Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | kalos | 5312 | ||
Hoover: *Basic Principles of Bible Interpretation* Principle # 8) Respect the silence of the Bible regarding any question on which the Bible is silent. In other words, avoid speculation. --JVH0212 |
||||||
2 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | Aixen7z4 | 91034 | ||
It is true that we should avoid speculation. Also, we should not add to the word of God. On the other hand, some things are apparent from the text that the Lord may not have spelled out. The passage says, (Mt 17:3) "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him". Matthew does not tell us what they were saying, but Luke tells us that they (Lu 9:31) "spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem". None of then records Jesus as saying, "Thank you, Moses. Thank you, Elias". And we should not add that. But is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation? The question suggests that God used some mysterious way to reveal the identities. But the life of Jesus himself shows that God used his words, and his works, to reveal who he was. |
||||||
3 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | Radioman2 | 91164 | ||
Aixen7z4: Nothing in this Note is intended as criticism of you personally. OK? I am merely attempting to address the issue at hand. :-) Hoover's original question: "In Matthew 17 on the Transfiguration on the Mount, how did Peter KNOW that it was Moses and Elijah that appeared with Jesus?? Think of when they lived, the time difference. It's not like Peter had ever seen them before. "So HOW did he KNOW??" The point I was trying to make in reply to Hoover's question is: WE DON'T KNOW how Peter knew. To reply to your Note, let me say that in any given text what is apparent to one person may not be apparent to another. You ask: 'But is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' Your question calls for an assumption on my part, does it not? :-) We can assume what we will, but still WE DON'T KNOW whether names were used in the conversation you refer to. It may indeed be fair to make assumptions; but what I object to (and I'm not saying that you do this) is when a person broadcasts his assumptions as if they were absolute fact. At times I've given my opinions on this forum, but I have labeled them as opinion, not Bible doctrine or absolute fact. (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but no one has the right to be wrong in his facts.) Whenever anyone makes an assertion, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion. It is not unfair for another to require the asserter to provide evidence. A basic principle of interpretation is: We know what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. So, 'Is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' I could assume it is fair, but then that would only be my opinion. Again, I mean no offense to you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
4 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | Aixen7z4 | 91221 | ||
I looked up "Priciples of Bible Interpretation", and read many interesting things. I pray the Lord will yet help those of us who are simple and uneducated to understand what he is saying to us in the Bible. It is a good idea to "be silent where the Bible is silent". It is another matter, I think, to act as though the Lord had the writers of Scripture to record everything he or they had in mind. I will reveal now that I had begun the last paragraph with the words "I think". I decided to leave it out because I tend to use that phrase too much, I think, and because I assume you understand that I think before I write. While we are not to add to God's word, I think that we must think as we read. Sometimes a writer records the very words of a conversation, quoting the people. At other times he gives the topic of conversation or a summary of it. We do know, though, that in every case the people talking used words which could have been quoted. My point is that we are seem to be creating an unnecessary difficulty for ourselves by imagining that three people talked to each other with no one ever referring to the others by their names. "We don't know" is often a good response. I suggest that we should be careful not to overuse it lest we give the impression that God is withholding so much information from us. The Bible is meant to reveal God, so we can know him, and his will, so that we can do it. |
||||||