Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

[RefrusRevlis]

The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.

The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood. The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood. It's the absence of a command or permission to use other woods (ie silence) that prohibits the use of other woods as well as gopher wood.

Refrus

 

[Splayd]

The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood.

Sure it does.

The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood.

And that's why. Using another wood as well as gopherwood is necessarily using the other wood instead of gopherwood. In this case there's simply not an either/or scenario. Every part of the boat that's made from another wood is necessarily not made from gopherwood.

There's simply no need to investigate the silence any further.

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RefrusRevlis
The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood.

Sure it does. Quote:
The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood.
And that's why. Using another wood as well as gopherwood is necessarily using the other wood instead of gopherwood. In this case there's simply not an either/or scenario. Every part of the boat that's made from another wood is necessarily not made from gopherwood.

There's simply no need to investigate the silence any further.

I might not have chosen the best words to express what I was trying to get across, what I meant was:
The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods as a replacement for gopherwood (i.e. no gopherwood used). But it does not necessarily prohibit the use of other timbers as well as gopherwood. The command to use Gopherwood in itself only commands the use of Gopherwood. Gopherwood had to be used making the Ark.

It's the lack of a statement allowing or commanding the use of other timbers, that prohibits their use. It's because "use gopherwood" stands alone in regard to allowable woods. If God had said "use gopherwood" and "use pine", the command to use gopherwood would not mean that pine would necessarily be not allowable.
The point is that gopherwood is the only specified wood - i.e.the Bible is silent about the use of other woods.

This is analogous to vocal singing versus instrumental music. It's not that God specified "singing" that prohibits the use of musical instruments, it's that he did not speak to allow or command the use of musical instruments. God could well have said "sing" and "play the stringed instrument". The fact that he specified "sing" does not automatically disallow "play the stringed instrument" , it is in fact the silence about musical instruments that prohibits their use.

Using your line of reasoning instrumental music is prohibited, because God said "sing".
Refrus

 

[Splayd]

No, I understood exactly what you were saying. I just disagree. If Noah used pine for part of the boat, he wasn't using gopherwood for that part like he was instructed to. Just focussing on the instruction is all that's needed.

This is analogous to vocal singing versus instrumental music.

I disagree. Pine is a like for like replacement for gopherwood. The IM situation isn't. A fair analogy might be using someone else's voice to sing instead of your own or even playing instruments instead of singing. I don't know anyone that tries to make a case for either.

A better analogy for IM from the Noah story would be gopherwood and tar or even gopherwood and nails. Neither acts as a substitute for the gopherwood and neither impedes the positive command to use gopherwood. The same is true when our singing is accompanied by music. Your argument demands that we understand it as some hybrid that has somehow replaced the singing. I simply don't agree.

If I sing while standing it's understood that I'm still singing. It doesn't become some wacky standing/singing hybrid. It just happens that I am both singing and standing.
If I sing while holding a songbook, has my singing mutated into some holding/singing hybrid?
What if I'm reading the words? Is it a holding/reading/singing hybrid? Of course not. It turns out I can simply do all 3 at the same time.
What if I'm holding a guitar while I sing? Is that different to holding a songbook?

Here's the killer... What if I strum that guitar while I sing?
All of a sudden it's turned from doing different things simultaneously to doing one hybrid thing at the expense of it's parts? Why???

Where's the point that that occured and how did it occur?

Is it different if someone else is doing the strumming? What if someone outside is strumming a guitar? Does that sabotage our singing turning it into something else? What constitutes an instrument anyway? Does tapping your foot count? What if someone is doing it without realising? Does it negate all of our singing and should we stop the service and inform them?

The whole thing simply doesn't make any sense to me unless we determine that we need explicit chapter and verse authority for everything we do... and if that's the case there's very little we can do.

Using your line of reasoning instrumental music is prohibited, because God said "sing".

No. Using my line of reasoning we should sing... and we do. Sitting, standing, songbooks, overheads, harmonies, pitchpipes, foot tapping, clapping, metronomes, instruments etc... don't change that. We're still singing.

