Support your claims

Got about two years? Seriously, as to the applicability of different aspects of the law to today you will find a BIG variance among orthodox Christians, even among Baptists.

I think I know to what you refer, however, and it involves "higher criticism". That's when a mere human being thinks himself to be "higher" than God and therefore sits in "criticism" of god's Word.

 

What was happening in the New Testament prior to Jesus death on the cross? With his death came a new age, an age of grace, a fulfillment of the law, that changed all of the rules that we had to follow. There was a transitional phase involved. It all has to be studied out, and is not something that can be settled in a post or two. Basically, the epistles that Paul wrote are the ones that deal with what we are under in our times. That in no way means we should throw out the rest of the Bible. It is still good for learning doctrine, for wisdom, for everything but for the laws that we are under.
Gina

 

I am moving this topic to General, which will automatically close it in the Ladies Forum. You may resume the discussion in General. Thanks, JOY

 

PJ wrote:
> I think I know to what you refer, however, and it involves "higher criticism". That's when a mere human being thinks himself to be "higher" than God and therefore sits in "criticism" of god's Word.

Oh, come on. Higher criticism is a blessing from God.

Moderates are selective interpreters. Liberals are selective interpreters. Conservatives are selective interpreters. The Jews that read the OT in the xth century BC were much truer to believing the OT as it was intended to be read than conservatives are today. Conservatives just take the way that grandpa and grandma interpreted scripture on the farm around the turn of the century, declare that "common sense" and accuse those to the left of them of being selective.

For example, in the first chapter of Genesis, the thing that is created on the second day is commonly translated "firmament" (Heb. raqia, "hammered"; means "tin dish" in Phoenician). This is the large vault in the sky that separates the heavenly chaos-waters (Heb. mabul) above from the air bubble of the flat-earth cosmology. Based on its context in Psalm 19 and Job 37, this firmament was thought of as a large, hammered "bell", since "The heavens are telling the glory of God...their sound has gone out through all the earth."

It held in the "mabul", which we translate "flood", but which actually designates the heavenly ocean realm above the firmament (and not just a simple rainstorm). Hence, the flood account also supports flat-earth cosmology, for it was the time when the "mabul" was upon the earth.

Jews in the 4th c.BC would have read Genesis 1 and 6-8 as an affirmation of the flat-earth cosmology and God as the Creator of this system. Today's "conservatives" would have been "higher critics", denying the plain reading of the scripture in suggesting that the earth was round. So everyone is selective when they declare something that was originally written to be taken literally to be figurative. It's just that the conservative Baptists deny that they are doing it (and usually get away with it).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, come on. Higher criticism is a blessing from God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Higher criticism is based on denying supernatural revelation and attributing the writing to various sources and redactors. It is a good thing that God waited until the 1800s to "bless" us with this. It is not to be confused with lower criticism whose job is to establish the text from the varying witnesses.

A few problems with the rest of your post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For example, in the first chapter of Genesis, the thing that is created on the second day is commonly ranslated "firmament" (Heb. raqia, "hammered"; means "tin dish" in Phoenician).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is actually not commonly translated firmament in MVs. It is called an expanse, which is what BDB calls it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is the large vault in the sky that separates the heavenly chaos-waters (Heb. mabul) above from the air bubble of the flat-earth cosmology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no indication of any "air bubble above the flat earth." You know that. (You persist with the "flat earth cosmology" as if it is real.) It refers to the separation of the waters above (the water canopy) from the waters below (the oceans). The raqia is where the birds fly (Gen 1:20) and where the lights are (Gen 1:17). The water canopy kept the temperature on the earth and provided necessary dew at night to water the ground with a mist. This is shown by the modern science of weather phenomenon (dew point and temps).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Based on its context in Psalm 19<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here it refers to the revelatory nature of general revelation. The heavens declare the glory of God by virtue of their majesty and beauty. It has no reference to a large, hammered bell.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and Job 37, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not used in Job 37.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It held in the "mabul", which we translate "flood", but which actually designates the heavenly ocean realm above the firmament (and not just a simple rainstorm). Hence, the flood account also supports flat-earth cosmology, for it was the time when the "mabul" was upon the earth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, mabul is never used of this "heavenly ocean realm." Get out your concordance and look. In every use, it refers to the flood on the earth which Scripture tells us came both from above and below (Gen 7:10-12). If the earth was flat, there would have been no flood for the mabul would have fallen off the sides.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jews in the 4th c.BC would have read Genesis 1 and 6-8 as an affirmation of the flat-earth cosmology and God as the Creator of this system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How in the world do you know what 2400 hundred years old Jews would have done or thought?

