28 And he (Moses) was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he (Moses) did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he (the Lord? ) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Which is why 28 really, really seems to be saying Moses is the "he". What am I missing?
Same thing I'm missing maybe ... a proper understanding of Hebrew.
From the New Bible Commentary:
34:1-35 The Covenant Renewed
This promised vision of the covenant God is the basis for the renewal of the covenant which has been broken by idolatry. The covenant is renewed through the repromulgation of the law of the covenant. It is again written by God but Moses is to prepare the tablets on this occasion. There is no contradiction between vv. 1, 27 and 28. The situation is that in v. 27 Moses is commanded to write the contents of the preceding verses, "these words" ; in v. 28 God is the subject of the last verb and not Moses. The contents of this chapter are an abbreviation of the 'book of the covenant', with additional features of promise and warning justified by Israel's apostasy and the Canaanite situation with which we will be confronted.
Same thing I'm missing maybe ... a proper understanding of Hebrew.
From the New Bible Commentary:
34:1-35 The Covenant Renewed
This promised vision of the covenant God is the basis for the renewal of the covenant which has been broken by idolatry. The covenant is renewed through the repromulgation of the law of the covenant. It is again written by God but Moses is to prepare the tablets on this occasion. There is no contradiction between vv. 1, 27 and 28. The situation is that in v. 27 Moses is commanded to write the contents of the preceding verses, "these words" ; in v. 28 God is the subject of the last verb and not Moses. The contents of this chapter are an abbreviation of the 'book of the covenant', with additional features of promise and warning justified by Israel's apostasy and the Canaanite situation with which we will be confronted.
The New Bible Commentary, Eerdman's page 138.
A couple of interesting notes that relate to this discussion about inspiration...
1) The first set of tablets were said to have been prepared by God and written upon by the finger of God. The second (replacement) set of tablets were prepared by Moses, but still written upon by the finger of God.
This may be a foreshadow of how the entire Pentateuch and the rest of the OT was to be put together. The books (or "tablets" if you will) are "prepared" by men - but the message is attributable to God.
2) This passage introduces us to one of the sources of the Pentateuch - The Book of The Covenant of the Law that Moses wrote. What ever happened to that book? Why isn't it a part of the Bible? Or is it?
Really? Just what is the difference? It's not so easy to tell if you just broad brush the whole 1,500 years of the Bible's compilation. You have to do a bit more work than that.
No, the difference is the things on my list are presented as things which happened, and many of these miracles (and others not on my list, such as Naamans leprosy) are repeated in the New Testament. Jesus himself endorsed several accounts in the old testament, and the New Testement continually reinforces the accuracy and inspiration of the Old.
The things you list are specifically called parables. Yes there are parables in the old testament, and they re often stated to be parabolic. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of the parable of the vinyard and the wild olives.
I think there is a big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
[The stories in Genesis]....
Pel, thanks for answering, but you don't have to go through my list. You may if you want to do so for other readers, but I was simply making the point where do you stop. When you take the flood in an allegorical sense, and creation in an allegorical sense, what matter of hermunetics can you use to decipher which "stories" are parabolic/allegorical and literal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
In answer to your questions: 1) I don't really know,
Which is my point. You are knowledgeable, I'm not doubting that, but since NO ONE really knows exactly how creation came about, or the earliest happenings of human history, it is best to take God at His word. I personally believe in a 6 day literal creation, and that the flood actually happened. I have more to add,on your next statement.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
and it's certainly not a doctrinal matter as you appear to want it to be...
Pel, I'm not sure of your definition of doctrinal matter here. I don't think its a salvational issue, or even a fellowship issue. I think of you and NOW to be brothers of mine in Christ.
I don't agree with either of you on all issues, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
My feelings on this matter can be summed as:
I believe the Bible to be the insipred Word of God, I believe that the Bible contains accurate accounts of originas and God's work throughout history, and records some of the most miraculous events known to the human race.
If someone chooses not to believe those accounts at face value, I don't doubt thier Christianity, but I personally wonder if the end reult is not doubting large portions or the whole accuracy of scripture.