Peace

 

[Splayd]

For what it's worth, I was hoping we would be able to have this discussion without focussing too much on IM... only because we've already had so many threads for that and still do.

Perhaps we could shift this aspect of the discussion there to avoid turning this into another IM thread.

Peace

 

[RefrusRevlis]

I disagree. Pine is a like for like replacement for gopherwood. The IM situation isn't. A fair analogy might be using someone else's voice to sing instead of your own or even playing instruments instead of singing. I don't know anyone that tries to make a case for either.

The following quote I think clearly puts forth the issue in relation to the gopher wood question, and states what I did, but far more clearly. Note the sentences about substituting and adding.


"A person is correct in teaching that it would have been sinful for Noah to have built the whole ark or a part of the ark out of non-gopher wood. But the sinfulness has nothing to do with the fact that the non-gopherwood has a specific to specific relationship to gopher wood, under the same generic wood. It is thus not due to "to specify is to exclude". Rather, the sinfulness is due to the absence of authority (the absence of an affirmation) for the non-gopher wood. It was sinful to use non-gopher wood because God nowhere authorized non-gopher wood. This lack of authority is of two kinds: One kind forbade substituting non-gopher wood for gopher wood, and the other kind forbade adding non-gopher wood to the gopher wood. Let's talk about these in turn. First the requirement to use gopher wood forbade substituting non-gopher wood for the gopher wood. To require is to forbid anything that prevents the requirement. (To require is thus to forbid, not to specify is to forbid, unless by specify - and here is the exception the reference is to a required specific. But even here it's the requirement not the specificity that is forbidding the substitution.) So building the whole ark out of non-gopher wood would have been wrong, because it substitutes and thus would have prevented doing the divine requirement. A requirement implicitly forbids anything that is substituted for it. So it is correct to say "To require is to forbid substitution." But what about additions, where you still have gopher wood, but you are including non-gopher wood? With a substitution you do not have the gopher wood at all. But with an addition, you have gopher wood plus something else. Additions are not forbidden by the requirement (which only forbids substitutions) but by the silence.


Let us now turn to this second kind of the unauthorized. There was silence about using non-gopher wood, So building even some of the ark out of non-gopher wood was sinful, because God's silence forbids as we have shown in earlier chapters. Therefore, adding some wood to the gopher wood would also have been wrong. It was silence, and thus the lack of divine authority for adding any other kind of wood, which forbade any other kind of wood." George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids p199


If silence does not prohibit, then it would be perfectly reasonable to use other woods as well as gopher wood. If Noah used pine as well as gopher wood, he could quite rightly say to God "I have fulfilled your command, I have used gopherwood". All Noah would have to do was make sure he used some gopherwood when building the ark. If God were to ask Noah "Did you use gopherwood to build the ark?" Noah could say "Yes".

Refrus

 

[Everlasting]

The commandments were brought during the time in the old testament, when man had no such laws from God.

Growing in the knowledge and understanding of God, does not allow you to determine what His will is. Peace and silence are not indicators of rebellion and haughtiness.

1 Pe 2:15

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:




Everlasting

Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
bn.com

 

[Splayd]

Hmmm... seems to me that someone's using George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids in addition to the NT. I'm pretty sure God's silent about that

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used. There is no addition vs substitution thing going on there. They equate to the same thing because of the fact that they are both woods. Notice that noone ever argues that nails or ropes etc... wouldn't be allowed because of the silence?

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

Wow, did God not give us logic to use? When I think of the Bible being silent I think of something that is NOT talked about at all. Such as... Should a microphone be used in the worship service. The bible does not speak of it, it is silent. OT to NT-- Was it okay, in early church times, for a person to touch a person with leprosy because the NT does not forbid it? Would he still be at danger of contracting the disease? God gave us logic to use

 

[abadhaircut]

Hmmm... seems to me that someone's using George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids in addition to the NT. I'm pretty sure God's silent about that

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used. There is no addition vs substitution thing going on there. They equate to the same thing because of the fact that they are both woods. Notice that noone ever argues that nails or ropes etc... wouldn't be allowed because of the silence?

