Robert Young's "Hints and helps to Bible Interpretation"

[now faith]

You know,your right time is to short to debate and I should not have butted in.

I apologize for the disruption.

God Bless you and your ministry.

 

[victoryword]

A new blog that confronts a Hebrew language expert's challenge to the Word-Faith understanding of Exodus 15:26. This person believes, based on his knowledge of the Hebrew, that God puts sickness on him. Here we show him that he is absolutely wrong:

Does God REALLY Put Diseases on Us?
http://vindicatinggod.blogspot.com/2016/07/does-god-really-put-diseases-on-us.html

 

[now faith]

Informative, and well done.

I have not studied enough about the nature of God,but I would wonder since God fought for Isreal and killed more of the enemy than Joshua had ,if God's protection is conditional upon salvation?

This opens a door to include O.S. A. S. Since disobedience had brought death to Isreal ,from the golden calf to the spoils of Jericho.
There is no denying that God has struck people down,we look at Elijah and the 50 soldiers who came to take him.
We look at Samson in his great battle killing 1000 with a jaw bone.

God had said ye will surely die for disobedience, and at one point he killed almost everyone on earth except Noah and his family.
I look at Lot who was a righteous man,who was not killed at Sodom and Gomorrah yet his Wife was looking back.
It appears that sin before Christ came would bring death.
As far as O.S.A.S in the Old Testament it appears that it did not exist,even Moses almost lost his head over circumcision of his Son.
In the Old Testament it would be a terrible thing to be God's enemy.
I think we could do a study on the New Testament that Christ redeemed us not only from the curse of the law,but the wrath of God toward sin as well.

 

[victoryword]

NW, You will find when you study the OT fully that God was just as compassionate then as He is now. The OT has been given a bad rep because it has not been interpreted properly. Not speaking about translation but interpretation. God says in the Old Testament that He is compassionate and does not change (Mal. 3:6). When you study the truth about the Old Testament Holy Wars you will get a different perspective on how God acted in the OT. I might be writing a blog on it soon.

As far Moses and the circumcision thing the early Jews actually believed that Satan tried to kill Moses and because his son was uncircumcised this gave Satan an open door to do just that and stop him on his mission. If you are interested I have a couple of books I can send you absolutely free of charge. PM me your address or e-mail me at victoriousword@gmail.com

 

[victoryword]

For anyone interested we have a free .pdf book that outlines some proper Bible interpretation principles:

http://www.vindicatinggod.org/books/god_destroy.pdf

 

[hhodgson]

For anyone interested we have a free .pdf book that outlines some proper Bible interpretation principles:

http://www.vindicatinggod.org/books/god_destroy.pdf

Good word and excellent reading Troy... Very much recommend!

 

[Si_monfaith]

Moses almost lost his head over the issue of circumcision was becz he was under the law.

Under law one has to fufil the law or else face consequences either venial or mortal.

 

[now faith]

God's mercy is manifested in Christ ,a new covenant was to come from the lamb slain from the foundation of the World.
God's plan of redemption came about in God's timing,God did not Change in nature he had already made the way for man in the beginning.

Malachi: 3. 5. And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts. 6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This passage gets confusing ,due to the Calvinist theology.
It simply means God's knew that he would ultimately have to make the sacarfice for man.
Keep in mind this is written in the New Covenant yet was not new to God,he simply set fourth his plan of redemption.

Ephesians: 1. 4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8. Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; -

 

[now faith]

Even though God's wrath was poured out in the Old Testament, we see a glimpse of his great Mercy in this passage:

1 Peter: 3. 17. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

To understand Christ preaching to those in the days of Noah,gives us the knowledge it was God's will that all come to Christ even the people who died before his atonement.
This confirms the whosoever in John 3:16

 

[victoryword]

Moses almost lost his head over the issue of circumcision was becz he was under the law.

Under law one has to fufil the law or else face consequences either venial or mortal.

There was no law when the circumcision incident occurred. The law came sometime after the Israelites left Egypt. Therefore, the law was not the issue. The issue was COVENANT!

 

[victoryword]

For extensive examples of God's great mercy in the OT read Jonah. Hosea is also a good book. Jesus said in multiple places that the OT Scriptures spoke about Him. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

Be blessed everyone.

 

[TaylorSexton]

3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
(Note the tense in these verses. They are presented, not so much as commandments, as they are confessions of faith by God about us!
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, ...
7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing ...
13 `Thou dost not murder.
14 `Thou dost not commit adultery.
15 `Thou dost not steal.
16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.