 

Let me just run down to the seminary with the kiddies after I fix lunch and spend a few hours trying to figure out what y'all are getting into and how it relates!
Come on guys, the seminary library isn't even OPEN for a few more days. And what in the world does some bubble of flat air cosmology stuff have to do with Keeper's question? Sounds like a bad hair day to me!
Gina

 

Gina, when you moved this to the "General Discussion" forum you should have expected our two resident "Generals" one liberal and the other conservative, would soon dominate the discussion.

But, back to the issue. I agree with Keeper, and so does the bible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness." The entire OT is profitable, and so is the entire NT. When somebody tells me that some part of the NT does not apply to me I immediately ask them what it is teaching that they don't want to obey!

 

I agree with you Tom, and yet there are those hyper-dispensationalists who go way beyond what Ryrie intended in his Dispensationalism Today and declare that the sermon on the mount is not for today, or perhaps the entire gospels/acts have no value for today. I even heard one boil it down to just a few chapters in Ephesians. I believe that there is a distinction between Israel and the church, but to expain away much of the NT because it is for the kingdom, misses the point intended by Ryrie.

Chick

 

"Gina, when you moved this to the 'General Discussion' forum"
QUOTED BY THOMAS CASSIDY

Uh, Joy, about that authority thing. You heard the man!
&gt;doing a happy dance and singing&lt; I've got the pow-ah! I've got the pow-ah! Yeeahh!

 

PL wrote:
&gt; Higher criticism is based on denying supernatural revelation

No it isn't.

&gt; and attributing the writing to various sources and redactors.

Of course it came from sources. They didn't just make the material up.

&gt;&gt; For example, in the first chapter of Genesis, the thing that is created on the second day is commonly ranslated "firmament" (Heb. raqia, "hammered"; means "tin dish" in Phoenician).

&gt; It is actually not commonly translated firmament in MVs. It is called an expanse, which is what BDB calls it.

I could care less how it is translated into English. The Hebrew says "raqia", which indicates a hard, hammered metal object.

&gt;&gt; This is the large vault in the sky that separates the heavenly chaos-waters (Heb. mabul) above from the air bubble of the flat-earth cosmology.

&gt; There is no indication of any "air bubble above the flat earth." You know that. (You persist with the "flat earth cosmology" as if it is real.)

That's the plain meaning of the text. Is the plain meaning not important?

&gt; It refers to the separation of the waters above (the water canopy) from the waters below (the oceans).

Funny how the space shuttle didn't crash into it.

&gt; The raqia is where the birds fly (Gen 1:20) and where the lights are (Gen 1:17). The water canopy kept the temperature on the earth and provided necessary dew at night to water the ground with a mist. This is shown by the modern science of weather phenomenon (dew point and temps).

There is NOTHING Biblical or scientific to support this garbage.

&gt;&gt; Based on its context in Psalm 19

&gt; Here it refers to the revelatory nature of general revelation. The heavens declare the glory of God by virtue of their majesty and beauty. It has no reference to a large, hammered bell.

Ps. 19:4: "Their sound has gone out through all the earth."

&gt;&gt; and Job 37,

&gt; Not used in Job 37.

Job 37:18: "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?"

&gt;&gt; It held in the "mabul", which we translate "flood", but which actually designates the heavenly ocean realm above the firmament (and not just a simple rainstorm). Hence, the flood account also supports flat-earth cosmology, for it was the time when the "mabul" was upon the earth.

