What does the bible teach about Christians and war?
Comments
-
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And war is not always about money and territory. I would recommend you read up on some wars and figure out what they are really about. A lot of wars are, yes, but not all.Paul says the love of money is the root of ALL evil. This includes war. Name one not about money or territory?
Actually, Paul does not say that at all. How could he? It would be false.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
That is different than all evil.
That being said. The war on terror is not about money or territory. That's just one example.
I'm sure @Wolfgang will come up with his crazy conspiracy theories on this, and @C_M_ will talk about the injustice of America. But the war on terror is not about money or territory. It is about rooting out terrorism.
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.
I see you are stuck to the KJV rendering. Of course, we can know that your interpretation/translation cannot be correct. Satan was the initial evil and it was not about money at all. Therefore, the love of money CANNOT be the root of all evil.
That being said, in the context of the whole passage it is talking about a specific instance and the kinds of evil that can come about from it. It in no way suggests that all evil is due to the love of money.
And about the war on terror, it had and continue to has, nothing to do with Israel. Do you even know how the war on terror began? Perhaps you need a history lesson. Israel did not come into the equation.
All kinds of evil = includes war. While terrorism is older than the Israeli occupation of Palestine, much of today's Middle East Terrorism links directly to it.
That has nothing to do with the US war on Terror.
Peter, to the arresting of Jesus.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Paul says the love of money is the root of ALL evil. This includes war. Name one not about money or territory?Actually, Paul does not say that at all. How could he? It would be false.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.That is different than all evil.
How is "all kinds of evil" different from "all evil" ?? Would "all kinds of evil" not include "all evil" by definition?
That being said. The war on terror is not about money or territory. That's just one example.
Well, there is plenty of indication that "the war on terror" is most certainly about money ... lots of money.
On the other hand, "the war on terror" is actually not even a real war, or did the US Senate/Congress declare war in 2001 or anytime since??
When looking at the results of this "war on terror" over the last 17 years, it is obvious that this "war" is actually disguised terrorism by which far more people have been terrorized, driven from their homelands and killed than any other terror has done ...I'm sure @Wolfgang will come up with his crazy conspiracy theories on this,
No conspiracy theories needed .... just open your eyeballs, use your God given ability of logic and reason and make up your mind instead of allowing it to be brainwashed by "official propaganda" / "fake news".
But the war on terror is not about money or territory. It is about rooting out terrorism.
There are indeed some fighting a war against terrorism and terrorists ... however, it is not the USA who is doing so. Comparing what the USA and its "moderate terrorists" are doing in Syria (and have been doing ever since they introduced this "proxy war" into Syria with what Syria and its allied forces are doing ... it should be obvious who is rooting out terrorism and who is supporting terrorism in their attempt to regime change and be the world hegemon.
All kinds of evil equals all the evil ever? Can't be. Satan was evil before money was even created.
It still comes down to war is based on money, the root of all (many kinds of) evil. Zionism is the present catalyst bringing terror to America's shores. And those who support it, support terror.
I just gave you an example of a war that is NOT about money.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, and war is evil, how can war not be about money or territory?
The love of money isn't the root of all evil. Was money the root of Satan's evil or Adam's original sin?
Money is the epitome of hatred. It works only if wealth remains unequal. So it is a tool most sought after by wicked people.
What does that have to do with my point?
Money (in various forms) is solidly linked to being the cause of all war.
Which was not my point. My POINT was that money cannot be the root of all evil. Satan is evil and it has nothing to do with money.
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
Even still, Satan's original evil and Adam's original sin had nothing to do with the love of money. Therefore it cannot be the root of all evil. All kinds of evil is the better translation.
Scripture plainly contradicts you. It is better to say "I don't understand" then to call God a liar because you obviously do not understand.
No Scripture does not contradict. You misinterpreted. If it contradicts, you are the one with the interpretation that contradicts. So how is money the root of all evil with regard to Satan and original sin if money did not yet exist?
You are flatly denying what Scripture plainly says. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
No, I'm saying that isn't what it says. That's what they KJV says.
You still have yet to counter my point.
-
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
-
Receiving the truth of the Bible by faith is a good thing. So is reading it in context. The issue in the 1 Tim 6:10 pericope is error because of greed. The love of money was the motive behind false teaching--not much has changed since those days, has it?
The backdrop for this passage statement is very clear and, in the same pericope, immediately precedes the statement: 1 Tim 6:5 "...useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
Keep in mind that the "LOVE of money is the root of all evils" as is any LOVE for an idol or inappropriate appetite we have. παντων των κακων, of all these evils; i. e. the evils listed in the passages preceding. ῥίζα, lacking an article probably is intended to be definite (the root, not a root), but even IF that is true, the context does not indicate exclusivity.
Translating this exactly into English isn't possible. "a root of all kinds of evils (as listed above)" could be an acceptable rendering. The Gk isn't that exactly clear either---probably because the intended meaning wasn't to be that exacting or limited in scope. Funny how we ferhoodle the original further by translating it and then argue nuances of the translation.
Applying a little practical common sense we can see that greed is the root of much evil, but cannot be the root of evil where money or its equivalent is not known to exist. Maybe someone could make a case for Eve hoarding up apples or something to barter with Adam.
Meanwhile, back at the farm....where were we. Deciding if money was the root of all war? Or if war could ever have a cause just in God's eyes?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And war is not always about money and territory. I would recommend you read up on some wars and figure out what they are really about. A lot of wars are, yes, but not all.Paul says the love of money is the root of ALL evil. This includes war. Name one not about money or territory?