Being a Calvinist, I am sure I am not welcome here. However, having spent many years in a Word of Faith tradition, I feel I can at least make a couple of comments.

The above rendering by Robert Young could not be more wrong. In the Hebrew (which I know and can read), these commands are given in the negated imperfect, the strongest form of prohibition—even more so than a negated jussive (imperative). Again, Young's translation could not be more wrong. A more proper translation would be, "You shall never...etc." These are not statements of fact; rather, they are the strongest possible command given in the Hebrew language. This is one reason why Young's Literal Translation is, in many very real ways, useless.

As for the causative vs. permissive sense, I first of all wonder if Hagin even knows Hebrew. I doubt it. Even if he does, I wonder what linguistic evidence he then gives for his understanding. The word שִׂים ("put") in Ex. 15:26 is in the basic Qal stem and in the imperfect tense, which, while the imperfect can mean permission, in this context it most likely indicates determination on God's part (i.e., "If you diligently heed...I have determined to put none of the diseases..."). Furthermore, in the last part of v. 26, God says, "...which I have brought on the Egyptians." The word "brought" there is the same word as before (שִׂים), in the same stem (Qal), only this time in a different tense (perfect), showing simple past action. Thirdly, this verb (שִׂים) is active and transitive, meaning that the scenario is such that all that is presented is a subject (God), verb (put), and direct object (diseases). The diseases are not the passive subjects of the verb, but God is the subject and diseases are the direct object.

It is then a logical deduction that, the two words being of the same root and stem, and being within the same sentence by way of comparison, the two actions are being understood in the same way. Therefore, whatever is meant by one is meant by the other. I am sure no one here would argue that God merely permitted the Egyptians to take on disease. No, he rained disease and plague on them like water. Therefore, it is a safe deduction to say that, if Israel did not heed, that God himself would bring disease on them, in the same way he brought it on the Egyptians.

 

[victoryword]

My latest blog for those who want to dissect the Old Testament from their Bibles because of the false claim that it is all law:

Should Christians Ignore the Old Testament?

Does Avoiding the Old Testament Solve the Problems of Christians Explaining God’s “Ungodly” Behavior?

http://cvbibleteachingcenter.blogspot.com/2016/08/should-christians-ignore-old-testament.html

 

[hhodgson]

Being a Calvinist, I am sure I am not welcome here. However, having spent many years in a Word of Faith tradition, I feel I can at least make a couple of comments.

Please understand this is the Word/Faith forum and if you are not a member of this forum then you are in violation of forum rules in your challenging debate about your Calvanistic Reformed Theology beliefs. Non-members are not allowed to teach or debate here. This forum is not the place. Our welcome mat is limited to fellowshipping and asking questions about our beliefs.

As victoryword said, "You may have the last word."

Here is some of your last word response...

Paragraph 1) "you are like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum: all screaming and no logic."

Paragraph 2) "I challenge you or anyone else here to ask me questions concerning anything about which I have a conviction and I will be able to prove it exegetically from Scripture. That offer always remains open.

Paragraph 3) "I made a defensible case in a very short time with just a couple of paragraphs (minus the portion where I had to expose you for your lack of argumentation)."

Paragraph 4) "I have demonstrated where Young is wrong (and he is by a long shot regarding, for example, his abysmal rendering of the Ten Commandments), and not one person has offered a rebuttal (unless you count your insults, condescending tone, lack of argumentation, and ad hominem a rebuttal).​

And it is clear that your "last word" in the four paragraphs do "actually" show arrogance, condescension, insulting tone, derogatory remarks, also your ad hominem (re-read personal attack remark in paragraph 1).

You have made in very clear in one of your posts in another forum that you recently quoted, "I have a serious problem with getting myself into debates."

A Forum Watchman...

​

 

[now faith]

It's been my experience, that being raised Baptist and having a fellowship with Baptist in my personal life allows me to visit the Baptist fourm.
Yes they get irritated a bit because of my doctrine in Word of Faith but for the most part extend me the courtesy to fellowship.

We have had trolls from our Brothers in the Charismatic section say just about everything, and call us everything but a milk cow.

Even recently someone attacked EW Kenyon on our board ,railing that he seemed from the metaphysical Christian Science movement of his day.

Word of Faith and Baptist have a common bond,Kenyon who is considered by many as our founder was a Freewill Baptist Pastor.
Dad Hagin Pastored a Baptist Church.

