Steven_J asserts...
There's no evidence that David saw death as anything other than dark and hopeless.
---
Steven, this would be true, of course, except that it isn't. There is evidence that David looks forward to eternal life beyond the grave. David says...:
No wonder my heart is glad, and I rejoice.
My body rests in safety.
For you will not leave my soul among the dead
or allow your holy one to rot in the grave.
You will show me the way of life,
granting me the joy of your presence
and the pleasures of living with you forever.
Psalm 16:9-11 (NLT)
You are free of course, Steven, to quibble over whether David's words here are figurative or literal, and carry on with your elaborate distractions from the truth.
But the meaning expressed in David's words here is clear: David looks forward to the pleasures of life forever with God, beyond the grave.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
foundation and cornerstone
Steven_J inquires
On the earlier-raised subject of literal vs. figurative language in scripture, does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)? What is "the foundation of the Earth," and what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)? Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology of many ancient middle eastern cultures? Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, you ask...
does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)?
God sure does seem to be asking a whole lot of "where were you when I did this" and "wasn't it me who did that" questions in Job 38. But these aren't questions an omniscient God doesn't already know the answers to. These questions appear to be asked for the benefit of Job.
It would appear that the main idea of Job 38 is that God is the creator of the universe.
What is "the foundation of the Earth,"
The author appears to be emphasizing who it is that laid down the foundation of the Earth. The foundation of the earth could presumably be the beginning of the universe and the physical laws that govern the universe. The author doesn't seem to be answering your question, but answering a fundamentally different question.
what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)?
Again, the author of this passage appears to focus on who it is that laid the cornerstone. The author does not appear to be specifically identify here what that "cornerstone" is.
Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology
Those "ancient middle eastern cultures" you refer to may not have had the benefit of the scientific advances of our modern culture, and not have the benefit of our understanding of the physical universe.
But it's apparent that they did have at least some rudimentary understanding of building construction. They understood the need for a building to have a foundation which supports it, and the need for a cornerstone to mark the boundary and direction of a building while it is being constructed.
Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, it's not clear what your point is.
It would appear that God is alluding to a particular truth, that the fundamental properties of the universe (space, time, matter, motion) and the fundamental parameters (physical laws) that govern the universe, were laid and set in place by God.
What Job actually understood about the physical universe (whether Job thought there was a physical foundation supporting the underside of the earth, even if a stack of turtles, or not)...
You are quite free to question what Job understood.
But this seems seems to be a distraction from the author's main idea. All of those questions God asks Job serve a purpose. But you choose to ignore the author's purpose. You disregard the answer to all of those questions. Instead, you quibble over "speaking literally or figuratively". The "strong implication" of your comment is that the meaning of Job 38 that the author intends for us to take away is a puzzled bewilderment, a confusion about the arrangement of matter in the physical universe described in the passage.
Mission accomplished, Steven, well done.
On the earlier-raised subject of literal vs. figurative language in scripture, does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)? What is "the foundation of the Earth," and what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)? Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology of many ancient middle eastern cultures? Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, you ask...
does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)?
God sure does seem to be asking a whole lot of "where were you when I did this" and "wasn't it me who did that" questions in Job 38. But these aren't questions an omniscient God doesn't already know the answers to. These questions appear to be asked for the benefit of Job.
It would appear that the main idea of Job 38 is that God is the creator of the universe.
What is "the foundation of the Earth,"
The author appears to be emphasizing who it is that laid down the foundation of the Earth. The foundation of the earth could presumably be the beginning of the universe and the physical laws that govern the universe. The author doesn't seem to be answering your question, but answering a fundamentally different question.
what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)?
Again, the author of this passage appears to focus on who it is that laid the cornerstone. The author does not appear to be specifically identify here what that "cornerstone" is.
Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology
Those "ancient middle eastern cultures" you refer to may not have had the benefit of the scientific advances of our modern culture, and not have the benefit of our understanding of the physical universe.
But it's apparent that they did have at least some rudimentary understanding of building construction. They understood the need for a building to have a foundation which supports it, and the need for a cornerstone to mark the boundary and direction of a building while it is being constructed.
Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, it's not clear what your point is.
It would appear that God is alluding to a particular truth, that the fundamental properties of the universe (space, time, matter, motion) and the fundamental parameters (physical laws) that govern the universe, were laid and set in place by God.
What Job actually understood about the physical universe (whether Job thought there was a physical foundation supporting the underside of the earth, even if a stack of turtles, or not)...
You are quite free to question what Job understood.
But this seems seems to be a distraction from the author's main idea. All of those questions God asks Job serve a purpose. But you choose to ignore the author's purpose. You disregard the answer to all of those questions. Instead, you quibble over "speaking literally or figuratively". The "strong implication" of your comment is that the meaning of Job 38 that the author intends for us to take away is a puzzled bewilderment, a confusion about the arrangement of matter in the physical universe described in the passage.