Sort of like Thomas Jeffersons view of Jesus.
Like I said if someone says creation is allegorical, the flood allegorical, is it really a great leap of logic to say the virgin birth is allegorical, the resurrection is allegorical, etc.? The answer is NO, because there are already liberal "christian scholars" out of so called divity schools who doubt all such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
The Jews would even attribute the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians as an "Act of God."
Yes, but God was quite clear in Deuteronomy exactly what would happen if they broke His covenant, and thats exactly what happen. It should be noted the punishment was not allegorical, but literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
We both started from the same place of belief in the Bible's reliability and truths. We both ended in the same place of faith. You just picked "baggage" along the way of insisting upon a more literal account than what the Bible really intended (IMHO). I think that detracts from the Bible's account.
I disagree. I think if you were teaching a Bible study, read the account of the flood straight out of the Bible, and then began comments on it with "There was never really a flood, this story doesn't mean what is says, its actually symbolic of........." I think such a stance detracts from the Bible's account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
(I gotta break for a bit... be back after a while)
Pel, thanks for taking the time to reply. Please know that I do value your thoughts on a myriad of topics, and the discussion you bring to the table. I hope I have not offended you in any way, neither am I offended by your approach towards me.
I've gotta break for a bit also. Going to eat dinner, and also put some notes together for tomorrow morning. I may be back on tonight, or tomorrow.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
No, the difference is the things on my list are presented as things which happened, and many of these miracles (and others not on my list, such as Naamans leprosy) are repeated in the New Testament. Jesus himself endorsed several accounts in the old testament, and the New Testement continually reinforces the accuracy and inspiration of the Old.
The things you list are specifically called parables. Yes there are parables in the old testament, and they re often stated to be parabolic. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of the parable of the vinyard and the wild olives.
I think there is a big difference.
Your notion that Jesus Christ "endorsed" your opinions here is as exaggerated as your claim that:
"Did David really kill a lion and a bear with his bare hands?"
... be taken literally. C'mon Jason, you made that one up. Nowhere does the Bible even hint at such an event. David's statement (1 Samuel 17:34-36) make such a braggadocio claim of "with bare hands..."
You exaggerate what the Bible does say and then you demand that everyone accept your wild claims as if they were the actual words of divine writ. And now you offer the wildly exaggerated claim that Jesus Christ "endorses" your methodology?
Pel, thanks for answering, but you don't have to go through my list. You may if you want to do so for other readers, but I was simply making the point where do you stop. When you take the flood in an allegorical sense, and creation in an allegorical sense, what matter of hermunetics can you use to decipher which "stories" are parabolic/allegorical and literal?
I've tried to lay out a careful hermeneutic for you in the previous responses.
What hermeneutic led you to say David had killed a lion and a bear with "his bare hands?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Which is my point. You are knowledgeable, I'm not doubting that, but since NO ONE really knows exactly how creation came about, or the earliest happenings of human history, it is best to take God at His word. I personally believe in a 6 day literal creation, and that the flood actually happened. I have more to add,on your next statement.....
Pel, I'm not sure of your definition of doctrinal matter here. I don't think its a salvational issue, or even a fellowship issue. I think of you and NOW to be brothers of mine in Christ.
I don't agree with either of you on all issues, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
My feelings on this matter can be summed as:
I believe the Bible to be the insipred Word of God, I believe that the Bible contains accurate accounts of originas and God's work throughout history, and records some of the most miraculous events known to the human race.
If someone chooses not to believe those accounts at face value, I don't doubt thier Christianity, but I personally wonder if the end reult is not doubting large portions or the whole accuracy of scripture.
Sort of like Thomas Jeffersons view of Jesus.
Like I said if someone says creation is allegorical, the flood allegorical, is it really a great leap of logic to say the virgin birth is allegorical, the resurrection is allegorical, etc.? The answer is NO, because there are already liberal "christian scholars" out of so called divity schools who doubt all such things.
