Psalms 51:5 in Light of ROBI

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 16, 2008.

  1. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalms 51:5 in Light of ROBI (Rules of Biblical Interpretation)

    Here are the stated rules of this debate. One must first state or point us to their list of Rules for Biblical Interpretation and then proceed to apply them to the following verse. Psalms 51:5. Debate will center not only on the list of their rules, whether or not they are fair and cover all necessary areas, but as to their fairness in applying the rules and as to the conclusions they draw from that usage of their rules. Let the debate roll!

    P.S. We want to see some sound philosophy employed. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #1 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2008
  2. readmore

    readmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Just wanted to say, great idea! Can't wait to see the responses.)
     
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a note to expedite this thread. One might list or point to their list of rules of biblical interpretation, and then just briefly note (for example by the ‘#5’ or whatever the number of the rule might be) at the point in their interpretation which they are using that rule to guide their explanation. Certainly any other ideas as to how this can be accomplished with the least amount of words would be appreciated.
     
  4. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well the context of verse 5 is King David's repentance and confession to God for his sin with Bathsheba.
     
  5. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: I have a question about this. It is not that I would disagree necessarily, but where does this information come from? Do the original manuscripts actually give us this information, as it is usually stated in most versions if not all at the start of the chapter, or is this simply an educated guess by the translators?
     
  6. Sgt. Fury

    Sgt. Fury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    This will likely get down to a debate on "original sin". In fact, that was probably the idea, which is okay. I don't know about ROBI, except that if one's interpretation of a passage of Scripture contradicts another clear passage, then the interpretation is probably wrong.

    Anyway, here's the text from the KJV:

    Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    I think this speaks more of the fact that his mother was sinful more than anything. I'm not talking bad about David's mama, but even the best of us have sinned.

    When he mentions himself, it's in a passive voice, "was shapen".

    We don't sin because we're sinners. We're sinners because we sin.
     
  7. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following list of Rules of Biblical Interpretation developed by a godly man used mightily of the Lord in days gone past. I have incorporated a slight change in rule #3 to allow for the mention of historical/cultural influences. Other than this single change, it has not been developed or written by myself. It is not under any copy write laws to my knowledge as it was written well over 150 years ago.

    1.) Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can be, as not to contradict each other.
    (2.) Language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse.
    (3.) Respect is always to be had to the general scope and design of the speaker or writer with attention to historical/cultural influences.
    (4.) Texts that are consistent with either theory, prove neither.
    (5.) Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.


    I will break up my interpretation according to the rules of interpretation I have mentioned. It would probably be wise for us to take one rule at a time and lay out the best we can the information we can glean that would cover an honest attempt to fulfill the obligation of the rule upon the passage in question. May I suggest that any and all that so desire to participate in this debate start with number three (#3) and offer their ideas as to the general scope and design of the writer in this chapter and any historical/cultural influences that might aide in an honest attempt to interpret this passage with wisdom? It seemed as if there was some agreement that this issue is one that is needed to be covered carefully. I will try and do the same. Together we should be able to compile some useful evidence in understanding this passage better.
     
  8. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very simple, in Romans 5:12 tells us, when Adam sinned, and he died by sin. SO, the death passed upon all men, because all have sinned.

    We did not make sin or commit sin at early age. We already received sin come from our mother in the womb, because of one man(Adam) sinned, so, the death(spiritual death) passed unto all people through all generations to now. Adam did not die quickly when ate fruit same time, but his spiritual immediately separated from God, and his spiritual became death. He died(physical) over 900 years later.

    King David already received sin from his mother in the womb, because of Adam.

    I believe Romans 5:12 give light on Psalms 51:5 more clear about sin, where we get sin come from.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  9. Sgt. Fury

    Sgt. Fury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Rom 5:12, it was death that passed to all men, not sin. The only thing we inherit from Adam is dying bodies, not dead souls.
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who is this undefined "We"? :smilewinkgrin:

    But I do suspect you will get some sound responses here.

    "The arguments are sound - all sound!"

    Ed
     
  11. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: An excellent post. :thumbs:Just the same, how about giving a shot to the overall thrust of this thread, which is to establish a list of rules and then try and apply them the best one can to better establish the points you believe are truth? For instance, is there any historical/cultural evidence that you might understand that might shed light on the truth of this passage? (Rule #3 in the rules I am following suggests this as an important key to a proper interpretation)
     
  12. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    1.) Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can be, as not to contradict each other.
    (2.) Language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse.
    (3.) Respect is always to be had to the general scope and design of the speaker or writer with attention to historical/cultural influences.
    (4.) Texts that are consistent with either theory, prove neither.
    (5.) Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.