Mission accomplished, Steven, well done.
why should we believe
[C]an you give me any reason why we should believe the Bible is true in the first place?
Or, more simply...
Why should we believe the Bible is true?
And that question really boils down to
What is truth?
We might think that only a brilliant philosopher would dare wrestle with this puzzle of a question. But it really doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to answer the question:
Truth is what corresponds with reality. So, what is real is true. What is unreal is untrue.
The Bible makes numerous truth claims, among them: God exists and God created the universe, God communicates with us (his creation) through our moral conscience and the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and so on.
These claims that the Bible makes either correspond with reality or they do not.
Christians believe the claims the Bible makes correspond with reality, so, they believe the Bible is true.
Their belief is supported by physical evidence: copies of copies of manuscripts that show the Bible has been preserved and transmitted accurately through history. The internal consistency and coherency of the Bible also attest to its claims, and its consistency with archaeological finds is also evidence.
Or, more simply...
Why should we believe the Bible is true?
And that question really boils down to
What is truth?
We might think that only a brilliant philosopher would dare wrestle with this puzzle of a question. But it really doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to answer the question:
Truth is what corresponds with reality. So, what is real is true. What is unreal is untrue.
The Bible makes numerous truth claims, among them: God exists and God created the universe, God communicates with us (his creation) through our moral conscience and the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and so on.
These claims that the Bible makes either correspond with reality or they do not.
Christians believe the claims the Bible makes correspond with reality, so, they believe the Bible is true.
Their belief is supported by physical evidence: copies of copies of manuscripts that show the Bible has been preserved and transmitted accurately through history. The internal consistency and coherency of the Bible also attest to its claims, and its consistency with archaeological finds is also evidence.
blameless and upright
Guestus Flavious asks...
If Job wasn't good, why did God tell the accuser that Job is "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
That's a good question. You highlight a paradox here, an apparent contradiction. According to the Bible:
1) Job is human, so he is imperfect and guilty of sin.
2) God declares Job is blameless and upright.
So what gives? Both of these statements can't be true. Or can they?
(Steven_J would lead us to (erroneously) believe that at least one of these statements is "figurative language", hyperbole. But as Steven_J is so frequent to do, he leads us down the wrong path, distracting us away from understanding.)
When we admit the possibility that both of these statements are true, what is revealed is a deeper truth.
We take notice that God says that Job is "a man who fears God and shuns evil." What we find the author is saying is that Job has a "right relationship" with God. Job reveres God and Job shuns evil, Job turns his back to sin, and turns towards God with a right attitude.
The deeper truth here is that God imputes his own righteousness to Job. That is, God attributes to Job characteristics which are God's alone. God is not declaring that Job's blamelessness and uprightness has been "earned" or "merited" or is a "work" of Job. Rather, God deems to attribute aspects of His own character to Job.
1) Job, imperfect and guilty of sin, turned towards God with a right attitude.
2) God imputed righteousness to Job.
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction. But a closer examination shows us that it is a paradox (a literary device of a seeming contradiction) which actually reveals a deeper truth.
---
(Let's be sure to get a right understanding that the "fear" here is not a feeling of being afraid due to impending danger, rather the word represents a specific meaning:
v. to have reverential awe of. Synonyms: revere, venerate, honor.
n. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
If Job wasn't good, why did God tell the accuser that Job is "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
That's a good question. You highlight a paradox here, an apparent contradiction. According to the Bible:
1) Job is human, so he is imperfect and guilty of sin.
2) God declares Job is blameless and upright.
So what gives? Both of these statements can't be true. Or can they?
(Steven_J would lead us to (erroneously) believe that at least one of these statements is "figurative language", hyperbole. But as Steven_J is so frequent to do, he leads us down the wrong path, distracting us away from understanding.)
When we admit the possibility that both of these statements are true, what is revealed is a deeper truth.
We take notice that God says that Job is "a man who fears God and shuns evil." What we find the author is saying is that Job has a "right relationship" with God. Job reveres God and Job shuns evil, Job turns his back to sin, and turns towards God with a right attitude.
The deeper truth here is that God imputes his own righteousness to Job. That is, God attributes to Job characteristics which are God's alone. God is not declaring that Job's blamelessness and uprightness has been "earned" or "merited" or is a "work" of Job. Rather, God deems to attribute aspects of His own character to Job.
1) Job, imperfect and guilty of sin, turned towards God with a right attitude.
2) God imputed righteousness to Job.
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction. But a closer examination shows us that it is a paradox (a literary device of a seeming contradiction) which actually reveals a deeper truth.
