
hypocrite
hypocrite [hípp?krit] (plural hypocrites) noun
somebody feigning high principles: somebody who gives a false
appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
So now we know.
Alec Brady
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So now we know that it's nothing to do with being above judgement. OK,
so what does Encarta say about hypo?
Michael Gaskell
> > Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my earlier post
You're right, the Bible is full of mistakes, the first mistake was when man
rejected God, by doubting Him. You could rightly say that the church is full
Hiscoming
> "Ex. Bro. Tom" <tmhig...@aristophanes.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.16861b63...@netnews.att.net...
> > Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > > Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
> >
> > Jet Wood said..
> > > I don't agree, but I did note a plain contradiction in my earlier post
>
> You're right, the Bible is full of mistakes, the first mistake was when
man
> rejected God, by doubting Him. You could rightly say that the church is
full
> of hypocrites. The word hypocrite means pretender, hypocrites don't fool
> God. They will spend eternity in hell with those that mock or doubt God.
>
> --
> Michael
I totally agree with you because it is in agreement with the word of God.
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:2bVS7.549$7v6.3...@monolith.news.easynet.net...> news:MPG.1684c777d...@netnews.att.net...
>
> > Contradictions in scripture are fatal to usability.
>
> your convenience:
>
> Compare
>
> There came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named
> Goliath, of Gath ... The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam
> .... David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and
> struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his
> forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. So David prevailed over
> the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine
> and killing him. (1 Samuel 17:4, 7, 49, 50)
>
> against
>
> Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the
> Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (2 Sam
> 21:19 and 1 Chr 20:5)
>
> So what is your take on this?
Mr. Jet Wood, will you please read that verse again (2 Samuel 21:19) and you
will see that there is no place that say another person killed Goliath. It
was David that killed Goliath. If you have anything about the word of God
that you do not understand, please say so and we Christians here can be of
help to you. How can someone claim to be a child of yours and all he tries
to do is to always look for fault in your word to him, looking for lie in
your word. Definitely, you will ask yourself, is this really my son?
I call upon the "christians" that usually support anything and everything to
read the verses quoted by Jet Wood and declare where they stand.
Genie
> Mr. Jet Wood, will you please read that verse again (2 Samuel 21:19) and
you
> will see that there is no place that say another person killed Goliath. It
> was David that killed Goliath. If you have anything about the word of God
> that you do not understand, please say so and we Christians here can be of
> help to you. How can someone claim to be a child of yours and all he tries
> to do is to always look for fault in your word to him, looking for lie in
> your word. Definitely, you will ask yourself, is this really my son?
>
> I call upon the "christians" that usually support anything and everything
to
> read the verses quoted by Jet Wood and declare where they stand.
I've read the quoted verses.
1 Samuel 17:48-50 is very clear in stating that a man/boy named "David"
killed the giant called "Goliath".
2 Samuel 21:19 is equally clear in stating that a man named "Elhanen, son of
Jaare-Oregim" slew the giant caled "Goliath". "In another battle with the
Philistines at Gob, Elhanen son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed
Goliath the Gitite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
Unless Elhanen and David are the same person, these verses are self
contradictory. What do the names "Elhanen" and "David" mean? Could they be
translations of the same name? Or could Elhanen be an appellation suiting
the works of the individual, rather than their given name (like
Simon/Peter)?
Alec Brady
My Bible (JB, 2 Sam 21:19) says Elhanan of Bethlehem killed Goliath of
Gath. So do NIV and Darby. Young's literal translation puts "the
brother of" in brackets - ie, it's not in the text. They presumably
put it there to match with the version in Chronicles. I guess you're
using a KJV, hmmn? You'll notice that the words "the brother of
(Goliath)" are in italics. Do you know what that signifies?
Of course, if the translators are going to *artificially* harmonise
the text, it will end up being consistent.
Jet Wood
My apologies - I posted my reply in a hurry without really reading
yours properly because I was rushing to finish off my script for a
carol service at the same time - James is obviously right that nothing
good comes of having your mind on two things at once.
You are of course entirely correct about hypo being below rather than
above. I don't know what I was thinking of.
Further research reveals that the original root of the word is hypo
krinesthai - below judging/below disputing. In a later usage, this
word acquired the meaning of actor, and then entered English via
mediaeval French.
So you are right about what it has meant at some stage. I would have
been right if I had got my directions right (but I didn't), and one
presumes Encarta is right about what it means now.
Jet Wood
> "Jet Wood"
> > Compare
> >
> > There came out from the camp
> > of the Philistines a champion named
> > Goliath, of Gath ... The shaft of his
> > spear was like a weaver's beam
> > .... David put his hand in his bag,
> > took out a stone, slung it, and
> > struck the Philistine on his forehead;
> > the stone sank into his
> > forehead, and he fell face down on
> > the ground. So David prevailed over
> > the Philistine with a sling and a stone,
> > striking down the Philistine
> >
> > against
> >
> > Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite,
> > killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear
> >
> > So what is your take on this?
>
> Mr. Jet Wood, will you please read that verse again
> (2 Samuel 21:19) and you will see that there is no place
> that say another person killed Goliath.