Yes, but God was quite clear in Deuteronomy exactly what would happen if they broke His covenant, and thats exactly what happen. It should be noted the punishment was not allegorical, but literal.
I disagree. I think if you were teaching a Bible study, read the account of the flood straight out of the Bible, and then began comments on it with "There was never really a flood, this story doesn't mean what is says, its actually symbolic of........." I think such a stance detracts from the Bible's account.
Pel, thanks for taking the time to reply. Please know that I do value your thoughts on a myriad of topics, and the discussion you bring to the table. I hope I have not offended you in any way, neither am I offended by your approach towards me.
I've gotta break for a bit also. Going to eat dinner, and also put some notes together for tomorrow morning. I may be back on tonight, or tomorrow.
I'm happy that you can see past these differences and set your eyes upon the work that God has done and is doing in each our lives.
The evidence from the earth's natural history is quite plain. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the continents were not covered by a global flood some 4,000 years ago.
I fear that those who make such claims are perhaps guilty for the decline in the Christian faith that we've seen in the West ever since the end of the Religious Wars of the 17th Century. Tragically, the Religious Wars and adamant fundamentalism are the most lasting imprints that Christianity has left upon our society. Compare both of those things to the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself and you are left wondering what went wrong with the Faith.
Why don't you follow the literal keeping of the sabbath? The Bible clearly says "forever" with regard to this command. Is it because Jesus and others waxed a bit allegorical about it?
Jason (and others) - why don't you take the Sermon on the Mount literally? Read Matthew 5:29-30. Why isn't this done? Ever?
What keeps you from literally fulfilling the very plain teachings of Jesus Christ in this passage? We don't find the word "parable" associated with Matthew 5. Jesus didn't didn't hedge His words with any comments like, "Don't anybody try this literally at home!"
He said if your eye has caused you to sin, pluck it out. If your right hand has caused you to sin, cut it off.
Why don't any of you literalists do that?
What is there about the text in this passage that keeps you from being obedient to the very clear command?
I would submit that there's nothing really in the text at all that keeps you from maiming and blinding yourselves. You are prevented from accepting a literal interpretation by your own good sense and judgment.
Something external to this passage of the Bible influences your behavior and causes you to suddenly wax allegorical on us when nothing in the words of Jesus Christ appears to require that you do so.
Your notion that Jesus Christ "endorsed" your opinions here is as exaggerated as your claim that:
"Did David really kill a lion and a bear with his bare hands?"
... be taken literally. C'mon Jason, you made that one up. Nowhere does the Bible even hint at such an event. David's statement (1 Samuel 17:34-36) make such a braggadocio claim of "with bare hands..."
My fault, the Bible does NOT say he specifically killed a lion with his bare hands. Specifically it does say that David grabbed the lion, htus close combat, hence my "exaggeration" of with his bare hands. He likely used his rod, and probably a knife to actually kill the lion, unless he broke the lions neck. Either way, if he was close enough to physically grab the lion (as oppesed to shooting the lion with an arrow, or shotgun, as would be done today. No one would wrestle a lion and grab it in an attempt to kill it)--then I would consider it with his "bare hands".
I think you are being awfully picky about the specifics, and missing my whole point. Straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
You exaggerate what the Bible does say and then you demand that everyone accept your wild claims as if they were the actual words of divine writ.
Pel, how is it I exaggerate the Bible, it says God created the earth in 6 days, it says there was a flood in which there were only 8 human survivors, it says that the Red Sea parted and the children of Isreal went through on dry land, etc, and I believe it for what it says. You go the route of the History channel, try to find an explanation, and if you can't find one, deduce that it surely couldn't have happened the way the Bible says, so it must mean something else.
Furthermore, I'm not making "demands" I simply cannot accept your opinions on such matters. I've made no demand that you must see it as I do or be lost. In fact I said exactly the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
And now you offer the wildly exaggerated claim that Jesus Christ "endorses" your methodology?