---
(Let's be sure to get a right understanding that the "fear" here is not a feeling of being afraid due to impending danger, rather the word represents a specific meaning:
v. to have reverential awe of. Synonyms: revere, venerate, honor.
n. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
Friday, February 3, 2012
spoil the child
Dan asks...
Q: If we are to take David and Goliath metaphorically then why can't I take the spare the rod spoil the child verses in a figurative sense?
A: There is no general agreement that Goliath of Gath was a purely metaphorical figure. It's possible that Goliath was an actual champion on the battlefield. If so, the description of Goliath's great height and size are likely somewhat exaggerated, most likely, to highlight the author's theme.
Either way, the theme of the passage remains the same.
It is quite clear that the author is describing the Goliath figure as an experienced and imposing warrior who intimidated the Israeli army.
The popular "'spare the rod spoil the child' verses" (as you put it) does not appear in the Bible.
I believe you are suggesting that this popular phrase was inspired by a verse from the Bible:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline. Proverbs 13:24 NIV
You are quite correct to point out that many words and images in the Bible carry symbolic meaning.
When we study the word shebet in the Old Testament, we find that it sometimes represents a Sheperd's weapon (used against wolves and bears). But we also find that it is more frequently used as a symbol of authority: symbolizing man's authority, symbolizing God's authority, or symbolizing the authority of a nation.
The shebet which you refer to (in the passage in Proverbs) symbolizes the authority of parents of a child. We see the emphasis of this passage is not on causing physical harm, but rather on the exercise of parental authority for correction and discipline.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that some read the words "rod" and "discipline" here only to mean that physical beating is the best (or only) form of training and correction.
Rather than promulgating (what you view as) a popular misunderstanding of what the Bible says, we would better serve by offering up a clearer understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
Q: If we are to take David and Goliath metaphorically then why can't I take the spare the rod spoil the child verses in a figurative sense?
A: There is no general agreement that Goliath of Gath was a purely metaphorical figure. It's possible that Goliath was an actual champion on the battlefield. If so, the description of Goliath's great height and size are likely somewhat exaggerated, most likely, to highlight the author's theme.
Either way, the theme of the passage remains the same.
It is quite clear that the author is describing the Goliath figure as an experienced and imposing warrior who intimidated the Israeli army.
The popular "'spare the rod spoil the child' verses" (as you put it) does not appear in the Bible.
I believe you are suggesting that this popular phrase was inspired by a verse from the Bible:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline. Proverbs 13:24 NIV
You are quite correct to point out that many words and images in the Bible carry symbolic meaning.
When we study the word shebet in the Old Testament, we find that it sometimes represents a Sheperd's weapon (used against wolves and bears). But we also find that it is more frequently used as a symbol of authority: symbolizing man's authority, symbolizing God's authority, or symbolizing the authority of a nation.
The shebet which you refer to (in the passage in Proverbs) symbolizes the authority of parents of a child. We see the emphasis of this passage is not on causing physical harm, but rather on the exercise of parental authority for correction and discipline.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that some read the words "rod" and "discipline" here only to mean that physical beating is the best (or only) form of training and correction.
Rather than promulgating (what you view as) a popular misunderstanding of what the Bible says, we would better serve by offering up a clearer understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
what was Adam's sin
dougsinc said..
And what, exactly, was Adam's sin? He disobeyed God once, and ate a fruit.
dougsinc,
One wonders why the author bothered with all of those other details in the passage, if the account can be so succinctly summarized.
If you read the passages about how sin entered the world a little more carefully, you will see that your summary is missing some key ideas. In particular, you omit any mention that Eve was deceived by the serpent. We note that Eve has some understanding of the command that was given to Adam. But when she recites it, she changes some of the words. Eve:
- identifies the tree not by what it was (according to God's word), but by it's location in the Garden. (Gen 2:17, 3:3)
- omits the words 'any' and 'freely' (Gen 2:16)
- adds the phrase 'You shall not touch it' (Gen 3:3)
Possibly emboldened by Eve's misrepresentation (?), the serpent directly contradicts the word of God. And it is by deception that sin enters the world.
We should know what these passages actually say. When we omit ideas and change words, we are at great risk of misrepresenting what the Bible actually says. And that misrepresentation leaves open the door for us to be deceived.
And what, exactly, was Adam's sin? He disobeyed God once, and ate a fruit.
dougsinc,
One wonders why the author bothered with all of those other details in the passage, if the account can be so succinctly summarized.
If you read the passages about how sin entered the world a little more carefully, you will see that your summary is missing some key ideas. In particular, you omit any mention that Eve was deceived by the serpent. We note that Eve has some understanding of the command that was given to Adam. But when she recites it, she changes some of the words. Eve:
- identifies the tree not by what it was (according to God's word), but by it's location in the Garden. (Gen 2:17, 3:3)
- omits the words 'any' and 'freely' (Gen 2:16)
- adds the phrase 'You shall not touch it' (Gen 3:3)
Possibly emboldened by Eve's misrepresentation (?), the serpent directly contradicts the word of God. And it is by deception that sin enters the world.
