[quote]nephorm wrote:
My other thoughts are still incubating. I hope some of these made sense.[/quote]
Nep,
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting thoughts and I look forward to hearing the rest after the incubation period is over. Or you could bring them out half-baked. Your half-baked thoughts are still enlightening.
[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
As I said, it is a bit unfair to put things out there that I won’t be able to defend in the upcoming days, and I will be away from a computer. But I will explain what I mean by reducing the problem to theodicy. The issue that pookie brought up is that if God mauls young boys, we would like an account of God’s actions. That is, God tells us not to murder, and yet God murders. It is not particularly difficult to imagine a God that punishes, but in this case, the punishment seems out of proportion to the crime. But this sort of talk isn’t very pious anyway, because we would have to question the motivations of the Deity. In the first place, those motivations would necessarily be hidden from us, and in the second place, we are not in a position to pass judgment on God. We may simply resolve the issue by saying that God rules by fiat; that is, there is nothing inherently good nor bad but judgment of the Lord makes it so. And this accords with the account in Genesis that the ability to distinguish fine from base makes us like Elohim.
But this verse raises another problem that is within our reasonable scope of inquiry, and which we cannot resolve in such a way. That is, pookie suggests that the hand of God is the proximate cause of the bears mauling the boys. But this suggests change in the nature of God, and I would suggest that God is necessarily unchanging - this is an argument that Maimonides treats in detail that I simply don’t have the time to reproduce here - but the unity of God, and the idea that the necessary existent must exist in actuality, and not potentiality, means that God cannot have such direct volitions. We cannot attribute motion or other accidents (in the Aristotelian sense) to God, and since time is dependent upon motion, God is necessarily outside of time. So we come up against the problem of miracles occurring in time, which is outside of the character we can infer from the necessary property of the deity.
But the verse does not say that God acted directly. Rather, Elisha utters the curse, and the mission is accomplished. In the interests of time, the reason that Dr. Skeptix’s analysis reduces the problem to theodicy is that the prophet is responsible for his own exercise of power. While the power comes from God, it only comes remotely, in the same sense that our power to create a weapon and kill someone comes from God, remotely. By placing agency on the prophet rather than God Himself, we no longer have to answer the questions “why would God do such a thing,” or “how was God acting in time?” Rather, we have to answer the question “why does God allow injustice or evil in the world?” So that is the question of theodicy, and it is a more reasonable way, I think, of approaching the problem.
My other thoughts are still incubating. I hope some of these made sense.
Very interesting stuff, neph. You should jump in more often.
I’d ask if it is the best approach to interpret the story using concepts and ideas about God that wouldn’t be developed until a few thousand years later, if our desire is to understand the author’s intended meaning as clearly as possible.
If we wish to understand the original author’s intent, the meaning he wanted to communicate when he put the words to paper (or parchment or whatever it is he used), aren’t we better off doing the interpretation by using the idea of God as it was (as best as we can tell) at the time in which the author lived?
It is my understanding that modern thoughts about omniscience, omnipotence, God being simple, unchanging, etc. are all theological concepts that were explored and developed long after the texts of the Bible had been written.
[/quote]
In that specific instance I don’t think author’s intent is as important. Since it is treated as a historical piece of information rather than a directive. Although you do raise a good point on which I will have to give this some more thought. Historical narritive vs. God decreed ideas.
I think our understanding of present day ideas such as " that modern thoughts about omniscience, omnipotence, God being simple, unchanging, etc. are all theological concepts that were explored and developed long after the texts of the Bible had been written " have developed as we have become more curious about these ideas. Although I don’t think this is always and asset. IE we attribute that for God to be good he has to love everyone endlessly. I consider this a bit of an overstatement by modern man.
[quote]We have no COMMON ground on what COMMON human nature even is?
We can’t even establish the basis from which we could build a moral framework without invoking deities. You’ve entirely blinded yourself to even the possibility of it.[/quote]
I can give you the Bible’s take on the state of man and his nature, but it would involve discussing God.