I have just sat here and read it patiently 20 times, and all the words
in it remained exactly as they are. Let me take you through them
slowly.
Elhanan [which does not look much like David - Do you have any
objections to that reading? - One possibility might be that David was
also called Elhanan, but that would also require Jaare-oregim to be
another name for Jesse (not impossible, but beginning to seem
desperate) - is that your objection? Because if it is, then there is
no evidence anywhere in the Bible or outside it to support it.]
son of Jaare-oregim [which does not look much like Jesse - any
objections to that reading? see also above]
the Bethlehemite [meaning "a person from Bethlehem" - any objections
to that reading? Naturally, since David came from Bethlehem, one might
assume with some justification that he would recruit his soldiers from
Bethlehem, so I personally would not assume that if the text says
someone comes from Bethlehem that person must therefore be David.]
killed Goliath [same name as the person David is said to have killed
in 1 Samuel - any objections to that reading? See below for a look at
the KJV translation of this verse.]
the Gittite [meaning "a person from Gath", like a Hittite comes from
Hatti, and a Geordie comes from Tyneside - any objections to that
reading (not the Geordie bit, obviously, which is an attempt to inject
some humour into this exchange, a fact which I feel - with some
dread - that I need to point out)? Some other versions even translate
this word as "of Gath" - see below]
the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam [exactly the same
description as in 1 Samuel - any objections to that reading? To my
mind, the purpose of all these adjectival phrasings is to make us
completely certain that we are being told about exactly the same
Goliath as in 1 Samuel.]
> It was David that killed Goliath.
> If you have anything about the word of God
> that you do not understand, please say so
> and we Christians here can be of
> help to you.
Every time I ask you for help, you tell me to read the same verses in
the Bible again. In the hope that this time you will not answer like
that, please tell me what you mean when you say that if I read this
verse again I will see that it is David who killed Goliath. I have
read it over and over and it always says that someone called Elhanan
killed someone called Goliath. I simply do not understand what you
mean, unless it is that you are looking at a Bbile in which that verse
has been altered so that it says "David" instead of "Elhanan". If that
is so, then please tell me what version that is, so that I can verify
that. [See below as well.]
Also, *please* stop all this nonsense about me not being a Christian.
Patient though I am as a rule, I am beginning to be somewhat wearied
by it. The fact that I reach different conclusions from you does not
stop me being a Christian - it is just a sign that I am using my brain
in a different way from the way you are using yours. There are a
number of things that can be concluded about that, but the question of
whether either of us is a Christian is not one of them. When people
criticise you for personal abuse and say that one of the things which
counts as personal abuse is telling people they are not Christian, why
does that comment not make any impression on you?
> How can someone claim to be a child of yours
> and all he tries to do is to always look for fault
> in your word to him, looking for lie in
> your word. Definitely, you will ask yourself,
> is this really my son?
Er, are you talking to me? It seems like suddenly you have started to
talk to someone else - maybe God? If so, are you suggesting that I am
not a child of God? I refer you to the comment above about what you
call people.
> I call upon the "christians" that usually
> support anything and everything to
> read the verses quoted by Jet Wood
> and declare where they stand.
To all these multitudes [;-)]- here is the verse that Steven/Hiscoming
wants you to read, from a number of translations.
NRSV: Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and
Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the
Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
NIV: In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of
Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a
spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.
GNB: There was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan
son of Jair from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear had a
shaft as thick as the bar on a weaver's loom.
NJB: Again, war with the Philistines broke out at Gob, and Elhanan
son of Jair, of Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, the shaft of whose
spear was like a weaver's beam.
REB: In another campaign against the Philistines in Gob, Elhanan son
of Jair of Bethlehem killed Goliath of Gath, whose spear had a shaft
like a weaver's beam.
CEV:There was still another battle with the Philistines at Gob. A
soldier named Elhanan killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear shaft was
like a weaver's beam. Elhanan's father was Jari from Bethlehem.
KJV: And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where
Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of
Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's
beam.
Astute readers will notice immediately that there is a difference
between the way KJV translates this verse and the way the other
translations that I have on my computer does - in that it says it was
the brother of Goliath who was killed. A significant difference, I am
sure you will agree, and one that might justify what Steven is saying.
So, since I do not wish to "build a house on sand", I went back to
look at the original versions. Checking the Hebrew in my NIV
Interlinear Hebrew/English text, I observe that there is no word which
can be translated "brother". Similarly, checking the Septuagint
(Rahlfs) I observe that there is no word that can be translated
"brother". Also, checking the Vulgate (Sixtine edition) there is no
word that can be translated "brother".
One other version I have on my computer is the NKJV, which says as
follows:
NKJV:Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan
the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed [the brother of]
Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear [was] like a weaver's
beam
The stuff in square brackets is in italics in the text of the NKJV
(and for all I know might also be in italics in the KJV if I had one
of those printings of it where italics are used) to show that it was
added by the KJV/NKJV translators and that it was not there in the
original text. These additions are generally put there to aid
readability, but occasionally (as in a few hundred times - not so many
given how big the Bible is) they are inserted to cover up what those
translators thought were mistakes in the original texts. (I am not
aware of any occasions where subsequent scholarship has justified
these translators emendations, but since I personally don't use the
KJV for anything serious[1], I haven't invested the time to find out
such matters in detail.)
