Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 53185 | ||
Shalom I have to disagree. You will never convince me God in all His infinite knowledge would write a guide book of Life to His children that would require outside understanding to comprehend what He meant. The Bible was written to all. That means all ages, all cultures, all ethic groups, ALL. I know many times the Bible is explained away by, “oh this was a custom of the time and we can ignore that.” However I have found in most cases the answer offered by man as being a cultural custom really down plays the true meaning of the scripture. Now please don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying your down playing scripture or any thing of the sort. What I’m saying is the meaning of this passage is clearly not dealing with a dead man but rather a feeble excuse. One offered by many that are called today. “I can’t go now how about later”. Jesus was clearly stating if your spiritually attune to me get a move on time is short. If not then go bury your dead for you are also dead. EdB |
||||||
2 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 53208 | ||
Ed, I respect what you have posted regarding the use of extra-biblical materials to enhance one's understanding of Scripture, and likewise respect the views of Simchat Torah. While I accept Scripture as the inerrant word of God and believe it is its own best interpreter, this does not militate against the desirability, even the necessity, of seeking in extra-biblical sources as much light as they are able to shed on various topics that are treated of in Scripture. First, let's consider the biblical texts themselves. The autographs, no longer extant, were all of them written in ancient tongues, and all the extant manuscripts, whose source is the autographs, are written in the same ancient tongues, mainly Hebrew and koine Greek. It is the job of translators to render from these ancient tongues God's message so that it becomes intelligible to peoples who do not know Hebrew or Greek, English-speaking peoples, for example. When I studied Latin in school, the course did not confine itself merely to the study of the classical language itself. It included a great deal of material about Roman culture, public and private life, customs, geography, government, religious beliefs -- the list was extensive. Why? Because language does not exist in a vacuum. It is born from the rich soil of human experience, formed and colored and given meaning by the people and the ambient forces that help to shape their lives and give them identity as a people..... So what is true of Latin is no less true of Hebrew and Greek. The more the translator knows of the times, the geography, the culture, the private and public lives of the people for whom the language he is concerned with was their native, everyday speech, the better equipped is he to understand the idiom, the nuance, the subtleties of their language and to translate it accurately and fully into the receptor language. Similiarly, even we who read Scripture only in English, are better able to understand and appreciate it if we broaden the areas of our awareness of the ancient world and peoples of Bible times by extra-biblical background study. --Hank | ||||||
3 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 53252 | ||
Hank Old friend I sure stirred the pot with that comment. Hank as I explained to nearly everyone else I made too GENERAL of a statement and I have learned to regret doing so. However I still believe God's truths, commandments, precepts, principals, statues, laws and ways stand on their own. We do not need to understand social customs, old traditions, or know the names of obscure objects to understand what God is saying. God’s truths jump out and pierce the soul as a two edged sword. Today it has become fashionable for men to take a truth clearly stated by God and convolute it by saying, “oh this pertains to thus and such and holds little or no meaning for us today.” That my friend is a lie! I’m not accusing anyone on the forum of doing this most certainly not Simchat, however the explanation he supplied in my opinion effected the truth Jesus was trying to convey. While his explanation was plausible and certainly interesting I find it wanting in my understanding of what is clearly written in the scriptures. Your right without outside information things can get lost and confused. And to that I say, we and future generations will forever be indebted to these men and women that so carefully search out these tidbits of information that many times enlighten and certainly always educate us. Forgive me for making such a general statement, I forgot how easy it is to raise a debate when all you were trying to say is whoa lets not put words in God’s mouth. EdB |
||||||
4 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 53264 | ||
So you stirred the pot, eh Ed? Good for you! Huckleberry Finn would love you. Huck didn't like victuals cooked separately. He said they were a good sight better when they were cooked together in a pot and swished around so that they swapped flavors. Made 'em taste a heap better according to Huck. So stir the pot to your heart's content, Ed. You've served up some mighty fine victuals on this forum which have nourished us all. May the Lord continue to bless your efforts richly. --Hank | ||||||
5 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 53282 | ||
Hank Truthfully I didn’t stir the pot just to stir it. To me the explanation that Simchat was offering was altering the meaning of the passage. I realize it wasn’t his but the writer of the book he referenced. The Canaanite god Mot was the god of the dead, but I had never heard the rest of the myth as Simchat shared it. I have serious doubt that Jesus would in any way base an important teaching to such an obscure myth by eluding to it, even if done sarcastically. Without some rather “interesting” study requiring a far from casual, far exceeding most seminary level I might add, study, Jesus’ meaning would be lost. Something I don’t think God intended. Therefore I don’t buy this explanation. Having read Bible Archeology Magazine and having been a student of Bible Manners and Customs I have never found a proven tradition, custom, ethic teaching, situation or happening that invalidated the understanding of any Biblical truth that has been commonly accepted and held by the church fathers for the last 2000 years. There have been some challenges, but to the best of my knowledge none have been proven factual. EdB |
||||||
6 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 53298 | ||
Ed, in the briefest way possible, here's the summation of my thoughts regarding using extra-biblical sources. I hold that they may in certain instances be useful in providing a somewhat broader and more detailed canvas of persons, places, and things that are mentioned, but may not be described in detail, in the biblical text itself. But of God's revelation of Himself to man and of His plan of redemption we need not, indeed should not, consult any extra-biblical source, because only through His perfect and complete revelation of Himself through His inspired word are we to find the right answers to our spiritual questions and the right solutions to our spiritual problems. We quickly fall into a pit of error and confusion when we rely for our spiritual counsel on any, I say ANY, document other than the Bible itself. --Hank | ||||||
7 | dead bury the dead? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 53307 | ||
Hank Thank you and well said. EdB |
||||||