I haven’t blinded myself to the possibility of a moral framework without invoking deity, I just see no reason to believe one is possible at this point. In the history of Western philosophy, none have succeeded in creating one. But you might succeed, on this very forum, where the rest have failed, and I am open to that possibility.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
In that specific instance I don’t think author’s intent is as important. Since it is treated as a historical piece of information rather than a directive.[/quote]
So the author’s intent would simply be to relate, or put to paper, the story as it was told to him. He’d be more of a scribe putting down oral tradition than really an author then.
It also poses the question as to how we are to understand that verse. Are we to understand it as it would have been understood at the time it was written down, or as we can interpret it now with the added benefit of a few thousand years of theology and philosophy under our belt.
Some of the problems come from the habit we have of “personifying” God as some kind of “super” human being. It might not even be possible to humanly understand “love” in the way God would embody it. It could be that “how much” God loves you is simply a reflection of how good (in the sense of benevolent) you are towards the rest of His creation.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
In that specific instance I don’t think author’s intent is as important. Since it is treated as a historical piece of information rather than a directive.
So the author’s intent would simply be to relate, or put to paper, the story as it was told to him. He’d be more of a scribe putting down oral tradition than really an author then.
Although you do raise a good point on which I will have to give this some more thought. Historical narritive vs. God decreed ideas.
It also poses the question as to how we are to understand that verse. Are we to understand it as it would have been understood at the time it was written down, or as we can interpret it now with the added benefit of a few thousand years of theology and philosophy under our belt.
I think our understanding of present day ideas […] have developed as we have become more curious about these ideas. Although I don’t think this is always and asset. IE we attribute that for God to be good he has to love everyone endlessly. I consider this a bit of an overstatement by modern man.
Some of the problems come from the habit we have of “personifying” God as some kind of “super” human being. It might not even be possible to humanly understand “love” in the way God would embody it. It could be that “how much” God loves you is simply a reflection of how good (in the sense of benevolent) you are towards the rest of His creation.
[/quote]
God, through the Bible, is condescending to us in human language in a way that we can understand.
If you want to understand how to interpret the Bible, examine the various convenants God made with man in the Bible, and understand the verses as they relate back to the previous covenants. These provide the hermeneutic (method of interpretation) of the Bible.
Whoa. 666 posts on this thread! I have to get it off that number!
submitting now…
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Whoa. 666 posts on this thread! I have to get it off that number!
submitting now…[/quote]
Woah, woah, woah…You have probably, and single-handedly, staved off the End Times. Sir, the world owes you a debt of gratitude for this selfless act.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Whoa. 666 posts on this thread! I have to get it off that number!
submitting now…
Woah, woah, woah…You have probably, and single-handedly, staved off the End Times. Sir, the world owes you a debt of gratitude for this selfless act.[/quote]
Haha! Thank you. I’m here to help.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
In that specific instance I don’t think author’s intent is as important. Since it is treated as a historical piece of information rather than a directive.
So the author’s intent would simply be to relate, or put to paper, the story as it was told to him. He’d be more of a scribe putting down oral tradition than really an author then.
[/quote]
There are many parts of the Bible that are nothing more than an historical narritive. While we can possibly make a case for divinly inspired I don’t think it is required. I also don’t think Proverbs, or any other wise sayings book would count as divinly inspired.
I would imagine though that it is a combination of all of them. Somethings just take time to make sense. So while I would not begrudge someone for using modern thought on this topic, I would urge them to look at all aspects as the possible truth behind it. Now other hot topics I might approach differently, and consider author’s intent to be of extreme importance. IE Daniel’s prophecies would be a good example.
Philosophically speaking. When does our understanding of God’s love end? My thoughts on it are at the point it violates His divine nature.
IE if God is justice, then when our understanding of Justice and God’s love conflict then God’s divine nature wins out over our understanding. Gross over simplification on my part
This is my current theological project I am working on. It is a daunting task and in many ways I think above my head.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Whoa. 666 posts on this thread! I have to get it off that number!
submitting now…[/quote]
If you switch your theological view from dispensationalist and become a partial preterist you can avoid this taboo.