So Steven, if you are reading a KJV, then all I can say is that you
are reading a defective translation, and this is one of the verses in
which it is defective.
If that is the basis of your decision to condemn me as not being a
Christian and not being a child of God, then, to borrow some poetic
words from one of my favourite parts of the Old Testament, I think you
are "striving after the wind". If, on the other hand, you some other
justifiable reason for suggesting that the verse does not say what
Hebrew and LXX and Vulg and NRSV and NIV and GNB and NJB and REB and
CEV say it does, then please enlighten me. I truly would love to hear
it, because it would enable me to understand you so much better.
Deep down, it really perplexes me, Steven, why your reaction to me
(and to others, it seems) when I reach a different conclusion from you
is to condemn me. From my perspective, the only sensible way to
proceed in such circumstances is to attempt to understand the other
person, which is why I keep on asking you to share with me your
understanding of something, and why I am frustrated when all you ever
seem to say is "go and read it again and it will become clear to you".
You have repeatedly accused me of not taking the Bible seriously. On
the computer in front of me are all the different versions that I have
quoted from, and downstairs from where I am typing this are a further
fifteen different translations of some or all of the Books of the
Bible, as well as the original texts in Hebrew and Greek, and the
Vulgate in Latin. I would advance that as evidence that I am trying
very hard to take the Bible seriously. If in contrast, you are basing
all your interpretations on the King James Version, and refuse to
acknowledge that any other version is to be believed, then I think
most impartial people would begin to suspect that if one of us is not
taking the Bible seriously, it might not be me. If the basis of all
your disagreements with me turns out to be that you think the KJV is
infallible, then I will be truly disappointed.
I would appreciate your detailed response to these points, so that I
can understand you. I suspect I am not going to receive it, but I
would be delighted to be proved wrong. Go on, Steven, just answer me
properly this once - think of it as a Christmas present.
Jet
[1] The last time I did anything that I considered was really serious
with the KJV was when I read from it on the occasion of my mother's
funeral, because it was *her* favourite version. That was in 1996.
Tony Gillam
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:s93T7.73$8%.42178@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Alec said
> > Um, no, Jet. "hypocrite" means "actor." and hupo means below, not
> > above.
>
> I thought I would check - here is what I found.
>
> hypocrite
>
> hypocrite [hípp?krit] (plural hypocrites) noun
> somebody feigning high principles: somebody who gives a false
> appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
>
> Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft
> Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by
> Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
>
> So now we know.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~tony.gillam - Home of TUCOWSAT
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk - A Site for sore eyes
Hell - A place in which there isn't a hope
Ex. Bro. Tom
> As I'm not responding to any specific points, I haven't kept any text.
> I just want to look at the question of contradictions.
> The doctrine that Scripture contains no (or no material)
> contradictions is not a provable fact, it is a "hermeneutic
> heuristic." If I use this rule then I will look at two
> seemingly-contradictory verses and ask "what could be the case, such
> that these two remain true?" So, for instance, I might suggest that
> Goliath of Gath and Goliath the Gittite are two people; or that the
> verses in Leviticus that command sacrifice, and the verses in the New
> Testament that disparage sacrifice, are addressed to different people.
>
> The decision on whether to use the consistency heuristic is up to the
> individual and - being a meta-rule - is not derivable from Scripture
> itself. Those whose Tradition teaches them to use it will use it -
> some more intelligently than others.
All you said was very helpful, and helped me clarify what was my
general sense of confusion.
My "hermeneutic heuristic" of Scriptural inerrancy does indeed come
from Tradition -- and is a principle consciously adopted on my part
before I knew quite where it would be leading. The other principle I
hold is that all of the Bible is always useful -- there are no books or
passages which are no longer of use to us, and all of the details play
a part in the whole.
Having been given those principles, I have used them, and continue to
use them. They have passed every test of usefulness, and are like a jar
of oil that never runs out.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> If I hypothesise that there were two Goliaths (just as there are at
> least two famous singers called Elvis), then the contradiction
> disappears. It's not much of a "plain contradiction" if such a
> simple possibility makes it go away.
Jet Wood said..
> Two people from Gath. Two people whose spear is like a weaver's beam.
> Two people called Goliath. Ah yes of course, two entirely different
> people. ;-)
Imagine a couple of statements in a history book that will be written
in the far future:
In 1918 the Germans negotiated an end to the war with the French in a
railway carriage at Compiegne.
In 1940 the Germans negotiated an end to the war with the French in a
railway carriage at Compiegne.
As far as I can tell, you would make an analogous claim that these two
statements are in plain contradiction, and that there was really only
one war. But we happen to know that both statements are entirely
correct -- because the Germans *deliberately* chose to re-enact the
surrender in the same place as the first time.
I do not understand why you so blandly reject the possibility that
there were two Goliaths. Couldn't the Philistines *deliberately* bring
on another champion, *deliberately* giving him the same name, and
*deliberately* giving him the same epithet, while hoping for a
different outcome? And couldn't an Israelite historian joyfully record
this rematch, with the Philistines again losing?
