1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Harmony of Scriptures

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salamander, Dec 30, 2008.

Top Posters
  1. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harmonize John 3:22 and John 4:2:

    John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    It only appears that Jesus actually baptized

    John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

    The Pharisees seem to rely upon gossip

    John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    The ideal that one incorporates an individual verse by pitting it against other verses is gross error unless they allow the full context to reveal the entire concept given.

    The understanding of John 3:22 is that although Jesus didn't actually baptize anyone as administraitor, he definitely is in charge, especially as he was present, meaning the baptizing was under his direct authority and not that authprity of John the Baptist's.

    These two verse are in completed harmony with one another. The only way they could be viewed as being in disharmony is on the behalf of some one attempting to bring reproach upon the word of God along with their atrocious error of taking something totally out of context.
     
    #1 Salamander, Dec 30, 2008
  2. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isaiah 45:7?

    Let's start with that old "devil" to the MV proponents: CONTEXT!

    Isaiah 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.

    A promise of God to bless His people with treasures unseen by the natural man.

    Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

    Jacob and Israel are one in the same, but yet there is a grave difference to be evidenced in that Jacob is the servant not receiving anything but a servant's reward vs Israel being "mine elect" and a joint heir receiving everything God has ever promised. Thuis very passage is a reproof to the rrors of calvinism, yet we're not going to take off on that rant!

    Jacob knew not the Lord/ Israel does know Him.

    Isaiah 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

    The Lord proclaims his Divinity and reveals to Jacob that he alone has given Jacob the grace to sustain him. More could be said here, yet this isn't that discussion.

    Isaiah 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

    This is the proclamation of the Lord to make his glory known to all men on this earth. From east/ the rising of the sun, from the west. There is no other god.

    Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

    This verse is not one of abscurity as so many like to make others think, nor is it the verse to "prove" that God crated the same "evil" as birthed out of the adversary known as "satan".

    Too often this verse is taken out of context and that error produces nothing less than disharmony in the word of God.

    This "darkness" is that of the "blindness" to all those who do not excercise their measure of faith to believe on the name of the Lord.

    This "evil" is that of natural disasters on the creation to prove to man there is a much greater force imaginable than a man could ever realize. This is only a partial description of that "evil" in this verse.

    Another, and not the lesser portion, is that the Lord uses other armies to establish his cause to bring about his will upon those whom he chose for a specific task: ultimately being the spreading of the Gospel! This "evil" is viewed as such by those who are in adversity with the Lord's Divine will. Much, much more could be said.

    Yet we could not view the harmony of this verse all by itsself. It must be viewed with the other verses in the context to which it is given.

    Isaiah 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

    This verse gives us the specifics of what "evils" the Lord promises to bring upon man for His specified purposes revealed in this same verse:let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together

    Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! ......

    This is only the first portion of the verse, yet it gives us the view of the occuranceof the "evils" described in this passage causitive of the term "woe". This "woe" being the result on man which he views as "evils" passed onto him being the efforts of God to bring man to a space of repentence. This is NOT a knew concept. Many civializations formed a type of apeasing rituals as if to "satisfy" the gods by their sacrifices.

    The following is not in verse form except where the ideal is concocted as if there is some sort of disharmony in the Bible:

    Lamentations 3:25 The LORD [is] good unto them that wait for him, to the soul [that] seeketh him. [It is] good that [a man] should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD. [It is] good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne [it] upon him. He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope. He giveth [his] cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach. For the Lord will not cast off for ever:

    (Then we have what is described as the "evil" the Lord creates, not to be confused with evil that originates from satan)

    But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. / GOOD!

    For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. (More good!)

    As to not get too long just in this passage we move to the verse in "question":rolleyes:

    Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

    This verse deals with the actions of the Lord towards man due to his sin. Not dealing with anything deemed as "evil" originating from satan, (else Geraldine on the Flip Wilson show is right and the Bible wrong, "The devil made me do it!"), this verse gives us the balance from He who holds the balances in His right hand/ Jesus. This balance is just reward and punishment for sin yet the Lord also offering his tender mercies never apart from his lovingkindnesses given to all men who trust in Him.

    Nothing is found to even hint towards disharmony in these passages, even when compared to each other.

    Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

    All anyone has to do is consider this same "evil" originating from the Lord as that which is His effort to bring His chosen nation/ Israel to repentence as described aforehand.

    The preceding is what is being replied to made by gb93433:



    I don't know what he thinks I have been taught and by whom. I do know that when I read what he referred to as if they are somehow in disharmony, I find that the context proves his assumptions to be gross error, again.
     
    #2 Salamander, Dec 30, 2008
  3. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exodus 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

    Simple: God hardened pharoah's heart for a specific purpose

    Ex 8:15But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

    Simply put, when God first hardens the heart of an individual, it can only lead to one of two places: the first, and most hoped for, is they will repent. The second being they will only harden their own hearts further and to the point of utter destruction due to the Lord's doing to harden them further. This verse points out the conscious decision of pharoah hardening his own heart due to the respite experienced by that relief given by the Lord after this plague.

    "Respite" meaning a time of relief from a calamity

    respite: Relief from labor; allowed temporary suspension of execution.


    Again, harmony is established by context.

    Unless he makes specific reference, I won't waste anymore of my time to show how he views scripture in error as if it somehow is found to bring disharmony, except when one might take it out of CONTEXT!
     
    #3 Salamander, Dec 30, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2008
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    bump!

    I see his challenge left him at a grave disadvantage and embarassment.:type:
     
    #4 Salamander, Dec 31, 2008
  5. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one's wasting time with your drivel, Salamander.
     