If the Bible isn’t all the Word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16, then who decides what isn’t divinely authored, sinful man? Is the part about the death and resurrection of Jesus inspired?
Believe all of it, or believe none of it. There’s no in between unless you want to take the road of the higher critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They’re the reason Europe is spiritually dead and the mainline denominations in the US are empty.
[quote]If you switch your theological view from dispensationalist and become a partial preterist you can avoid this taboo.
:-)[/quote]
I’m neither. I’m an amillienialist.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Whoa. 666 posts on this thread! I have to get it off that number!
submitting now…[/quote]
Ha, I saw that too. Ironically I was considering doing the same thing.
Darn superstitions.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If the Bible isn’t all the Word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16, then who decides what isn’t divinely authored, sinful man? Is the part about the death and resurrection of Jesus inspired?
Believe all of it, or believe none of it. There’s no in between unless you want to take the road of the higher critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They’re the reason Europe is spiritually dead and the mainline denominations in the US are empty.
[/quote]
I believe all of it, but wise sayings fall out of the pale of Divinly inspired. A historical narritive would not be considered divine it would be considered historical. As I said you could make a case for it but is there truly a need to say history is divinely inspired? Does the whole of the Bible rest on this story being divinely inspired? This piece is a history of the kings. Therefore the important part of it is that it records the history of Israel.
[quote]
I’m neither. I’m an amillienialist.[/quote]
Technically speaking Partial preterism “tends” to fall into amillienalism.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Philosophically speaking. When does our understanding of God’s love end? My thoughts on it are at the point it violates His divine nature.
IE if God is justice, then when our understanding of Justice and God’s love conflict then God’s divine nature wins out over our understanding. Gross over simplification on my part[/quote]
That seems most probable. I don’t see how someone’s flawed understanding could in any way manage to trump his Creator’s love or justice.
How would you know, though, if your understanding is in conflict? Can you ever be sure?
Are you doing a thesis or something?
Look, the historical narratives record redemptive history. In other words, it records the action of God towards bringing salvation to man. The entire history of Israel begins with the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. It’s not just a history - it’s a redemptive history.
The whole point of Israel was to point ahead to Christ (“Out of Egypt I called my Son” - Matt 2:15). It served a typological function that doesn’t fit in the Bible outside of its purpose in the redemptive drama.
[quote]pookie wrote:
That seems most probable. I don’t see how someone’s flawed understanding could in any way manage to trump his Creator’s love or justice.
[/quote]
Perhaps my description is not quite as accurate as I had hoped for. I begin to point it out in an earlier post concerning the doctrine of Hell. In modern times we equate God with good, and Love for mankind. Those tend to be the primary focus. I think it is actually off the mark.
I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.
[quote]
How would you know, though, if your understanding is in conflict? Can you ever be sure?
[/quote] can anyone ever be sure? Some of it is just fun to think about.
I am not quite at that level yet, although this might not be a bad topic when I do get to that point.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.
[/quote]
I liked Pookie’s interpretation of your remarks better ;). I was nodding my head in agreement until you clarified. lol
Do you also believe in Divine punishment w/i our lives on Earth. For example: As Falwell believed Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the “sinners” in N.O.?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I believe all of it, but wise sayings fall out of the pale of Divinly inspired. A historical narritive would not be considered divine it would be considered historical. As I said you could make a case for it but is there truly a need to say history is divinely inspired? Does the whole of the Bible rest on this story being divinely inspired? This piece is a history of the kings. Therefore the important part of it is that it records the history of Israel.
Look, the historical narratives record redemptive history. In other words, it records the action of God towards bringing salvation to man. The entire history of Israel begins with the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. It’s not just a history - it’s a redemptive history.
The whole point of Israel was to point ahead to Christ (“Out of Egypt I called my Son” - Matt 2:15). It served a typological function that doesn’t fit in the Bible outside of its purpose in the redemptive drama. [/quote]
sigh
what redemptive history is being served by bears mauling children? what divine truth is being conveyed in that passage? Don’t talk trash to a prophet?