To disallow these kind of things in Scripture, is just to pre-assume
Scripture not to be history. History is full of weird stuff, because we
are full of weird stuff. And we remember all that weird stuff.
(I do not say that there *were* two Goliaths. But I do say that to
assume that the second Goliath is certainly the same as the first one,
is to claim knowledge that you don't have, and there is no huge
probability in your favour, either.)
Jet Wood said..
> FWIW, I think it is
> much simpler - that the scribes who wrote the story just ascribed this
> great deed to David (when it really was the other guy) to show how
> great and favoured David was
It's a kind of interpretation that's been in favour for a few decades.
In essence it's saying: "David wasn't really such a great guy. They
just made up lots of stories about him, to make him look better than he
really was." But the real target, only too clearly, is not David.
> - maybe these are the copyists you refer
> to -
The copyists I refer to are those whose job was to copy out a text when
the previous copy was wearing out -- as they made the copy, they could
make their own mistakes as they copied, or they could try to correct
what they perceived as "plain mistakes" made by the previous copyist.
> just a bit more extreme than saying Churchill (or Roosevelt, or
> Stalin, depending which one you want to celebrate) defeatd Hitler,
> really.
I fail to see how.
> Because My faith is not founded on a requirement for the
> Biblical text to be inerrant, it doesn't cause me the slightest wobble
> when I discover it isn't.
I sort of know what you intend. But it sounds to me too much like
someone saying: "I don't actually eat real meals, I just listen to
stories about people eating real meals. It's done my nutrition no harm
at all."
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> I feel that you are greatly exaggerating how many potential
> contradictions there are, by painting them with an unreasonably
> imprecise brush.
Jet Wood said..
> How precise do you want then - how about the feeding of the five
> thousand, where the synoptics say it was done with fresh fish, and
> John says the fish was pickled - is that detailed enough?
That's a new one to me, so you're going to have to explain what
evidence you're relying on that shows a "plain contradiction".
Jet Wood said..
> To my mind,
> there are - ok, let's call them "disharmonies" - at various scales in
> the Biblical text from the tiniest details between the synoptics to
> fairly large things like events being out of sequence in various
> books. If to yours there aren't then ok, you reach different
> conclusions from me.
I will happily admit that there are many apparent contradictions in
Scripture. I will also admit to apparent contradictions that I am not
sure how to reconcile. But you seem to be making a stronger claim --
that there are *definitely* real contradictions. That's a very
different matter.
Jet Wood said..
> I propose an analogy.
> [Cast iron and steel]
This is going to sound like a bit of a non sequitur, but I have long
felt that people should have a point in their lives where they
deliberately abandon themselves to adventure -- like picking a partly-
civilised country whose language is a bit of a mystery, and going to
work there for a year. The Spirit's middle name is Adventure.
Ex. Bro. Tom
> To my mind, it is necessary to have and to hold to an
> apologetic which is both intellectually and spiritually coherent
> and satisfying. "The Bible never contradicts itself" is not such an
> apologetic,
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> I know far too many people for whom hearing the statement "The Bible
> sometimes contradicts itself" would be followed [by bad things]
Jet Wood said..
> Maybe you are right, but I wasn't proposing to replace the statement I
> considered a poor one by one that I consider even poorer, such as "The
> Bible sometimes contradicts itself"
What would you replace it by?
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> [..] dead cat bounce.
Jet Wood said..
> I am sorry. I do not know what that expression means.
I think it's a stock-market term, or some part of a fashionable
management theory. Here's an example I found on Google:
'If you threw a dead cat off a 50-story building, it might bounce when
it hit the sidewalk. But don't confuse that bounce with renewed life.
It is still a dead cat.' — Chet Currier
Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> "..whoever would save his life will lose it.."
>
> Is that a contradiction, or the truth?
Jet Wood said..
> I think, if I have to say it is anything (leaving aside the fact that
> I recognise the words and their source) that it is an aphorism. What
> have you gained by asking me that question?
I am trying to find out what you think about contradictions in
circumstances other than historical.
Jet Wood said..
> [..] You have used the critical word: development. I thought
> I had made it plain in my post that I believe in a developing
> revelation,
Whereas I believe in a developing understanding of a completed
revelation.
Jet Wood said..
> For example the question of circumcision - essential before
> Jesus, inessential afterwards - together with a clear explanation for
> the change. Yet there are those who claim the text is inerrant, for
> whom such a statement must be impossible to accept - how can any
> teaching be "corrected" or "changed" if it is "inerrant"?.
What was the **intention** behind circumcision? And is that
**intention** actually now different?
Jet Wood
news:9vk7fd$fjg$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Jet Wood"
>
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:s93T7.73$8%.42178@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> Alec said
> > > Um, no, Jet. "hypocrite" means "actor." and hupo means below,
not
> > > above.
> >
> > I thought I would check - here is what I found.
> >
> > hypocrite
> >
> > hypocrite [hípp?krit] (plural hypocrites) noun
> > somebody feigning high principles: somebody who gives a false
> > appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
> >
> > Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft
> > Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by
> > Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
> >
> > So now we know.
> What? That Bill Gates doesn't know Greek?
I think Bill G employs others to know what need to be known in this
area - in this case, the others being "Bloomsbury Publishing", as
noted in the reference which automatically generated itself.
