Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: maxpower Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193907 | ||
Lionheart, I hope you did not take the comment on relevance to mean that I thought any portion of God’s Word could be irrelevant; my meaning was, that when we alter His Word, it becomes something else and thus irrelevant. See my response to Steve on the boring issue; I hope I clarified that, there. On the ‘if’ word; I’m a mathematical thinker, in its simplest form that is, Boolean if you know the meaning (sort of an if ‘a’ then ‘b’ approach). But, I see your point; it’s those easily spelled words that can get us in the most trouble. I’ll keep an eye on that one. Thanks for the positive comments, they’re appreciated. MP |
||||||
2 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193906 | ||
Steve, Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm sure Jim feels the way most of us, who have the audacity to post here do; there's no sense holding an opinion if it doesn't have to be pried kicking and screaming from your hands, especially when it concerns what we’ve come to know as ‘non-essentials’. How’s that for mixing metaphors, I’m sure you get my meaning. I was too hasty in my comment on Numbers, I really should have said it was those first few chapters; the Lord will have to forgive me, but OUCH they’re hard to read. Of course, the value of all scripture is immeasurable but the Lord knows I can’t just sit and read them. For me, they’re strictly a reference. Besides there are so many other places I can spend hours feeling the heat of His Word. It’s a matter of taste really and should not be misconstrued for an opinion of their inherent value. Love the ‘junk room’ reference; it fits, since we know that everything that’s in there is of value, we just have to dig around until we find what we are looking for. MP |
||||||
3 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193890 | ||
Jim, 1. Precedent, both in Law and reason is granted weight, even great weight, when considering the validity of a previously held idea; or in this case interpretation. 2. I did not say anything about boring; that would be your observation. The book of Numbers; now that’s boring, but obviously quite relevant. While it is an oversimplification to say, it is “irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth.” Given the entire scope of the argument, I stand by the statement; it would indeed be largely, even if not utterly, irrelevant. 3. I did not offer how it had been taught as support the facts under consideration. In fact it would only be by inference that teaching was even mentioned. 4. The observation was, “there is a glaring absence of divine purpose;” I am open to hearing one. 5. I apologize, if these arguments originate with you, I’m sure you’re more offended by the ABC statement than I am at the revision of the book’s message. 6. You ignored the conjunction that created a joint assertion. The observation is, the people called her a Moabite, which is a designation used to indicate an enemy, and she called herself a foreigner. I did not disavow that you acknowledged the title of Moabite; in fact that is a major point of the discussion. Instead the point was, the transaction that took place in verse five and following, of the second chapter, is evidence that she was not of Israeli descent. 7. Actually, I would not agree, unless I was reading the KJV, where the translation is almost exclusively ‘stranger.’ While your explanation, again, stands to reason, it does hold consistent with scripture. For instance, you ignored verse fourteen, “Rachel and Leah said to him, 'Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners (strangers)...” (Gen 31:14,15) Here, even were we to accept the translation ‘strangers’ as you suggest, Rachel is indicating by her statement, concerning inheritance, that her father no longer considers them blood. So, in the same manner, if Ruth is not Boaz’s blood she is not of Israel. If that’s a little thin for you, let’s look at a few instances from the KJV where the word is translated stranger: “…thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (De 17:15) “And his master said unto him, ‘We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel...’” (Jud 19:12) “Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel...” (2Ch 6:32) From these verses we may adduce with such probability, as almost to amount to certainty, that when the Old Testament refers to a ‘stranger’, as is done in the instance in question, it is correctly translated ‘foreigner’; not of Israel, and that Gen 31:15 actually supports that assertion and does not contradict it. So, Elohim – God not judges; Nokriah – foreigner not ‘previously unknown to me’. I’d say on these two alone there is enough to maintain she was not of Israel and was thus converted. Where she lived could of course be fodder another discussion… As Always, MP |
||||||
4 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193830 | ||
Jim, Actually I would argue that seeing that we are two thousand years into Christian history, generally speaking, things that are generally accepted are generally correct. If not, I would think that any real hope for clarity had been lost, long ago. ;) That not withstanding, yes there are references to the area between the rivers as the land of Moab. And, we could ignore the fact that elohim is not translated in the Ruth as judges, verse one does not contain elohim but shaphat. We could also assert that even though it is translated God, or some form thereof, thousands of times and judges in three verses, it should be changed to judges. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’ (2:6), a designation used in Judges 3:28 to indicate an enemy, and that she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land. Paul certainly did not; he may have been a Roman citizen, but he was an ‘Israelite’ (Rom 11:1) not a foreigner. So: We could ignore all that and say she was a Reubenite or Gadite, she lived in an area sometimes referred to as the land (or plains) of Moab, and she seemed to think there a difference between her people, one tribe of Israel, and Naomi’s, also an Israelite. If this is our interpretation, there was nothing notable about her intermarrying within Israel, moving from one area to another within Israel proper, and coming under the governance of a different judge; accept in her mind. All things being equal, I’d say we have just discovered the first irrelevant book of the bible; since there is nothing worthy of note in the marriage of one Israeli to another. After all, the only significant information in this record is the genealogy, which is of course set down in other places. OR We can accept what has always been taught; that Ruth was a Moabite, descendant of Lot, foreigner to the covenants of God; the translators were correct in there translation of Elohim, and that she lived in the kingdom of Moab, not the land between the two rivers where Reuben and Gad settled. This being the case we can further accept that she turned from idols to serve a living and true God; that she was accepted and redeemed by a righteous man of the tribe of Judah, became mother to Obed and great grandmother to David, king of Israel. In so doing she became another, in the checkered past of the Messiah, to demonstrate God mercy in redeeming His people. So, she became an example of God’s grace despite the judgment of Deuteronomy 23:3; and in so doing fulfilled the scripture “that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow…” (Gen 19:29) Therfore, in her, we see God working out what Moses heard on the mount, “…The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...” (Ex 34:6) Previous to this, I have not considered that the book of Ruth might be just the ‘rags to riches’ story of an ancient Israeli woman, and after this posting I’m sure I will not again. It has always been an outstanding illustration for the young in faith, of the brilliance God’s providence and His mercy. So while it may be argued that there is practical evidence for both positions, even the practical favors the latter. Additionally, there is a glaring absence of divine purpose in the former argument and that should be weight enough for people of faith to reject it. Not to mention, the former sounds more like what ABC news would present as a rational explanation for the non-supernatural recordings of ancient mythology. Carry on... MP |
||||||
5 | Why did God hate Esau? Romans 9:13 | Mal 1:3 | maxpower | 193820 | ||
The statement is rhetorical; when speaking in the past tense, one is 'looking back', even if the speaker himself, is not subject to time. Therefore, “But you say, ‘How have You…,’ … ‘Yet I have loved…’,” is, in a manner of speaking, looking back. |
||||||
6 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | maxpower | 193515 | ||
MJH - I believe this passage is one of the great illustrations of Paul’s brilliance in his presentation of the Gospel. Another would be Acts 17:16-31 (esp. vs. 23), where just like chapter 21, Paul assimilates himself to those around him that he might obtain the greatest hearing of God’s message. While the Mosaic covenant was quite insignificant, even an offense, to most Gentiles, it was obviously not to Jews. Paul did not mind walking in accordance with that which he had, his entire life, held so dear, especially if it afforded him an opportunity to preach the Gospel to his countrymen. So, he recognized and had already been confronted with the conflict that arose where freedom and legalism clash, even the legalism of God’s own covenant. Now Paul new, that the Law was good (Rom 7:12), so it was understandable to him that Jewish believers would indeed become more ‘zealous for the Law,’ once converted to faith in Christ. I believe the scriptures make clear that the Jews, beginning with Peter (Acts 10:9-48), were quite resistant to the type of freedom from the Law, that believers had in Christ, and that this resistance created the division described by these verses (Ch 21, etc). But, Paul realized from the beginning that believers, especially Gentile believers, had no obligation to be under the Law in order to obtain and maintain salvation. At his point we can view the events of vs. 22-24 in one of two ways; that this inner circle of believers had come to understand fully the Gospel that Paul preached; that possibly they were, like Paul, making an effort to create an acceptable environment for him to present the Gospel to his Jewish brethren. Or that they still perceived a difference between Jewish and Greek believers, which may be indicated by vs. 25; and were simply trying to prevent a riot. Either way the Holy Spirit’s intent on merging these two peoples into ‘one new man’ (Eph 2:15), is quite clear throughout the New Testament, most notably in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, his letter to the Romans, as well as illustrations peppered throughout all his writings. This transition from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ was evidently quite painful for all, to the extent that even the aged Peter may have been still awed by the magnificence of this grace, evidenced by his comments in 2 Peter 3:14-16. Being that Paul’s intent was that all men hear and receive the Gospel, and that he had special affection for his countrymen, it is no surprise that he would take most any measure to gain an audience. Forgive me, but this is just a long-winded way of saying what he wrote so adequately of himself in 1 Cor 9:19-23: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it" P.S. How long it was before Paul realized exactly, the implications of his message, and, whether James, in his zeal for righteousness, was ever more than a passenger in this quest is of personal curiosity to me but doesn’t seemed to be indicated anywhere in the scriptures. mp |
||||||
7 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193238 | ||
Cheri, Thank You for the warm welcome and interesting discussion... |
||||||
8 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193228 | ||
Hey Cheri I'm with you on the 'Apostle' thing; at least until He knocks me off my high horse - HA I have to say, while I offered the response I did, I agree whole heartedly that we should be much more adamant about our standing in Christ. Just as you noted, how Paul testified that we are new creatures and that the “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new,” especially us… But, it’s easy to remain in sin if were just sinners, and maybe we need to admit we struggle to let go of that old man’s appetites. If we’re bound for glory, perhaps we need to heed your advice. After all, if, “the Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God”, why should we protest!!! Enjoy... MP |
||||||