&gt; Actually, mabul is never used of this "heavenly ocean realm." Get out your concordance and look.

"An understanding of the Priestly story of the Flood depends materially on the correct translation of the word "mabul". "Mabul" does not mean "flood", "inundation", or even "destruction", but it is a technical term for a part of the world structure, namely the heavenly ocean. This heavenly sea, which is above the firmament (raqia), empties downward through latticed windows (II Kings 7:2,19)", Von Rad, Genesis.

&gt;&gt; Jews in the 4th c.BC would have read Genesis 1 and 6-8 as an affirmation of the flat-earth cosmology and God as the Creator of this system.

&gt; How in the world do you know what 2400 hundred years old Jews would have done or thought?

Through sound study into their culture.

 

Yeee-up! Anything you say can and will be used against you, and if I don't like it, POOF, out it goes into Bob's forum. (Snicker, snicker!)

Now seriously, sometimes our gentlemen step lightly into the "Halls of Estrogen" aka the Ladies forum, so I thought I'd move it out here so that it would get the good discussion it deserves! (Must be those combat boots I've been accused of wearing.)

 

What is BWSmith talking about? I'm lost...what happened to the topic this began as?

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Observation is the first step. Read the Bible text over and over. As you observe what is being said in the Bible, take notes. Here are some questions to keep in mind: Who was the writer? To whom was he writing? To what location and from what location was he writing? What was the situation or occasion? When did it occur? What historical or cultural factors might have a bearing on understanding the passage?
Keep in mind that there are several “gaps” you will have to hurdle: language, culture, history, and geography. If you have a good study Bible, such as the MacArthur Study Bible or The Ryrie Study Bible, many of the above questions are answered in an introduction printed at the beginning of each book.
Interpretation is the second step. When you interpret Scripture it is important to do your own work. There are certain study tools you can use, but don’t resort to commentaries at this point. Dig in and determine what the passage means, as you go through the following steps:

(1) Underline key words and phrases and define them in terms of the context—what the passage is saying. Underline only the most basic and important words at first, then use your Bible dictionary, concordance, and word study book to study meanings.
(2) Paraphrase (put into your own words) each verse or section of the passage. If this grows laborious, try putting the basic thought conveyed in a passage or paragraph into one sentence. This may seem like a lot of work (and for some people it is), but it forces you to think over the meaning of the passage and put it into your own words, a process that is extremely beneficial.
(3) List the divine truths and principles in the verse, paragraph, or passage. Ask the following questions: (i) Is there a command God has given? (ii) Is there an example to follow? (iii) Is there some sin I should avoid? (iv) Is there a warning against false teaching of any kind? (v) Is there a basic doctrinal truth about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan, or man? (vi) Is there a promise from God to Christian believers, Israel, the church, or unbelievers? (Note the conditions of the promise, as for example in Matthew 6:33.)
(4) Cross reference as many truths, or principles, as possible. Do you find these same truths taught in other parts of Scripture? Use your concordance, or other Bible study tools, to discover these truths. List at least one or two truths, but don’t get bogged down with trying to list six or eight.