    I will start my personal presentation in light of the OP with the following remarks in light of rule three (3) of the Rules of Biblical Interpretation listed above that I have chosen to follow.

    (3) In dealing with the historical /cultural issue of interpretation, I can see nothing more enlightening and helpful in understanding this passage than the fact Alfred Edersheim, one of the most well know renown scholars on Jewish social life and history, amplifies for the reader. In his book “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” he writes, “So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings, the great doctrines of Original Sin, and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis.” In his foot note he states, This is the view expressed by all Jewish dogmatic writers. See also Weber, Alstsynag. Theol. P. 217

    In another place in the same book, he states that “the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin, through the fall of Adam, and of the consequent entire and helpless corruption of our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism.”

    This I believe helps us establish the historical and cultural setting in which the writer, David, being a Jew, lived. It helps us establish clearly the framework that surrounded and molded the theological notions that he would or did espouse, original sin or constitutional depravity not even a remote possibility, for to do so would have went absolutely counter to the established views of the very leaders and Rabbis of that day. Due to these clear facts presented by Alfred Edersheim, I believe it is all but impossible to believe that David, a Jew, would be establishing in any way a doctrine or dogma that would be at antipodes with that which we know was completely outside of the framework of Jewish thought in the day preceding, present, or subsequent to the time this Psalm was penned within the corpus of Jewish thought and belief.

    I conclude that one notion this passage cannot be establishing is the notion of original sin due to the fair examination of the historical/cultural evidence I believe is valid. Whatever this verse is establishing must of necessity, according to this evidence, be something other than the establishment or acceptance of the dogma of original sin.
     
    #12 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2008
  13. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: You and I , of course!:laugh:




    HP: Are there any ideas or points you might have concerning this particular rule (rule #3) of biblical interpretation that might have an impact on a proper and sound interpretation of this verse and chapter?
     
  14. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: I appreciate your response, and do not want to be see as simply critical, but this thread is an exercise in applying sound rules of interpretation to a particular passage. Can you show us which rule it is that you are employing, whether it is one that has been listed or another you see as relevant, and how you apply it in interpreting this verse?
     
    #14 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 18, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2008
  15. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    To stay focused, I believe it would be helpful to go through these rules of biblical interpretation one at a time to keep us all on the same page for a little while at least, if possible. Certainly if you believe the rule that is being employed and discussed is unsound or does not apply, feel free to state your disagreement or bring up any other rule of your own making or that which has been developed by another that you feel is pertinent to this discussion.
     
    #15 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 18, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2008
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not especially, for I have not given it a lot of thought. I just figure that some of the responses might well be more on the order of "noise" than necessarily "light".

    And may I tack on that the suggested list of rules proposed by you in post #7, or anyone else's suggested set of rules are all subjective, to some degree, at best.

    Ed
     
    #16 EdSutton, Feb 18, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2008
  17. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    I enter late, but haven't looked, promise!

    My first rule is which Scripture? KJV Ps51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." OAV: Ps51:5, "For I know my transgressions and my sin is always before me."

    Perhaps we have found the best of ROBI right next to 51:5!
     
  18. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    As said, "Sgt. Fury: This will likely get down to a debate on "original sin".
     
  19. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Being tardy is one thing, not evidently reading the OP yet another. :laugh:

    Seriously, try to establish your points concerning the verse by a list of rules of interpretation, even if it is one you establish on your own. That is the object of the thread. :)
     
  20. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Why stop at simply 'rules' as being subjective? I would think that anything in which faith is relevant is somewhat subjective, at least in this world. The truth is that a mans views arrived at from the preponderance of evidence he can gather can either in the last day be found in accordance to truth or not.

    So what are we to do in this present world? Due to the fact that we do not hold to what we see as truth by absolute knowledge, and there is in fact in this world an element of subjectivity involved, what would your advice be to us? Should we all simply stand around in a daze of uncertainty and proclaim that due to the subjectivity of matters of faith that no truth can be realized with certainty, or should we do the very best we can with the wisdom and logic God empowers us by with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to examine, form conclusions, and share with others that which we by faith believe is in accordance to truth?
     

Share This Page

Loading...