Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Educational guarantee for life and godli | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183498 | ||
Hi Finder, We call this book Proverbs because that is what they are called in the first verse. These are sayings, an alternate translations might be parables. They are not promises. If we read these as a book of promises, we have a bigger problem then just that one verse. There are many that are not exactly true in every instance. But this isn't a problem with the Book of Proverbs, its with how we understand the Book of Proverbs. Probibly the simplest way I've heard it expresses is that these are not promises, they are probibilities. No matter whether you agree with this or not, the thing to do would be to determine whether or not these sayings are intended to be received as promises, or wise sayings to be heeded because the will lead you along the path of living a better life. My two cents worth, anyway. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | Hank | 183660 | ||
Mark - In your Post 183496, speaking of Proverbs, you said, There are many that are not exactly true in every instance." A few days ago in Post 183502 I asked you to name a few Proverbs and explain why they are not true. Two things bother me about this situation, Mark. The first thing is that the book of Proverbs is Scripture, and it troubles me to read on this Forum that any part of Scripture is viewed as being "not exactly true in every instance." The second thing that troubles me is that you have not responded to my request. Will you please do so at your earliest convenience? --Hank | ||||||
3 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183681 | ||
Hi Hank, I apologize for a late response. Please understand that I do not check the forum as frequently as perhaps I once did, and I do not utilize the email notification service, as it tends to clutter up my mailbox. I simply did not notice your prior response. I don’t think that you would be able to name a single instance where I have failed to respond to a direct question on this forum. I hope that you know me well enough by now to understand that I hold an extremely high view of Scripture. I in no wise intend to diminsh its authority, or denigrate God’s Word in any way. I do believe that it is terribly important that we understand each portion as God intends it to be understood. I do not mean that these are not true proverbs. I do not mean that they are not divinely inspired Scripture. But I do not understand these to be promises, or descriptions of what happens unfailingly, in every instance. I do not think that they are intended to be read that way. I think that their very name of “proverbs” indicates that. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I am open to that possiblility, but I shall endeavor to comply with your request to provide examples of this. Proverbs 11:10 When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. In Acts 19, we read the story of Paul and his friends in Ephesus. The evangalization was going so well the idol-making guild was up in arms. They packed the amphitheater, and (vs. 29) “And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theater.” This was not a city rejoicing at the success of Paul and his fellows, and what a success indeed! Many turning from sin, from idolatry, from witchcraft, turning to Jesus. But was the city rejoicing? Pro 12:11 He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding. Hag 1:6 You have sown much, and harvested little. You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill. You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm. And he who earns wages does so to put them into a bag with holes. There seems to be an additional component to reaping a satisfying harvest. Pro 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just. While I lack specific Scriptural evidence on this one, even so it seems a clear example. But no matter, we can remove it from the list if you wish. Pro 13:25 The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want. 2Co 11:27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Since this was said by Paul describing himself, I suppose even the righteous can go hungry. Pro 16:10 A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment. Jer 37:18 Jeremiah also said to King Zedekiah, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants or this people, that you have put me in prison? Would it seem that perhaps this king transgressed in judgment? Pro 16:7 When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. From Jesus to Stephen on down through the ages, every faithful martyr shows that this is not a guarantee that the righteous will never have conflict with others. Pro 16:13 Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right. 1Ki 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. I hope this is sufficient to demonstrate what I am saying. The proverb teaches us that “he that tills his land shall be satisfied with bread.” If you get out there and work, you’ll have food to eat. But that doesn’t mean that God can’t change that. You can till all you want, but unless God causes that crop to grow, all you’ll have is furrows. I understand this book to be a collection of wise saying, proverbs, that describe how things ordinarily work, how things ought to always work, all other parts being as they ought. These are things we should set ourselves to do. If you are a king, and a man speaks righteously, delight in him! If you are speaking to a king, speak righteously! If everything is working the way its supposed to, this is what will happen. But this isn’t to say that a king can’t be twisted, wicked, and not delighted even though he hears the words of righteousness. Again, please, let nothing I say be construed as speaking against the authority, accuracy, relevance, or supremecy of the Holy Scriptures. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | DocTrinsograce | 183686 | ||
Dear Mark, What you've got going on here is called "a fallacy of accident." It was one of the 13 logical errors documented by Aristotle. (Not to worry, though, it gets heavy use in our society, ever since we began to eschew a good classical education. Consequently, we hear it so frequently, we tend to start using it ourselves.) A fallacy of accident occurs in a persons logic when a general is applied to a particular case in which "accidental" circumstances render the rule inapplicable. It is commonly pointed at as an error in reasoning when going from the general to the specific. Common sense, for example, is full of "rules of thumb" which do not hold universally, but which hold "generally" or "as a general rule." This is why, you can actually have seemingly contradictory proverbs side by side; e.g., "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:4-5 ESV) Each of your examples is rooted in this logical error, taking the general rule, and attempting to apply it to an exceptional instance. Finder's shared in this error in post #183424. Another logical error is the "inverse fallacy of accident." That is, taking atypical cases and building general rules upon them. This latter error is made by implying that the general rules of the proverbs are somehow fallible since there are specific instances that don't fit the rule. The Proverbs are valuable because they do reflect valuable generalizations. This error is reflected in the implication of a statement like, "There are many that are not exactly true in every instance." Proverbs are, indeed, promises. But they are not unqualified promises, nor are they unconditional promises. They are general rules of thumb worthy of careful consideration and application. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183692 | ||