Peace

So are you saying that if Noah had used gopher wood and another type of wood, that he would have been sinning because parts of the ship would have had no gopher wood on them?

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.

I apologize for the long post and I hope you read it, and I apologize cause I know you didn't want this to turn into an IM discussion., but I was already here, so...

 

[annie1speed]

Loveaboveall,

So if it is not addressed at all, it is fair game? Isn't that a dangerous path?

Annie

 

[Loveaboveall]

Not when they are based on the principles of Love! Love God and Love man.

 

[Splayd]

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

Once again, this isn't analogous at all and depends on first accepting that IM in worship is wrong in and of itself. Can I stand and sing? Of course. If I continue standing in between songs, is the standing offered as a substitute for singing? Of course not. You see, you are still demanding that IM is pine to vocal worship's gopherwood. I disagree and noone's offered any reason why it should be considered as such.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.

Again - I disagree. Having built boats and sung professionally, I don't recognise either nails OR guitars as necessary, though I feel that both can be a great help. Right here is perhaps my biggest problem with this whole approach. Despite the insistance that everything must be "authorised" there's this entirely abiguous area where one is left to determine on their own that we can actually use some things for the sake of expediency etc... It's up to ??? (I dunno who) to determine that "aids" are acceptable and then to further determine what constitutes an aid and then to judge everybody else's understanding of the issue by that very same extra-biblical standard that they devised themselves. Go figure. One man's aid is another man's extra. Who would have thunk?

 

[Loveaboveall]

"Where the BIBLE speaks, we speak; and where the BIBLE is silent, we are silent."

I guess the question is, "who decides whether the Bible is silent or whether it speaks on specific issues?"

 

[cremi]

Isn't part of the problem here that an over-empahsis is placed on what happens for an hour or so on Sunday morning? (or Sunday night) Yet...often times the same strict regulations are not even considered in daily life?

 

[Splayd]

Absolutely cremi!

Our whole life should be a prayer. Our every moment an act of worship. While the time we spend together is definitely important, we too readily consider it as "church" or "worship" when the truth should be that neither can be confined to just an hour or two a week. It should be who we are and what we do with our every breath.

Peace

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used.

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it.

I have some questions:

Does the specifying of one thing in and of itself preclude anything else?

Could God have specified another wood as well as gopherwood? Question: does the act of specifying one thing in and of itself prohibit anything else?

If "yes" this means that because God specified gopherwood, therefore He could not have also specified pine if He wanted and said " Build an ark of gopherwood and pine"?

If "no" then what does the prohibiting?

Is it that it because God only specified one thing (gopherwood) that it excluded another things (other woods) being used?

Put another way: is it because God was silent about other woods and commanded gopherwood, that makes gopherwood the only acceptable wood?



Refrus

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed.

That wouldn't make sense anyway. You can't have specific instructions and silence about the same aspect. It's either one or the other.

Let's not forget that God specified the Levites as priests, and was silent about priests from Judah. That's the point being made in Hebrews 7:11-14. The interesting thing about this situation is that the answer to the issue is given in 8:4 - Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

From this example, I learn something about specific authority - that which God specifies excludes/prohibits other options - even though God is silent about them, they are NOT authorized. Agree?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it.

The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.

I agree. Let's stick with what's said. Let's see where it takes us ... see next response.

Consider the road some might go down with this. Is Noah allowed to use a hammer? Well there's silence about that, but common sense dictates that he'll need to use tools so we'll justify it's use by establishing (from silence) that tools (aids) are acceptable. Can he use nails? Hmmm... this is tricky because nails are a building material and as such would conflict with the use of gopherwood as a material. Besides, if the nails are made from metal then the ark would be made of gopherwood AND metal. Best to just use nails made from gopherwood. Hang on a second. We're supposed to use tar too. Now tar isn't made from gopherwood, but it's part of God's instruction so God mustn't be talking about building materials specifically when he talks about gopherwood. He must just mean that gopherwood is the only wood we're allowed to use. Does that mean Noah could use metal or plastic or rock etc... for some parts of the boat as long as he uses gopherwood exclusively for the wood part? Hardly. We'd batter come up with another extrabiblical way to define exactly what constitutes a boat and where and when the extras can be applied. etc... etc...

