Biblical Cruelty and Marital Madness?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
...my view of the Bible is not the subject of this thread...Telling. Then why do you write here?
Earlier in this thread, you asked for my response to your lone on-topic post about the Numbers passage, a response I quickly provided. Do you have any response to that particular post of mine?
I didn't find much substance there.
In your first response to my take on the Numbers 5 passage, you gave no response to the content of my take on Numbers 5 passage,
You have a thing about what you call women drinking dirty water. Your denigration of God, his Word, and men and women of the Bible are of little interest to me. I have no comment.
am I correct that there is no comparable test in Scripture by which women could litigate their suspicions of their husbands' fidelity?
I have no idea what you are looking for. Women are being protected in this passage. You use your usual out-of-context twisting to invent something awful about God and the Bible. That is on your dime, Dude. I won't legitimize it in any way by offering it enough credence to discuss. It's a sham and mockery.
in addition to any repetition you choose to offer of your objections to me and/or my understanding of the Bible.
See above.
I would like to stay on topic, I don't think you are anywhere near the topic--merely using it one more time for your mockery.
Hope this helps.
-
@Bill_Coley said: I am an advocate of "higher criticism."
Bill,
"Higher criticism" is the elephant in the room and in the way of understanding Num 5:11-31. **Do you know "higher criticism" threatened the teaching of biblical inspiration? ** For many with your mindset, sees the Bible as just a compilation of poetry, history, folklore, and so on, gathered over a period of time.
"Higher criticism" questions the Genesis account of creation, the doctrine of biblical inspiration, and the prophetic character of the biblical books. In the case of Isaiah, for example, higher criticism gave the book primary, secondary, and tertiary authors, even claiming that some of its contents were "predicted" after they happened. How do we go with meaningful discussions?
Neither the definition of the Bible's "inspiration," nor of its inerrancy, nor of "higher criticism," nor of "scrutiny of Scripture," nor the nature of my passion for the "scientific method" have any bearing on that question, which asks simply where in the Numbers 5 text you find support for your claim about the Numbers 5 text.
I don't see this as a game; nor is there any fear to share. However, am I supposed to answer you, pretending I am not aware of your terms and statements the above? The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God’s Word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. Let's move forward humbly. CM
I look forward to your reply, which I'm confident will help me understand the basis of your claim.
Yes, very well. I do so with the understanding of the following:
Like Paul, I don't view the Bible as dead texts, but as the authoritative and living Word of God.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, he writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” at the time Paul wrote this.
The word translated “inspiration” is** theopneustos**.
- The first part of the word (theo) means “God”.
- The second half means “breathed.”
- Scripture is “God-breathed.”
Paul uses the Scripture to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah (Rom. 1:2), to give instruction in Christian living (Rom. 13:8–10), and to prove the validity of his teachings (Gal. 3:8, 9).
- He quotes the Old Testament, hundreds of times. Quotes are found throughout all his letters, except his shortest ones, Titus and Philemon.
The Old Testament is inspired= “God-breathed" and instruction for living. Do you accept this thus far?
It's important that biblical interpretation holds to the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the belief that the Torah contained the entire truth of God for the guidance of humanity, the purpose of all interpretation is to translate the words of God into life. The inspiration of the Bible is severely challenged and attacked by Satan under the disguise of intellectualism. CM
SOURCE:
David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 27-33. -
@C_M_ said:
"Higher criticism" is the elephant in the room and in the way of understanding Num 5:11-31...."Higher criticism" questions the Genesis account of creation, the doctrine of biblical inspiration, and the prophetic character of the biblical books.... How do we go with meaningful discussions?
The discussion I seek, CM, concerns your claim in an earlier post that "...the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband." In search of that discussion, three times in this thread I have asked...
"Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband? ... As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern."
You're welcome to couch your response to that question in terms of "higher criticism" or the Bible's "inspiration," but it seems reasonable to me that I ask that you couch your response in terms that actually address the question. YOU claimed that "the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband" - not I, and not "higher criticism." I'm simply asking you to identify where in the text of the passage you find support for the claim YOU made.
-
@GaoLu said:
Hope this helps.Your response "helps" in the sense that it's exactly the kind of response I expected from you. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
"Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband? ... As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern."
You're welcome to couch your response to that question in terms of "higher criticism" or the Bible's "inspiration," but it seems reasonable to me that I ask that you couch your response in terms that actually address the question. YOU claimed that "the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband" - not I, and not "higher criticism." I'm simply asking you to identify where in the text of the passage you find support for the claim YOU made.