Hiscoming
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:Z%fT7.271$8%.173715@monolith.news.easynet.net...
The word of God has not come to condemn anyone because we are all condemned
already and only those who are in Christ Jesus that there is no more
condemnation for. That is to say only Jesus Christ can remove condemnation.
Can you please turn to I Chronicles 20:5 in the very versions you have
quoted and read it out and get the differences between Lahmi and Goliath.
Then by the grace of God I will be able to help you get the message.
Hiscoming
No please, they are different persons that killed different persons.
2 Samuel 21:19 - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,
where Eli-hanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of
Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
Eli-hanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath and David killed Goliath.
David Ould
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConver...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:tTTS7.544$7v6.3...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> "family.shaw" <famil...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:nOES7.1738$4e3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > The only assumption (of the many I hold) that I bring to this
> specific
> > > question is this - that the texts mean what they say. Using that
> > > assumption, I observe as follows:
> > >
> > > Leviticus: I need to kill an animal to have peace with God.
> > > Romans: I don't.
> > >
> > > Isn't that a contradiction then?
> >
> > Before Jesus came to earth people had to use animal's as sacrifices
> in order
> > to have peace with God, but...when Jesus came he was the ultimate
> sacrifice,
> > he was perfect and could take ALL our sin.
> >
> > dave
>
> Not only do I understand that, but it is the very point I made, in
> answer to your claim that no part of the Bible speaking about how to
> have peace with God contradicts any other part.
>
> Here I have demonstrated that there is indeed a contradiction between
> two parts of the Bible on that subject, and the reason for the
> contradiction is as you stated.
>
> But the fact that Leviticus is part of the Bible (and likely to remain
> so) means that there *is* a contradiction, and therefore your original
> statement is incorrect as it stands.
Jet,
what you actually have to do is ask "why the sacrifice?"
because the bible tells us that the punishment for sin must be bourne but
can be substituted.
Hence the sacrificed animals in the Levitical ordinances and the lamb of God
sacrificed once and for all.
There is no contradiction in principle.
A simplistic example.
You don't want to have any children
one advisor says use a condom
the next says get a vasectomy
apparent contradiction?
no, because the real answer is "stop those sperm getting to that egg"
but if you want to haggle about condoms vs vasectomies then you miss the
point
David
Ken Down
wrote:
> 2 Samuel 21:19 is equally clear in stating that a man named "Elhanen, son
> of Jaare-Oregim" slew the giant caled "Goliath".
In the KJV it is Goliath's brother who is killed. I don't know how reliable
this is, but it certainly is not unreasonable.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Ken Down
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConverseWithYourFriendAndNeigh<Z%fT7.271$8%.173715@monolith.news.easynet.net>
wrote:
> Astute readers will notice immediately that there is a difference
> between the way KJV translates this verse and the way the other
> translations that I have on my computer does - in that it says it was
> the brother of Goliath who was killed.
The word "brother of" is not present in 1 Samuel, but it is present in 1
Chronicles where, in addition, a name is given to this brother. It is not
unreasonable to suppose that some copyist might have missed out the word
"brother of" - or even that the author might have! Just look at how often
the distinguished contributors to uk.r.c leave out words.
This seems a fairly trivial basis on which to reject the whole Bible.
Alec Brady
<hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Can you please turn to I Chronicles 20:5 in the very versions you have
>quoted and read it out and get the differences between Lahmi and Goliath.
>Then by the grace of God I will be able to help you get the message.
So why do 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles say different things?
Jet Wood
<Trying to enter into the spirit of this one ;-)> If my
great-to-the-nth granddaughter (who by a remarkable coincidence
happens to believe the same kinds of things as I do at the moment in
the same kinds of ways) were to be faced with a situation where there
was only one history book in existence, and, despite the history book
going into the level of detail that you mention, all the bigger stuff
were missed out, and all the other conditions necessary to go along
with this were also met, then she might possibly reach that point of
view, or might not. On the whole, I think she might (as I do, offered
those two isolated facts and suspending all the rest that I know about
them) conclude that the international body that supervised peace
treaties held all its meetings in "a railway carriage at Compeigne" -
not that I would expect her to have the foggiest idea what that
expression meant, if her history book is so poor, and all the evidence
apart from it has been obliterated.
> But we happen to know that both statements are entirely
> correct -- because the Germans *deliberately* chose to re-enact the
> surrender in the same place as the first time.
For the sake of not seeming picky, I'll let your assertion that both
statements are *entirely* correct ride.
> I do not understand why you so blandly reject the possibility that
> there were two Goliaths.
Tom, I haven't definitively (or I hope blandly) rejected anything - on
this and on many other points about the Bible my mind is open; that
said, I do award the interpretation we are talking about here a high
degree of probability. You have assumed I have rejected something and
then given me a long list of reasons why I should not have. All I have
done is point out that here are two texts which on the face of it tell
a different story from each other. The first step is to encounter the
texts - it is several steps down the line that one begins to collect
the evidence about what they might mean and weigh it up. As the two
texts stand, there seems insufficient information to say that they are
clearly talking about different events, and more than a hint that they
may be talking about the same event, but recalling it in different
ways.