Genesis 6:14a says, "Make yourself an ark of gopherwood" (NKJV). This is what I view as a generic (versus specific) command. Noah is commanded to build, but no specifics are given. Therefore, he is free to use whatever tools he has available. That's the way I view his options. Also, I compare it to the word "go" in Matthew 28:19. I find the disciples using various means of travel as they went about preaching the gospel i.e. running (Acts 8:30), sitting in a chariot (Acts 8:31, and sailing (Acts 13:4).

If I'm not mistaken, the use of pitch would be to seal the ark, not to fasten the individual boards together. Therefore, being fair with the text, since God didn't specify what to use to connect the gopherwood boards together, Noah was free to use whatever was available to him at the time. I understand that choice to refer to what is sometimes called an expediency - which involves the realm of choice to aid/assist in carrying out a command (1 Cor.

What a mess. Meanwhile - if we'd simply worry about following the instruction in the form it's given, we'd avoid all that legal mumbo jumbo. Noah was instructed to use gopherwood to build the ark. If he does the positive aspect of the instruction, there's no need to even consider the unspoken negative aspects.

Peace

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed. It sure wasn't "legal mumbo jumbo" to him, any more than the discussion about Jesus being a Levitical priest was in Hebrews 7-8 to the first-century Jews the letter was written to.

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo?"

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?

 

[- DRA -]

Originallly Posted by - DRA -

Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter [of] another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.

That's my point right there. Moses' silence about non-Levitical priests didn't negate what God actually did say prior to that. Some seem to take the approach that every time God makes another covenant, all the precedents prior to that are to be ignored altogether. Paul didn't. He recognised that despite the Mosaic coveant, the earlier precedent still held.

No disagreements there brother.

The point made about God's silence wasn't that Jesus couldn't be a priest - but that He couldn't be a Levitical priest.

Not sure where you're trying to go or what you're trying to do with this "precedent" idea. God proclaimed Jesus to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek earlier in the book of Hebrews, and elaborates on that idea in chapter 7. Simply stated, priesthood did not necessarily depend upon the Levitical system. Case in point, Melchizedek was a priest - long before the Levitical system ever came about. And, after God established the Levitical system, He foretold of the priesthood of Christ (Psalm 110:4). Since the Levitical priesthood and law were coupled, a change in the priesthood also prompted a change in the law (also supported by other Scriptures as explained in Hebrews 8). Therefore, I'm not sure there's a valid "precedence" argument, but simply understanding what God had in mind all along for His Son Jesus and His law/covenant/will that would go into effect when He died.

 

[- DRA -]

If silence does not prohibit, then it would be perfectly reasonable to use other woods as well as gopher wood. If Noah used pine as well as gopher wood, he could quite rightly say to God "I have fulfilled your command, I have used gopherwood". All Noah would have to do was make sure he used some gopherwood when building the ark. If God were to ask Noah "Did you use gopherwood to build the ark?" Noah could say "Yes".

Refrus

There is no "if" in the reasoning presented in Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4. God's silence about priests from the tribe of Judah prohibited/did NOT authorize, etc. Jesus (who was from the tribe of Judah - not Levi) to be a Levitical priest.

Taking this point back to the discussion of Genesis 6, God did NOT say use "some" gopherwood in building the ark - just as He did NOT say use "some" Levites as priests under the law of Moses.

Is inserting a word into the text to support an assumed premise the basis of sound biblical interpretation?

From the text in Genesis 6, it seems to be rather clear that God told Noah to use gopherwood, and Noah did just as God told him (note verse 22). I humbly suggest being fair with the text and not reading anything into it before trying to apply your understanding of this text to other biblical teachings i.e. instrumental music.