I agree in doctrine that Freewill Baptist and Calvinist are miles apart,and for the most part Word of Faith evolved from the Charismatic movement.

Let's not forget that iron sharpens iron,and that Youngs literal Translation is not common among Word of Faith.
In other words it's not our canon so to speak.
I find that many of our top Preachers use the King James,and expound teaching with the Amplified.

Here is what Victory Word posted in his reply:QUOTE
Taylor Sexton, your technical knowledge of Hebrew is meaningless if you already have a distorted view of God's character which comes with the false Calvinistideology.
Un QUOTE.

Since Youngs literal interpretation is not ordained by Word of Faith I believe we should discuss which direction our fourm is going.
I am not promoting Calvinism, just promoting truth.

 

[now faith]

Just a thought on literal Translation from the Greek, there was a sorcerer named Bar Jesus in the New Testament.
The literal Translation would mean son of Jesus, are we to understand this to be truth?

This is the point I am laboring here, that Youngs is not proprietary to Word of Faith.

This is one time I wish our old friend Bob would show up,unless he was run out for good.

 

[hhodgson]

Just a thought on literal Translation from the Greek, there was a sorcerer named Bar Jesus in the New Testament. The literal Translation would mean son of Jesus, are we to understand this to be truth. This is the point I am laboring here, that Youngs is not proprietary to Word of Faith.

This is one time I wish our old friend Bob would show up, unless he was run out for good.

Hey John, he's not that far away and he checks in behind the scenes... regularly!

 

[now faith]

Hey John, he's not that far away and he checks in behind the scenes... regularly!

Well his imput as a WOF Teacher would be helpful.

You can persue a theology by finding a translation that works with in the context of your theology.

There are dangers involved when we seek to change the contextual intent of the Bible.

You have to consider the pitfalls of linguistics when creating a theroy, such as Differential object marking.

I demonstrated this is in the previous post.

With the Bible or any translation careful study on sentence structure is a nessissity ,or syntactic ambiguity will occur.

To use a literal translation will create lexical gaps throughout the book or in this case the Bible.

I personally believe the King James Professors were the most qualified for this huge task.

I believe there were 49 professors of language working for a number of years,in comparison to one man simply tossing the untranslatable words and attempting stuff in his idology.

Word of Faith is based on sound principles, there is no need to embellish or make excuses for the sovereign nature of God.

 

[CGL1023]

The information that Kenneth Hagin was referring to in his book, "Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Spiritual Death" is here:

Analytical concordance to the Holy Bible : containing about 311,000 references, subdivided under the Hebrew and Greek original with the literal meaning and pronunciation of each; also index lexicons to the Old and New Testaments, being a guide to par

Here's the portion from "Hints and Helps" that was always referred to indirectly by Brother Hagin and those Faith Teachers who followed his thought:


70. Active verbs frequently express only an attempt to do the action,e.g.-Deut. 28. 68 ; Eze. 22.13 Matt. 10. 39; 17. 11 ; John 1.9, 29; 12.32; Rom. 2.4; 1 CO. 10.33; Gal. 5.4; Phil 3.15; 1 John I.10; 2.26; 5.4, 10; Rev. 12.9.
(b) Active verbs frequently express a permission of it, e.g.-Exod. 4.21 ; 5.22; 2 Sa. 24.1; Jer. 4.10.; 20.7; Eze. 14.9; Matt. 6.13; 11.25; 23.32; Mark 5.12; John 13.27; Acts 13.29; Rom. 9.18; 11.7; 2 Th. 2.11.

I have attempted to follow the discussion here. I believe the bible in the original language is absolutely true. This discussion says that God is not the afflicter in Ex 15:26 (KJV) but anyone who does not know what is being talked about here will believe the bible, as they should, and conclude that God brings diseases on people. With no one to explain these rather deep, abstract concepts people may have the wrong impression of God for some time. I was fortunate to get from a Charles Capps video the layman's explanation in probably one or two sentences.

I looked at Ex 15:26 in the majority of English bible versions on Biblegateway.com and without exception got the impression that God brought the disease.

26. He said, “If you will diligently obey the Lord your God, and do what is right in his sight, and pay . attention to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, then all the diseases that I brought on the Egyptians I will not bring on you, for I, the Lord, am your healer.”

I feel like I have been stiffed by the bible publishing community.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I feel like I have been stiffed by the bible publishing community.

Why?