We should know what these passages actually say. When we omit ideas and change words, we are at great risk of misrepresenting what the Bible actually says. And that misrepresentation leaves open the door for us to be deceived.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
commentary concerned wealth
Steven_J said...
When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, though, he didn't insist "no, you can't have followed the commandments; have you ever told a lie? lusted after a woman in your heart? Stolen anything no matter how cheap or trivial?" Nor did he tell the young man that a perfectly just God was obliged to punish him with an eternity in Hell, but that Jesus was going to take his punishment (an admittedly really bad weekend) for him. Rather, Jesus told the young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus' commentary on the event to his disciples concerned wealth, not lust, angry words, or even pride, or even evolution. I'm not convinced that the point of this story is quite the point you wish to place upon it.
Steven,
I'm quite convinced that the point of this account is not the point you wish to make of it.
Jesus identified something that the rich young man placed priority on before Jesus. The young man was unwilling to put Jesus first. The man placed his first priority on his material possessions. Jesus was pointing out that following him required the rich young man to re-order his priorities.
The account tells us that the man came to Jesus wanting to know what he should do "to inherit eternal life". The man knelt before Jesus, and called him "good teacher". It wasn't described in the account as the kind of confrontation ("when Jesus confronted") that you make it out to be in your retelling.
Jesus tells the man what he must do: "follow me".
Before Jesus says "follow me", he first points out that no one is "good" except God. He also points out that the commandments are the guide by which we can evaluate whether we can consider ourselves "good" or not.
Jesus lists five of the commandments. (The same five commandments are listed in the three gospel accounts, Matthew's account has one additional commandment, as does Luke's account. Clearly, the point is not that there are exactly five or six commandments that must be kept.)
One commandment Jesus does not list verbatim here the "greatest" commandment of all: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." (Matthew 22:37), the whole of the Law summed up: "You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind." (Luke 10:27)
This is the commandment that the rich young ruler sees that he cannot keep. He goes away saddened, not because Jesus has not told him what he must do, no, but because he has chosen to break this greatest commandment by putting something else first before his obedience to God.
Jesus remarks about this event to his disciples was not a comment about "wealth" as you suggest.
Rather, if you read the account a little more carefully, you will see that Jesus is actually commenting on the difficulty that rich people have in making Jesus their number one priority. The rich young ruler chose first to hold on to his accumulated material possessions, rather than first choosing to follow Jesus.
When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, though, he didn't insist "no, you can't have followed the commandments; have you ever told a lie? lusted after a woman in your heart? Stolen anything no matter how cheap or trivial?" Nor did he tell the young man that a perfectly just God was obliged to punish him with an eternity in Hell, but that Jesus was going to take his punishment (an admittedly really bad weekend) for him. Rather, Jesus told the young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus' commentary on the event to his disciples concerned wealth, not lust, angry words, or even pride, or even evolution. I'm not convinced that the point of this story is quite the point you wish to place upon it.
Steven,
I'm quite convinced that the point of this account is not the point you wish to make of it.
Jesus identified something that the rich young man placed priority on before Jesus. The young man was unwilling to put Jesus first. The man placed his first priority on his material possessions. Jesus was pointing out that following him required the rich young man to re-order his priorities.
The account tells us that the man came to Jesus wanting to know what he should do "to inherit eternal life". The man knelt before Jesus, and called him "good teacher". It wasn't described in the account as the kind of confrontation ("when Jesus confronted") that you make it out to be in your retelling.
Jesus tells the man what he must do: "follow me".
Before Jesus says "follow me", he first points out that no one is "good" except God. He also points out that the commandments are the guide by which we can evaluate whether we can consider ourselves "good" or not.
Jesus lists five of the commandments. (The same five commandments are listed in the three gospel accounts, Matthew's account has one additional commandment, as does Luke's account. Clearly, the point is not that there are exactly five or six commandments that must be kept.)
One commandment Jesus does not list verbatim here the "greatest" commandment of all: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." (Matthew 22:37), the whole of the Law summed up: "You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind." (Luke 10:27)
This is the commandment that the rich young ruler sees that he cannot keep. He goes away saddened, not because Jesus has not told him what he must do, no, but because he has chosen to break this greatest commandment by putting something else first before his obedience to God.
Jesus remarks about this event to his disciples was not a comment about "wealth" as you suggest.
Rather, if you read the account a little more carefully, you will see that Jesus is actually commenting on the difficulty that rich people have in making Jesus their number one priority. The rich young ruler chose first to hold on to his accumulated material possessions, rather than first choosing to follow Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)