> Couldn't the Philistines *deliberately* bring
> on another champion, *deliberately* giving
> him the same name, and
> *deliberately* giving him the same epithet,
what epithet? (do you mean - this [second] big bloke is from [e.g.]
Tyre but we'll kid everyone he's from Gath?)
> while hoping for a
> different outcome? And couldn't an Israelite historian joyfully
record
> this rematch, with the Philistines again losing?
Yes. Possible. Not exceedingly likely, I'd say, but not impossible.
> To disallow these kind of things in Scripture, is just to pre-assume
> Scripture not to be history. History is full of weird stuff, because
we
> are full of weird stuff. And we remember all that weird stuff.
Quite so.
> (I do not say that there *were* two Goliaths. But I do say that to
> assume that the second Goliath is certainly the same as the first
one,
> is to claim knowledge that you don't have, and there is no huge
> probability in your favour, either.)
But this is the nub of it, isn't it. Whatever we would see with the
benefit of time travel to go and watch who did what to whom, where,
when, and possibly why, we are left with a record which we have to
interpret. Some difficulties one can resolve easily, others one can't.
So here, for example, there is the question of the spear being
described as being as big as a weaver's beam. Question - is that a
common expression? Answer. No, it is not. It occurs 4 times in the
NRSV. Three of them are allied to the name Goliath. The fourth refers
to an unnamed Egyptian at 1 Chr 11.23.
Similarly, is Goliath a common name? Well, the word appears 6 times in
the Bible, and in their contexts they all refer to a Philistine
fighting man. Now, whether they all refer to the same one or not is
something that only other evidence can give an indication of.
So, for example, I take the indication that in 1 Samuel we are told
that Goliath is in the habit of coming out and making mocking speeches
to the Israelites to be a clue that it is more reasonable to take it
to be the same Goliath in each case, rather than a different one
because the Philistines like to confuse people by giving a lot of them
the same name. Similarly, I also take the clue that apart from the
name, the Goliaths in 1 and 2 Sam are linked also by their place of
origin - Gath - and the weapon they carry - a spear as broad as a
weaver's beam - (which are, let's face it all we are told, so I am not
rejecting any of the evidence at all) to be indications that we are
still talking about the same Goliath. If there existed in the Bible a
Goliath who was clearly indicated as not coming from Gath, or
alternatively either a Goliath who did not carry oversized weapons, or
some other Philistine who did have a huge spear, then I would feel
confident in pursuing a different conclusion. But that is what it is -
a conclusion, based on the evidence in the text, not an assumption
that I started with.
As I stated earlier, it is a provisional conclusion, but one I attach
a high degree of probability to. Others that you propose I attach
lower degrees of probability to, but that's because one of the tools I
use is Occam's razor, (which means that I don't hypothesize the
coincidental existence of a second giant from Gath with a huge spear
called Goliath, or for that matter that Jesus found it necessary to
overturn the tables outside the Temple more than once, or that every
time the synoptics quibble about the details of an event that in fact
they are describing different but similar events - just imagine what a
terrible sense of "deja vu" such an outlook condemns Jesus and his
faithful twelve to!) I don't reject your proposed solutions to this
enigma - I just regard them as less plausible than the interpretation
that is my current favourite.
> Jet Wood said..
> > FWIW, I think it is
> > much simpler - that the scribes who wrote the story just ascribed
this
> > great deed to David (when it really was the other guy) to show how
> > great and favoured David was
>
> It's a kind of interpretation that's been in favour for a few
decades.
> In essence it's saying: "David wasn't really such a great guy. They
> just made up lots of stories about him, to make him look better than
he
> really was." But the real target, only too clearly, is not David.
What is it then?
AIUI, the cultural background in those days was that whenever kings
wrote about themselves on public monuments, they always ensured they
were described using words which exaggerated their greatness. To find
that sort of thing[1] going on in the Bible is no surprise, then, and,
despite what I suspect you may be hinting at, it actually makes the
Bible seem more plausible in my eyes, not less. And remember - what we
are dealing with is not a point of doctrine that I regard as being
crucial to salvation, just a bit of history that got altered in the
telling, IMHO probably for reasons of Davidic propaganda.
Nevertheless, I could understand the idea that some people thought it
might not be true that D killed G as a justification for not including
Psalm 151 (below) in the canon - except in Greek and Slavonic
churches, AIUI.
Psalm 151 (or 2 Psalms 1 as the Lion software calls it) (NRSV)
1:I was small among my brothers, and the youngest in my father's
house; I tended my father's sheep.
2:My hands made a harp; my fingers fashioned a lyre.
3:And who will tell my Lord? The Lord himself; it is he who hears.
4:It was he who sent his messenger and took me from my father's sheep,
and anointed me with his anointing-oil.
5:My brothers were handsome and tall, but the Lord was not pleased
with them.
6:I went out to meet the Philistine, and he cursed me by his idols.
7:But I drew his own sword; I beheaded him, and took away disgrace
from the people of Israel.
> > - maybe these are the copyists you refer
> > to -
>
> The copyists I refer to are those whose job was to copy out a text
when
> the previous copy was wearing out -- as they made the copy, they
could
> make their own mistakes as they copied, or they could try to correct
> what they perceived as "plain mistakes" made by the previous
copyist.
