Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

genez said:

Proverbs 7:21 niv

"With persuasive words she led him astray;
she seduced him with her smooth talk. "

If you could see how the Prophets, Paul, and Jesus expressed themselves at times in the original languages, being nice is not always the way of the Holy Spirit. Being gracious in the face of evil is not always God's modus operandi. Being gracious with the weak, is. If I quoted certain things Jeremiah said in the Hebrew while under the control of the Holy Spirit, or Ezekiel... I may get banned from this forum!

Careful! Don't limit the Holy Spirit! We can do this because we place human standards upon God out of not knowing what God's Word shows us. Yet, I realize that one can become simply reactionary in one's flesh, because frustration and anger gets one out of fellowship, and he reacts in his flesh. That is what one needs to avoid. We are to respond to a challenge, not react. Response comes from being prepared. Grace leads truth to its goal. Reaction comes from not being prepared, and trying in frustration to provide what is lacking by one's own energy and ability. Wood, hay, and stubble.

Thanks, Bro for the cold cup of water! Our battle is not one of seeing if we can win a victory. It is to see if we are walking in what is the victory.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Click to expand...

Is harsh language sometimes appropriate? Of course. Is it usually advisable for getting your point across to someone? Of course not. Anyone who says otherwise is either someone who doesn't care about whether the other person in the dialogue receives any truth, or they're someone who have been told that they're a "prophet" without any instruction as to what that actually means. And quoting Scripture out of context is definitely not a good debating tactic. If you think that evil is any view of Scripture but your own, you're way off. As far as the "ad hominems" by individuals in the Bible, we must assume that what they say is indeed Spirit-led. No, God doesn't always sugar-coat truth. But only the Holy Spirit can tell people's motives and hence their worthiness for an ad hominem, and I daresay there's no reason we should reasonably expect you or ANYONE on this online forum to be Spirit-led in what is posted - that kind of discernment needs a much more personal context than what we have here. Besides, presenting damning truth without any expectation of acceptance is merely speaking condemnation on someone, and something that should be taken very seriously, not flippantly, as "well, it's the truth". Our chief role is to attack arguments, and let Jesus and the inspired prophets deal with the individuals' wickedness. This is a discussion forum.

Ask yourself if your chief concern is people's spiritual welfare or if it's the verification of your belief system as the truth. Who is to decide whether the person you're talking to is weak or evil?! You?

genez said:

"The fact is that there are Old Testament specialists who have been trained in schools like Harvard and Princeton and Chicago University, who have received earned doctorates, who have become skilled in all of the relevant languages and archeological discoveries, who have attended and participated in all of the leading scholarly conventions, and who have authored texts that are studied by college and seminary students all over the world, who still adhere to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The whole structure of the Documentary Hypothesis is so vitiated with obscurantism and circular reasoning on the basis of unproved and unprovable hypotheses that it hardly deserves the status of true scholarship at all. It appears rather to be an exercise in biased subjectivism that shuns any serious consideration of conflicting evidence."

That was an ad hominem?

Click to expand...

Yes, the last sentence basically amounts to calling the scholars who developed and uphold the documentary hypothesis obscurantists and shoddy scholars biased by subjective considerations.

It does not deal with the actual research on which the documentary thesis is based, but instead denigrates those who uphold it as lacking integrity.

As I see it, that is an ad hominem attack.

And the first part is an argument from authority. It simply says some reputable scholars uphold Mosaic authorship. It does not say why they do.

Neither argument provides a basis for rejecting the documentary hypothesis or for accepting traditional ascriptions.

genez said:

First of all, maybe you should know something about me. I was born a Jew, Brought up a Jew. Then I became born again. I know the before and after. I know the cultural mindset that many Jews view the world and the Bible with, and I can also know how the transformed capacity of being born again changes things drastically. There are simply certain things that the unregenerate mind can not grasp. And, there are certain things that the unrenerate mind seems sure about but out of blindness, not able to see.

Being born again does not guarantee one will have the truth on a matter. It only guarantees the potential. Being unregenerate guarantees that a wall is erected between the soulish man and the spiritual. In this day and age, only the Christian overall perspective concerning the Bible will be correct. For one must be born again to know matters concerning the Bible's intent. But, simply being Christian does not guarantee that one will be privy to the truth of a matter. One must have a correct relationship to their regeneration.

Click to expand...

Of course, this perspective is itself part of Christian theology and a justification for how Christians have used the OT. All I am saying is that we need to recognize when we as Christians are using our theology to give a meaning to the text which the writer did not and could not have intended, since the writer's view was not informed by Christian theology.

To get at the original meaning of the text, one has to work from the same theology the writer was working from; not from a Christian theology imposed on the text many centuries later.

It makes no difference whether one believes the Christian theology or not. Honest scholarship, especially by Christians, requires noting how Christian theology changed the meaning of the original text by setting it in a new context.

So we observe that Isaiah makes a prediction concering a child to be born within a few months. That is the literal meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Then we observe that Matthew confers a new meaning on the same text, applying it to the birth of Christ. This is not the same meaning; it is not part of what Isaiah intended. It is invented by Matthew. (And a Christian would say this invention comes from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.)

But to go beyond Matthew's invention and say that Isaiah's words always applied to Christ is historically inaccurate. They did not apply to Christ until Matthew wrote that they did.

The study of what Christian writers did with OT scripture is a fascinating one. In many ways it looks like the creationist practice of quote-mining.

The Bible today has been delegated to be properly undertood by the born again Christian. Not Mr. Friedman. That does not mean he is isn't privy to historical background. He just will not be able to see and understand the true spiritual connotation where things do not line up according to secular reasoning.

Click to expand...

Since Mr. Friedman is a Christian I think you presume too much when you say that he is unable to understand the "true spiritual connotation". And while I agree that the spiritual connotation is a different matter than the historical perspective, I don't consider this makes the historical perspective unimportant. I think the historical perspective provides an essential basis for coming to a correct spiritual understanding as well.

If we ignore the historical facts about the dating and authorship of the various passages of the bible, we will necessarily mis-interpret what the authors were saying. Can a true spiritual connotation be based on a false interpretation of the author's intent?

btw, I don't think the avoidance of the historical factor is unique to Christianity. I find traditional rabbinic commentary on the Hebrew scriptures to be flawed by the same sort of presuppositions. There is a knee-jerk reaction against scholarship which casts doubts on the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Not because the scholarship is bad, but because it threatens a traditional understanding of the relationship between God and scripture. Holding onto a traditional "faith" becomes a reason for rejecting scholarly arguments without evaluating them seriously.

Yet the ascription of the Torah to Moses is an invention of the rabbis in the first place. It was made long ago without benefit of methods of textual analysis through which ancient texts can be assessed for date and authorship. As far as I can see, it is an ascription based on reverence, not on reality.

And I happen to think God deals with reality, so that reality is a firmer foundation for faith than traditional reverence.