**My dear Bro. Bill,
Slow down once again. Your request had been heard, be patient! I would like to do some additional studying beyond what I was originally going to share with you. All the more, since the revelation of your views of Scripture. Notwithstanding, you have to acknowledge I have begun to answer your question. I have begun. Do you recall reading this?**
@Bill_Coley said: I am an advocate of "higher criticism."
Bill, "Higher criticism" is the elephant in the room and in the way of understanding Num 5:11-31. **Do you know "higher criticism" threatened the teaching of biblical inspiration? ** For many with your mindset, sees the Bible as just a compilation of poetry, history, folklore, and so on, gathered over a period of time.
I look forward to your reply, which I'm confident will help me understand the basis of your claim.
Yes, very well. I do so with the understanding of the following:
Like Paul, I don't view the Bible as dead texts, but as the authoritative and living Word of God.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, he writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” at the time Paul wrote this.
The word translated “inspiration” is** theopneustos**.
- The first part of the word (theo) means “God”.
- The second half means “breathed.”
- Scripture is “God-breathed.”
It's important that biblical interpretation holds to the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the belief that the Torah contained the entire truth of God for the guidance of humanity, the purpose of all interpretation is to translate the words of God into life. The inspiration of the Bible is severely challenged and attacked by Satan under the disguise of intellectualism. CM
SOURCE:
David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 27-33.Oh, Bill, you don't have to demand, threaten, shame or blame me for not responding when I have agreed to do so. Just stay tuned. It may not be at your pace, but I will share. Until then, re-read. Thanks for your interest.
PS. Are your trying to catch a train or something? Peace, Love, and Patience. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Slow down once again. Your request had been heard, be patient! I would like to do some additional studying beyond what I was originally going to share with you.I don't see a need for either of us to slow down, CM.
Of course you're welcome to include the references of your choosing in your reply to my question, but please note that my request requires only your engagement with the Numbers 5 text itself. I asked only where (if at all) in the text of the passage you find support for your contention that "the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband."
All the more, since the revelation of your views of Scripture. Notwithstanding, you have to acknowledge I have begun to answer your question. I have begun. Do you recall reading this?**
In my view, how I understand Scripture is not relevant to whether in the Numbers 5 text YOU find support for YOUR assertion. It seems to me the only relevant factor is how YOU read the text.
Oh, Bill, you don't have to demand, threaten, shame or blame me for not responding when I have agreed to do so. Just stay tuned. It may not be at your pace, but I will share. Until then, re-read. Thanks for your interest.
No demands. No threats. No shaming. No blaming. I will cop to impatience, however, CM, because you've now responded to me four times since I asked where in the text you find support for your assertion about it, and STILL I don't know the answer to my question. I assumed that since you included the assertion in a post, you already had a basis for doing so, and hence my question wouldn't be much of a bother at all, especially since it asked only about your view of the text itself.
PS. Are your trying to catch a train or something?
No. I'm only trying to get an answer to my question.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Hope this helps.Your response "helps" in the sense that it's exactly the kind of response I expected from you. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
Thank you. One challenge we face is that your arguments strip Christians of their premises and you replace them with non-Christian premises and take advantage of the inherent kindness and generosity of true Christians to coerce them into discussing matters by your unchristian rules. That just won't work. We Christians cannot hedge on the Bible being truth and trustworthy and God's Will and Word. We cannot compromise on the influence of the Holy Spirit We do not believe in materialism (everything is just matter in motion) and we are not heavily invested worldly politics. Our fundamental values are not the same. You want to have discourse with Christians but you insist rep[eatedly that Christians play by unchristian rules--your rules. You can expect me to point that out from time to time--just as you often point out that you do not want to discuss by my Christian values. Fair enough.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Hope this helps.Your response "helps" in the sense that it's exactly the kind of response I expected from you. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
Thank you. One challenge we face is that your arguments strip Christians of their premises and you replace them with non-Christian premises and take advantage of the inherent kindness and generosity of true Christians to coerce them into discussing matters by your unchristian rules. That just won't work. We Christians cannot hedge on the Bible being truth and trustworthy and God's Will and Word. We cannot compromise on the influence of the Holy Spirit We do not believe in materialism (everything is just matter in motion) and we are not heavily invested worldly politics. Our fundamental values are not the same. You want to have discourse with Christians but you insist rep[eatedly that Christians play by unchristian rules--your rules. You can expect me to point that out from time to time--just as you often point out that you do not want to discuss by my Christian values. Fair enough.
Thank you for sharing your views.