Actually, Paul does not say that at all. How could he? It would be false.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
That is different than all evil.
That being said. The war on terror is not about money or territory. That's just one example.
I'm sure @Wolfgang will come up with his crazy conspiracy theories on this, and @C_M_ will talk about the injustice of America. But the war on terror is not about money or territory. It is about rooting out terrorism.
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.
I see you are stuck to the KJV rendering. Of course, we can know that your interpretation/translation cannot be correct. Satan was the initial evil and it was not about money at all. Therefore, the love of money CANNOT be the root of all evil.
That being said, in the context of the whole passage it is talking about a specific instance and the kinds of evil that can come about from it. It in no way suggests that all evil is due to the love of money.
And about the war on terror, it had and continue to has, nothing to do with Israel. Do you even know how the war on terror began? Perhaps you need a history lesson. Israel did not come into the equation.
All kinds of evil = includes war. While terrorism is older than the Israeli occupation of Palestine, much of today's Middle East Terrorism links directly to it.
That has nothing to do with the US war on Terror.
Peter, to the arresting of Jesus.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Paul says the love of money is the root of ALL evil. This includes war. Name one not about money or territory?Actually, Paul does not say that at all. How could he? It would be false.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.That is different than all evil.
How is "all kinds of evil" different from "all evil" ?? Would "all kinds of evil" not include "all evil" by definition?
That being said. The war on terror is not about money or territory. That's just one example.
Well, there is plenty of indication that "the war on terror" is most certainly about money ... lots of money.
On the other hand, "the war on terror" is actually not even a real war, or did the US Senate/Congress declare war in 2001 or anytime since??
When looking at the results of this "war on terror" over the last 17 years, it is obvious that this "war" is actually disguised terrorism by which far more people have been terrorized, driven from their homelands and killed than any other terror has done ...I'm sure @Wolfgang will come up with his crazy conspiracy theories on this,
No conspiracy theories needed .... just open your eyeballs, use your God given ability of logic and reason and make up your mind instead of allowing it to be brainwashed by "official propaganda" / "fake news".
But the war on terror is not about money or territory. It is about rooting out terrorism.
There are indeed some fighting a war against terrorism and terrorists ... however, it is not the USA who is doing so. Comparing what the USA and its "moderate terrorists" are doing in Syria (and have been doing ever since they introduced this "proxy war" into Syria with what Syria and its allied forces are doing ... it should be obvious who is rooting out terrorism and who is supporting terrorism in their attempt to regime change and be the world hegemon.
All kinds of evil equals all the evil ever? Can't be. Satan was evil before money was even created.
It still comes down to war is based on money, the root of all (many kinds of) evil. Zionism is the present catalyst bringing terror to America's shores. And those who support it, support terror.
I just gave you an example of a war that is NOT about money.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, and war is evil, how can war not be about money or territory?
The love of money isn't the root of all evil. Was money the root of Satan's evil or Adam's original sin?
Money is the epitome of hatred. It works only if wealth remains unequal. So it is a tool most sought after by wicked people.
What does that have to do with my point?
Money (in various forms) is solidly linked to being the cause of all war.
Which was not my point. My POINT was that money cannot be the root of all evil. Satan is evil and it has nothing to do with money.
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
Even still, Satan's original evil and Adam's original sin had nothing to do with the love of money. Therefore it cannot be the root of all evil. All kinds of evil is the better translation.
Scripture plainly contradicts you. It is better to say "I don't understand" then to call God a liar because you obviously do not understand.
No Scripture does not contradict. You misinterpreted. If it contradicts, you are the one with the interpretation that contradicts. So how is money the root of all evil with regard to Satan and original sin if money did not yet exist?
You are flatly denying what Scripture plainly says. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
No, I'm saying that isn't what it says. That's what they KJV says.
You still have yet to counter my point.
All evil includes All sorts of evil.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
Even if true, Adam & Eve saw value in eating from the fruit.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
Even if true, Adam & Eve saw value in eating from the fruit.
If its true it means your interpretation is wrong (which it is)
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
Even if true, Adam & Eve saw value in eating from the fruit.
If its true it means your interpretation is wrong (which it is)
Would they have eaten if it was invaluable to them?
-
@Dave_L said:
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see See Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Thanks for the solid advice. But even James says war is about money. So I'm far from being alone in this.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see See Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Do you mean that Scripture changes meaning in different circumstances? Is that what you are saying? If you are saying that I adamantly disagree. It only means what it meant to the original audience. We then must bridge that and apply it to today's circumstances.
-
@reformed said:
Do you mean that Scripture changes meaning in different circumstances? Is that what you are saying? If you are saying that I adamantly disagree. It only means what it meant to the original audience. We then must bridge that and apply it to today's circumstances.
This is just a snippet out of the process of exegeting a passage. A text has its meaning to the original audience and then the principle application of the meaning is made to the modern audience.
If one ignore the relevance of the text and view the text strictly historical, "the exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least." CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Do you mean that Scripture changes meaning in different circumstances? Is that what you are saying? If you are saying that I adamantly disagree. It only means what it meant to the original audience. We then must bridge that and apply it to today's circumstances.
This is just a snippet out of the process of exegeting a passage. A text has its meaning to the original audience and then the principle application of the meaning is made to the modern audience.
If one ignore the relevance of the text and view the text strictly historical, "the exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least." CM
Trying to understand. You are NOT saying the meaning changes, just the application? A passage only has one meaning but can have many applications. Is that what you are saying?