Ok.
> > just a bit more extreme than saying Churchill (or Roosevelt, or
> > Stalin, depending which one you want to celebrate) defeatd Hitler,
> > really.
>
> I fail to see how.
Ok. I sense it would be futile to attempt to pursue that.
> > Because My faith is not founded on a requirement for the
> > Biblical text to be inerrant, it doesn't cause me the slightest
wobble
> > when I discover it isn't.
>
> I sort of know what you intend. But it sounds to me too much like
> someone saying: "I don't actually eat real meals, I just listen to
> stories about people eating real meals. It's done my nutrition no
harm
> at all."
I do apologise for the capital M! Seriously, though, there is no need
to reword what I have said, because it conveys exactly what I mean. My
faith is based on a number of things, largely my own personal
experience of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in my life
and in the lives of others I know/have known. For me, the Bible is a
repository of information about my faith, - not the origin of it. In
that light, I must confess, I don't even understand what you might
have wanted to achieve by paorodying what I wrote.
> Jet Wood said..
> > How precise do you want then - how about the feeding of the five
> > thousand, where the synoptics say it was done with fresh fish, and
> > John says the fish was pickled - is that detailed enough?
>
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> That's a new one to me, so you're going to have to explain what
> evidence you're relying on that shows a "plain contradiction".
It's in the Greek. The synoptics talk about the fish being "ichthys",
while John talks about it being "opsarion" - which means either
pickled fish or fish sauce, AIUI, of which the pickled fish is the
meaning that makes clearer sense. I don't know if it has any
significance, and I am not claiming that it does, but it is a
"disharmony" between different accounts of what I am assuming to be
the same event that is a very detailed point that, to the best of my
knowledge, no published Bible translation differentiates - and hence I
am not surprised that it is new to you. I'm only presenting another
example, I don't much have the stomach for debating what it might mean
(though if you want to toss me a rollmop, I wouldn't mind - I'm quite
partial to them AIH, so I'd have preferred, I think, to be present at
the event if it happened the way that John tells it ;-) ).
> I will happily admit that there are many apparent contradictions in
> Scripture. I will also admit to apparent contradictions that I am
not
> sure how to reconcile. But you seem to be making a stronger claim --
> that there are *definitely* real contradictions. That's a very
> different matter.
Would you like to share one that you find difficult to reconcile - I'd
be interested, especially if it is one I haven't heard before, because
that will help me to understand where you are coming from.
> Jet Wood said..
> > I propose an analogy.
> > [Cast iron and steel]
>
> This is going to sound like a bit of a non sequitur
Yes it does - and (en passant) I am a little disappointed that you
didn't pass any comment on my iron/steel analogy, as I spent a while
thinking it up.
> but I have long
> felt that people should have a point in their lives where they
> deliberately abandon themselves to adventure -- like picking a
partly-
> civilised country whose language is a bit of a mystery, and going to
> work there for a year. The Spirit's middle name is Adventure.
As part of my ministerial training, I have to go abroad for 6 weeks
next summer. Plans are still being sorted, but the trip may include
Cuba, and I don't habla Español AIH. Anyway, leaving that biographical
note aside, what was your drift?
Oh yes, - just curious - what kind of Bro are you ex-?
[1] I am using this expression loosely, in order to try to facilitate
the discussion.
Jet Wood
> Can you please turn to <yet another verse>
No, Steven. I am fed up that you refuse to answer any of my questions,
and that you change the ground whenever it suits you. In the post
which I spent all that time researching, you specifically said that I
should look at the verse in 2 Samuel. That is what I did, and I await
your response to the points I made in that post.
Jet Wood
news:na.cd3c7d4aea....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <Z%fT7.271$8%.173715@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Jet
Wood"
>
<justthecapsifyouwanttoConverseWithYourFriendAndNeigh<Z%fT7.271$8%.173
> wrote:
>
> > Astute readers will notice immediately that there is a difference
> > between the way KJV translates this verse and the way the other
> > translations that I have on my computer does - in that it says it
was
> > the brother of Goliath who was killed.
>
> The word "brother of" is not present in 1 Samuel, but it is present
in 1
> Chronicles where, in addition, a name is given to this brother. It
is not
> unreasonable to suppose that some copyist might have missed out the
word
> "brother of" - or even that the author might have! Just look at how
often
> the distinguished contributors to uk.r.c leave out words.
>
> This seems a fairly trivial basis on which to reject the whole
Bible.
I agree entirely. Who did that then?
Jet Wood
> In article <RK9T7.3266$Jm.179626@stones>, "Genie"
<sp...@rshost.f9.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > 2 Samuel 21:19 is equally clear in stating that a man named
"Elhanen, son
> > of Jaare-Oregim" slew the giant caled "Goliath".
>
> In the KJV it is Goliath's brother who is killed. I don't know how
reliable
> this is, but it certainly is not unreasonable.
It all depends on what you mean by unreasonable, I guess. In the
context of this discussion about what the Bible actually says, I
consider it unreasonable to base an opinion on something that appeared
out of thin air in 1611 in an English translation, and has
subsequently disappeared again in later translations.