Doc, while you claim I am presenting logical fallacies, you seem to agree with my conclusions, "They are general rules of thumb worthy of careful consideration and application." This is my point exactly. Whether you wish to call them promises, then say that thay are not unqualified, even though they are not presented with any qualifications, or conditions, well, ok, I guess. I would say that if an "accidental circumstance" can render God's promise inapplicable, well, that just doesn't seem to do justice to the meaning of the word "promise". Anyway, like I said, its seems we agree at the end of it. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | DocTrinsograce | 183712 | ||
Dear Mark, Just trying to clarify here: So you're saying that you are withdrawing... (1) Your statement "If we read these as a book of promises, we have a bigger problem then just that one verse" (sic) And.... (2) Your examples of so-called "untrue" proverbs? In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183749 | ||
Doc, Concerning your first question, and Proverbs as “Promises”: When I speak of a Biblical promise, this is something the LORD has committed Himself to perform. I see two kinds given in Scripture. Unconditional promise: something God has committed to do without restriction or qualification: Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." No qualifications or restrictions appear, this is an unqualified promise from the LORD to Abram. Any unconditional promise from the LORD will always prove true in every instance, in every occasion, to the fullest extent promised, without fail, and without exception. Conditional promise, something God has committed to do if certain conditions or qualifications are met: Lev 26:3-5 If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you rains in their season, and the land shall give her produce . . . and you shall eat your bread to satisfaction, and live in your land securely. While God has committed Himself to give rains, and produce, and that they would dwell in their land securely, it is clearly dependant on their obedience to the LORD’s law. But notice, this does not ignore the uncondition promise of that the land was given to Israel, for here it says, “live in YOUR land.” Even if the conditions were not met that they would dwell securely in the land, it was not said that it would no longer BE their land, as that was unconditional. This is how I understand promises in the Bible. Something the LORD has committed Himself to perform, with conditions or qualifications plainly stated. Any conditional promise from the LORD will always prove true in every instance, in every occasion, to the fullest extent promised, without fail, and without exception, the only restriction being those conditions and qualifications that have been stated in the text. There are two words that are translated as “promise” in the Old Testament; neither of them appear in the Book of Proverbs. Now, lest you misunderstand me, I am not saying that only if a verses uses the word “promise” is it a promise. But I am saying is that since the Proverbs do not declare themselves promises, it’s for the reader to determine if they are in fact promises. The reason I have gone into all of this is that this is where, I think, we are coming to a misunderstanding. You have written, “Proverbs are, indeed, promises. But they are not unqualified promises, nor are they unconditional promises. They are general rules of thumb worthy of careful consideration and application.” If that is so, I would ask you, where do we find written the qualification, or conditions upon which these promises will be kept? Also, do you see how your second statement, that they are “general rules of thumb” would not meet the requirements for my definition of a “promise”? So this is how I have concluded that we are using this word, “promise,” in different ways. To me, a promise cannot simply be a “general rule of thumb.” Now, if I understand “promise” as it appears in your post, that a promise can have conditions that do not appear in the text, then I would agree with you to describe this as a book of promises, with that understanding. Although that is not how I think of a promise. Here is what Strongs has to say about the word for “Proverb”, that which this book actually uses to describe itself: Apparently from H4910 in some original sense of superiority in mental action; properly a pithy maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb. (H4910: A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.) Balaam used this word a lot to describe his discourses. It is variously translated saying, parable, proverb, and is several times used in association with “riddle”, or “byword.” Some interesting examples of its uses are: Job 27:1-2 And Job continued the uplifting of his discourse – proverb -, and said: As God lives, He has taken away my judgment; yea, the Almighty has made my soul bitter. Had God taken away judgment from Job? Job 29:1-2 “Moreover Job continued his parable – proverb -, and said, Oh that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me;” Is this a promise? Had God ceased to preserve Job? This is simply what Job said, accurately recorded and presented. Ezekiel 12:22 “Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth” Not a promise, a commitment, but a saying to describe what they understood to be. Accurately recorded. But not a very wise saying, if you ask me. Soloman, on the other hand, had been given a great gift of wisdom, and his sayings were exceedingly wise. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
8 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | DocTrinsograce | 183762 | ||
Dear Mark, Since you start with "Concerning your first question..." I may naturally infer that you are going to write about the withdrawal of your statement "If we read these as a book of promises, we have a bigger problem then just that one verse." (sic) After that I can't quite ferret out if your answer is a "yes" or a "no." So many words... but neither of those two particular words. Might you kindly clarify your clarification? In Him, Doc PS Good definitions, by the way! PSS Good examples of foolish human proverbs, documented in Scripture! It well emphasizes the importance of context. |
||||||
9 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183780 | ||
Doc, In the interest that you would have a specific and exact understanding of my views, I will attempt once again to clarify my position. You wrote: Since you start with "Concerning your first question..." I may naturally infer that you are going to write about the withdrawal of your statement "If we read these as a book of promises, we have a bigger problem then just that one verse." (sic) I do not withdraw this statement. It is my opinion that the Proverbs are proverbs, and not promises (again, in the way that I have defined "promises" in my post 183749), and if someone reads them as promises, then they will not have a correct understanding of this particular book of the Bible. The same would hold true of one who reads the creation account as a parable, or the book of Chronicles as a vision. To the person who looks as the creation as a parable, and asks, what do the fish mean? Their difficulty is not simply a lack of understanding what the fish mean. It is a lack of understanding of how to view that portion of Scripture. But it appears to me that our difference of opinion is not in how we understand the Book of Proverbs, since you have seemingly expressed what appears to be the exact same understanding as I have. It seems that we simply disagree over how we use the word "promise", as you give a broader latitude towards what can be construed as a promise. But to try to wrap this up, lest it drag out longer, it's my opinion that an incorrect understanding of an entire book of Scripture represents a "bigger problem" then an incorrect understanding of just one verse. Does this help to clarify my view for you? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||