Have you asked if I thought it wasn’t true? Is your problem because I said history is history nothing more?
Has it occured to you that all history is technically divinly inspired? Even the book of John talks about not being able to contain all the works of Jesus. Are we to assume that those works don’t show Jesus divity, or they lack a redemptive quality?
Have I said the Bible isn’t divinely inspired? It is one thing to have a real contention over an issue, it is another all together to pick an argument over something which in the end we would agree on.
So are we to conclude that Proverbs is Divinly inspired as well?
" Because of these characteristics of proverbial and wisdom literature, the genre has a high rhetorical function and cannot be read as though it were absolute"
“In conclusion: Material in the Bible that belongs in the proverbial/wisdom genre cannot be read absolutely and used to claim error and/or contradiction”.
[quote]new2training wrote:
haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.
I liked Pookie’s interpretation of your remarks better ;). I was nodding my head in agreement until you clarified. lol
Do you also believe in Divine punishment w/i our lives on Earth. For example: As Falwell believed Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the “sinners” in N.O.?[/quote]
I think there is evidence for that in Scripture. Revelation describes bowls of God’s wrath, which are the prayers of the saints, being poured out upon the earth during the period between Christ’s first and second coming. Of course, Jerry Falwell can’t say if God did that as a judgment or for some other reason because God has ceased speaking through prophets. So he was just being a buffoon.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I believe all of it, but wise sayings fall out of the pale of Divinly inspired. A historical narritive would not be considered divine it would be considered historical. As I said you could make a case for it but is there truly a need to say history is divinely inspired? Does the whole of the Bible rest on this story being divinely inspired? This piece is a history of the kings. Therefore the important part of it is that it records the history of Israel.
Look, the historical narratives record redemptive history. In other words, it records the action of God towards bringing salvation to man. The entire history of Israel begins with the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. It’s not just a history - it’s a redemptive history.
The whole point of Israel was to point ahead to Christ (“Out of Egypt I called my Son” - Matt 2:15). It served a typological function that doesn’t fit in the Bible outside of its purpose in the redemptive drama.
sigh
what redemptive history is being served by bears mauling children? what divine truth is being conveyed in that passage? Don’t talk trash to a prophet?
Have you asked if I thought it wasn’t true? Is your problem because I said history is history nothing more?
Has it occured to you that all history is technically divinly inspired? Even the book of John talks about not being able to contain all the works of Jesus. Are we to assume that those works don’t show Jesus divity, or they lack a redemptive quality?
Have I said the Bible isn’t divinely inspired? It is one thing to have a real contention over an issue, it is another all together to pick an argument over something which in the end we would agree on.
So are we to conclude that Proverbs is Divinly inspired as well?
" Because of these characteristics of proverbial and wisdom literature, the genre has a high rhetorical function and cannot be read as though it were absolute"
“In conclusion: Material in the Bible that belongs in the proverbial/wisdom genre cannot be read absolutely and used to claim error and/or contradiction”.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/proverbiallit.html
[/quote]
What does 2 Timothy 3 tell you?
You’re misunderstanding Holding. He’s not saying that the Bible contains errors, he’s saying that the Proverbs contain truths that don’t apply in every circumstance.
Israel was a theocracy. The Israelites agreed to live under the rule of God, and for God to send judgment upon them when they disobeyed the treaty at Mt. Sinai. These particular Israelites decided to mock God’s mouthpiece, which is the same thing as mocking God, in His theocracy, which in one sense served as a typological New Heavens and New Earth, where no evil was to be found. So he wiped them out, as He will the rest of the unbelievers at the day of judgment.
So it tells us several things: God is not mocked, He will act sooner or later against those who live in rebellion against Him, and especially against those in the house of God, for judgment begins at the house of God (the Church). It serves as a warning against unbelief and hardening your heart towards God and His Gospel, which is the free gift to all who repent and believe.