Jet Wood
news:9vlfdo$6f6$5...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Not only do I understand that, but it is the very point I made, in
> > answer to your claim that no part of the Bible speaking about how
to
> > have peace with God contradicts any other part.
> >
> > Here I have demonstrated that there is indeed a contradiction
between
> > two parts of the Bible on that subject, and the reason for the
> > contradiction is as you stated.
> >
> > But the fact that Leviticus is part of the Bible (and likely to
remain
> > so) means that there *is* a contradiction, and therefore your
original
> > statement is incorrect as it stands.
>
> Jet,
>
> what you actually have to do is ask "why the sacrifice?"
> because the bible tells us that the punishment for sin must be
bourne but
> can be substituted.
> Hence the sacrificed animals in the Levitical ordinances and the
lamb of God
> sacrificed once and for all.
> There is no contradiction in principle.
<snip A simplistic example.>
I understand the point you are making, and do not dispute any of it.
Regrettably, what you have to say misses the point that I was making
in my earlier post. What I was responding to was a comment that said
that according to the Bible what God requires of *us* to make peace
with him has been constant throughout the Bible. I answered that on
the basis of what the bible tells *us* that *we* have to do which is,
in summary:
Before Jesus: kill an animal
After Jesus: Accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross (i.e. not kill
an animal because it is no longer necessary).
I answered from the point of view of the sinner. From that point of
view there is all the difference in the world between these two
situations. One is oblivion for the sheep and the other is not.
I understand fully and accept fully why there is a difference in terms
of the animals that get killed, but I wasn't talking about the
reasons, just the fact.
If you want to point out what is wrong with my argument, please do so
speaking from the same point of view as me, otherwise we'll just
continue to talk at cross-purposes.
Jet Wood
> Jet Wood said..
> > To my mind, it is necessary to have and to hold to an
> > apologetic which is both intellectually and spiritually coherent
> > and satisfying. "The Bible never contradicts itself" is not such
an
> > apologetic,
>
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > I know far too many people for whom hearing the statement "The
Bible
> > sometimes contradicts itself" would be followed [by bad things]
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > Maybe you are right, but I wasn't proposing to replace the
statement I
> > considered a poor one by one that I consider even poorer, such as
"The
> > Bible sometimes contradicts itself"
>
> What would you replace it by?
I probably wouldn't be in this area at all, and certainly it isn't
where I would start. The Bible isn't the origin of my faith, and I
wouldn't suggest to anyone else that they should work at making it the
origin of theirs. If someone asked me if the Bible was infallible. I
would say "no, nothing which people like you and me have had a hand in
is infallible" and go on and talk about Jesus instead. Naturally I
would use the Bible in such an exploration, but since the purpose of
my apologetic would be to speak up for a faith in Christ, rather than
a faith in the Bible, I wouldn't be concentrating on trying to
persuade anyone either that it is infallible or that it is the only
place to find out information about Christ.
>
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > [..] dead cat bounce.
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > I am sorry. I do not know what that expression means.
>
> I think it's a stock-market term, or some part of a fashionable
> management theory. Here's an example I found on Google:
>
> 'If you threw a dead cat off a 50-story building, it might bounce
when
> it hit the sidewalk. But don't confuse that bounce with renewed
life.
> It is still a dead cat.' - Chet Currier
Thank you. Not a pleasant image, but at least I understand.
> Ex. Bro. Tom said..
> > "..whoever would save his life will lose it.."
> >
> > Is that a contradiction, or the truth?
>
> Jet Wood said..
> > I think, if I have to say it is anything (leaving aside the fact
that
> > I recognise the words and their source) that it is an aphorism.
What
> > have you gained by asking me that question?
>
> I am trying to find out what you think about contradictions in
> circumstances other than historical.
Okay, but I don't see what you have quoted as a contradiction, so for
me it isn't a good example. In the case of many of them, I guess I
hold the competing ideas in tension. Maybe that will become apparent
from another reply I composed to you today, so I'll not go over it
here in case you reply to it there, if you see what I mean. OTOH, if
you want to propose other possible examples here, then I'll give them
a go.
> Jet Wood said..
> > [..] You have used the critical word: development. I thought
> > I had made it plain in my post that I believe in a developing
> > revelation,
>
> Whereas I believe in a developing understanding of a completed
> revelation.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing - if what we have
*now* is a complete revelation, then was there a point earlier on when
it was incomplete? Or, say before Jesus came, was the revelation then
complete and the same revelation, or complete but a different
revelation? I hope I've asked that clearly enough.
> Jet Wood said..
> > For example the question of circumcision - essential before
> > Jesus, inessential afterwards - together with a clear explanation
for
> > the change. Yet there are those who claim the text is inerrant,
for
> > whom such a statement must be impossible to accept - how can any
> > teaching be "corrected" or "changed" if it is "inerrant"?.
>
> What was the **intention** behind circumcision? And is that
> **intention** actually now different?
I am not sure what you are getting at - whether your focus is God's
intention or ours. Perhaps if you share your thinking, it would be
clearer for me. As it happens, I was still writing from the human
point of view, that being what I am.