Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||