No sir, not "my methodology", but Jesus and other New Testament writers witness to the inspiriation of the whole of the Old Testament, and several of the miraculous happenings of the Old Testament are referred to in the New.
Off the top of my head (not an exaustive list)
-Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve having been created at the beginning of creation (not millions of years later)
-Jesus testified to the truth of Naamans experience
-Jesus referred to the sudden destruction of Sodom and Ghomorrah
-Jesus referred the Noah's flood, as did Peter
-Jesus referred to the brazen seprant incident
-Paul referred to the parting of the Red Sea, and really the whole Exodus and wilderness experience throughout his writings, and admontions that those things are recorded for our behalf
I'm sure their are more I'm not thinking of right now.
But since the title of this thread is Noah's flood, it should be noted that Jesus and Peter referred to it, and neither seemed to take it as an allegory, but a literal event.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
If the Noah story was allegory, is the coming of the Son of man also allegory?
Jason, don't forget Hebrews 11:7. "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Why don't you follow the literal keeping of the sabbath? The Bible clearly says "forever" with regard to this command. Is it because Jesus and others waxed a bit allegorical about it?
Jason (and others) - why don't you take the Sermon on the Mount literally? Read Matthew 5:29-30. Why isn't this done? Ever?
What keeps you from literally fulfilling the very plain teachings of Jesus Christ in this passage? We don't find the word "parable" associated with Matthew 5. Jesus didn't didn't hedge His words with any comments like, "Don't anybody try this literally at home!"
He said if your eye has caused you to sin, pluck it out. If your right hand has caused you to sin, cut it off.
Why don't any of you literalists do that?
What is there about the text in this passage that keeps you from being obedient to the very clear command?
I would submit that there's nothing really in the text at all that keeps you from maiming and blinding yourselves. You are prevented from accepting a literal interpretation by your own good sense and judgment.
Something external to this passage of the Bible influences your behavior and causes you to suddenly wax allegorical on us when nothing in the words of Jesus Christ appears to require that you do so.
Why are you all allegorical on this one?
The Sabbath was for Israel, and we are told it was a type and shadow of Christ. I have never done an in depth study of the Sabbath as of yet, just some minor study.
Your question dealing with Christ's statement in Matthew is a very good one. When I was a kind (about 6th grade) I read that and thought "oh man, I'm in trouble" .
To answer your question specifically, I don't quite understand why Jesus made that statement. Some people say it just shows that sin has to be dealt with taken extreme manners, not played around with-but not to the extent of maiming ones self.
Personally I don't take that literal because other scriptures speak against doing bodily harm to ourselves, and I believe scripture doesn't contradict itself. So because there is much more scripture against us doing bodily harm to ourselves I have to interpret Jesus statement through that filter.
I must also interpret Jesus statement by the rest of his teachings, as well as other New Testament (and even Old Testament) scriptures.
If someone has a problem with lust if they gouge their eyes out, it will not help them, for in their minds eye those images will always be with them. If they cut their hands off, it may keep them from committing a certain sin, but will not necessarily take away the intent/desire to do the act.
We must be changed, we must be born again, that is the only way to life eternal--through Jesus Christ.
Jesus also said we must eat his body and drink his blood. The Bible is clear that Jesus often spoke in parable, and dark sayings, with words which were vieled to some, and revealed to others.
PS-I think this is a red herring argument. Takes the focus off of specific Old Testament stories that are presented as things which literally happened, and puts the focus on my opinon of a TEACHING, not an EVENT. All of the things we're talking about in the OT are EVENTS. Teaching is always subject to being misunderstood.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
If the Noah story was allegory, is the coming of the Son of man also allegory?
Jason, don't forget Hebrews 11:7. "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
I don't agree with Timmy's conclusions, but what I appreciate about Him is since he has chosen not to believe the Bible, he doens't "have a dog in the fight" and He simply bears witness to what the Bible says.
The Bible plainly teaches a flood in which all of the human race were wiped out but 8 people. It is not allegorical, and nothing in the Bible hints at it as allegorical.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Linear Mode