    #5 Keith M, Jan 1, 2009
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    What my "drivel" consists of is the context in which the Bible is written.

    I was "challenged" to harmonize these passages as IF it couldn't be accomplished.

    What is so telling is the absence of debate along with the derogatory remarks by you.

    I'll just have to chalk this one up to CONTEXT!:tongue3:
     
    #6 Salamander, Jan 3, 2009
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sal, go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Every post you make is an exercise in trying to turn something that isn't true into truth. It'll never happen.

    :tonofbricks:
     
    #7 Keith M, Jan 3, 2009
  8. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    They cannot be harmonized. They are completely different historical contexts. To suggest harmonization is to suggest eisegesis.
     
    #8 gb93433, Jan 4, 2009
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Here, IMO, Salamander is "reading something into" or "reading something out of" the text, as you might prefer to phrase this, with a poor choice of wording.) To use an analogy, I might say that I was baptized by the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, many years ago, and I would be completely accurate, in this wording. Were I to describe this as I "appeared" to be baptized by the 'Forks' Church, it would be inaccurate, and misleading.

    Obviously, the whole church body did not physically do the act, but this was one individual, which in my case was the Pastor, although I have seen more than one instance where more than one individual was used in the physical act for various reasons, usually due to a physical incapacity of one or more individuals. Incidentally, I was physically baptized in a neighboring church, and the three of us were of the first of our church body to actually be baptized in a church 'baptistery', and I believe were the first of our body to be baptized in such a facility in our own county. We had previously held one service in a church in another county, and actually before this, only baptized in warmer weather, in a nearby pond or actually in one of two 'baptizin' holes' on two nearby creeks, and where we always had three or four assistants to aid in the baptizing process, due to poor footing, there. As my father was a deacon, sometimes he was one of those aiding.
    Well, I do note that both posters seem to be familiar with the taking of something out of conte... :smilewinkgrin:

    Where was I? Oh yeah -

    There is nothing to harmonize, in the first place, for there is no 'disharmony' even suggested or implied, here, to begin with. Salamander is 100% correct on that part.

    However, I do believe that Salamander has here picked an extremely poor choice of words, in saying that "Jesus didn't actually baptize anyone as 'administrator', for that is exactly what Jesus was - the administrator (common usual Baptist terminology notwithstanding) - in that He was the one in authority, or in charge. What Jesus was not here, is the physical agent, who was performing the actual act, just as John, in every instance, is not necessarily the physical agent of 'his' baptism, either. (Lk. 7:29-30; Ac. 10:37; 19:2-5)

    Jn. 4:2 is merely 'expanding' on Jn. 4:1 (and also effectively, Jn. 3:22), in giving further details.

    Ed
     
    #9 EdSutton, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2009
  10. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    You might need to give me some grace in case I missed something. In my study of the text from the past I believe that 4:1 and 3:22 are different locations and those passages should not be harmonized.
     
    #10 gb93433, Jan 4, 2009
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is true they are in different "locations" in the text (any two 'verses' logically are, in this), but obviously they are referring to the same event, and actually John 4:1-2 is even in the same context, with the continuation of the narrative. All these 'events' take place over one span when Jesus is ministering in Judea (Jn. 3:22; 4:3). There is no 'break' in the narrative in Jn. 4:1, except an artificial one imposed on the text more than a millennium after the events took place. Only following Jn. 4:1-2., in Jn. 4:3, is it said that " 'Iesous ... Hee lefte the londe of Iewry and wente agayne to Galile'. "

    I'm not sure about what you have requested, for I do not think I was particularly ungraceful in any comments I made discussing the text(s) mentioned. Honestly, it would not have taken a long time to look the passage up, especially with the 'trinity' of Bible Gateway, biblos.com, and studylight.org available to all, at absolutely no charge to any viewer, which would have given quick access to at least some 40-50 English versions (I haven't actually counted each one of the other two sites, but Bible Gateway currently has 20, alone.), just on those three sites, alone. And you were the one who previously said the two verses "cannot not be harmonized", I believe, before now saying they "should not be harmonized".

    I said there was nothing to harmonize, to begin with, for they were never in any sort of DIS-harmony, which statement I stand by.

    There is an old adage which states:

    "A text out of context is a pretext to a proof-text."

    I agree.

    And I will add that the practice is the paragon ("ideal" ;)) of textbook examples of "eisegesis" in action, as well.

    Ed
     
    #11 EdSutton, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2009
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I read Salamander's original post over several times and finally concluded that he actually meant the same as you. It isn't his words that are as poorly chosen as his puncutation to covey his meaning. Observe the difference that a small change in puncuation makes --
    I think Sal intended to state that Jesus was the administrator. Sal can confirm, but I think you both agreed from the start.
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2009
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Grace may be in order then. John 3:22 through 4:3 (KJV) --
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
    For John was not yet cast into prison.

    Then there arose a question between [some] of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
    And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all [men] come to him.
    John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
    Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
    He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
    He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
    He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
    And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
    He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
    For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
    The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
    He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. ​

    Verse 3:22 speaks of Jesus coming into Judea and verse 4:3 speaks of Him leaving Judea.

    There is very little interveining information given between the verses in question. We only learn three major things: that John was "also" baptising (that word implies that Jesus was baptising); that John was not in prison (only relevant if John is doing some of the baptisms himself personally, as we know he did); and John's lengthy answer to his disciples.
     
    #13 franklinmonroe, Jan 4, 2009
  14. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um, Ed, the administrator administers. Jesus IS in charge, but actually the Holy Ghost performed the baptism, not water baptism. he disciples performed this. Now if you had said Jesus was the Director....
     
    #14 Salamander, Jan 5, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...