Evaluation is the third step. Here is where you stop to check what commentators and other scholars have said about the passage—from what I have said in the MacArthur Study Bible to what various biblical scholars have said in The Nelson Study Bible. You have already covered this to some extent in doing your observation and interpretation, but go back again to see what divine truths or principles are emphasized by the Bible commentaries and the study Bibles in your library. You may modify your own understandings or conclusions, but don’t always think you have to agree with every commentator. Make them prove themselves. As somebody once said, “The Bible is a good commentary on the commentaries.”
Application is the last step. How can the passage become relevant for your life? What does the Lord want you to stop doing? What does He want you to start doing? What should you be doing more often?
Keep in mind that application of Bible truth does not have to be a profound, life-or-death issue. You can apply God’s Word right at home—every morning as you’re getting ready for work or every evening during that crucial dinner hour when everybody’s tired and hungry. You can apply it at church, in your neighborhood, on the job anywhere you have relationships with others. It might be interesting to keep tabs on how many applications of Scripture you actually make. Record them in your study notebook. How many do you have after a month? Three months? A year?
All of the other steps and principles in Bible study will be of little use unless we finally employ practical application. That’s precisely what Paul was talking about when he told Timothy that all Scripture “is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
Biblical teaching, or doctrine, is basic. Here we have found out what Scripture says and means. But the final and crucial questions are: So what? What are you going to do about it? How do you use it in your own life?
That’s where the rebuking, correcting, and training come in. As Scripture rebukes us, it reveals our sin and shows us how to and why we should change. Our next step is correcting our course, changing our path, developing new habits. It all adds up to being trained in the Word—disciples in whom the Word of Christ dwells richly as we give thanks to Him (see Col. 3:15–17).

To Sum It Up

Interpretation of Scripture can be a confusing battleground if sound objective principles are not employed. According to 2 Timothy 2:15 (consult the nkjv translation), the Christian is to learn to rightly divide the word of truth—“to cut it straight.” Examples of cutting Scripture in a “crooked way”—misinterpreting it completely or partially—have been plentiful throughout history.
One basic error that befalls some Bible students is to try to make a point at the price of proper interpretation. In other words, don’t proof text a biased opinion in order to make the Bible say what you want it to say.
Another basic error is spiritualizing or allegorizing Scripture. This “Little Bo Peep” approach allows the imagination to run wild in order to get a “meaning” from a biblical passage. When allegorical language is used in Scripture it is usually fairly obvious. Trouble starts when Bible teachers, preachers, and others start allegorizing biblical passages that don’t have any allegories in them.
A basic Bible study method is the inductive approach. Key steps in the inductive approach include observation, interpretation, evaluation, and most important application. Scripture teaches, rebukes, corrects, and trains us (see 2 Tim. 3:16), as we let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (see Col. 3:15–17).
John MacArthur, Jr., How to Get the Most from God’s Word, (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing) 1997.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BW's just hung up on "a hard, hammered metal object." If you want to find out where he got it from, go to www.talkorigins.org, but if I were you I wouldn't bother. It's where his soul got lost!

 

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

I think this verse sums it up as used by brother wellsjs! AMEN!!

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

To all: My apologies that we hijacked your thread. BW is asserting some incorrect theological points that need to be answered.

To BW: On higher criticism, if you do not believe it is based on denying supernatural revelation, then you do not understand it. Let me quote four theses for which you can read the entire article. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone on “your side” of the argument. Historical-Critical Method in its Application to Statements Concerning Events in the Holy Scriptures by Christian Hartlich

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thesis 5: The writers of "sacred history" have at their disposal no "higher capability of knowledge" that places them in a position to make truthful statements concerning events which lie outside the boundaries drawn by the constitution of knowledge common to all human beings.
Thesis 6: The concept of factuality (Tatsächlichkeit) was unknown to the writers of sacred history. Their way of narrating is naive, insofar as it takes place without thorough critical reflection on the conditions underlying statements about events with claims of truth. In their narrations of events they thus allow heterogeneous elements to flow together which the historian today must fundamentally separate.
Thesis 7: The writers of sacred history, like that found in the Bible, make use of history as a form in order by this means — an indirect appeal — to call forth faith. Whoever is misled by a misunderstanding of their form of expression and thus conceives the statements of sacred history to be assertions of facts commits a fundamental hermeneutical error.
Thesis 8: A disastrous theological error arises as a consequence of this false hermeneutical perspective, namely, when this "sacred history," which wants to serve and be understood as a means of expression, is itself made the primary object of faith. Faith in the forgiveness of God is something essentially different from holding a story about the forgiveness of God to be true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, I apologize for the length but since you are accusing me of making stuff up, I wanted to verify my information. Higher criticism believes that Scriptural authors have no “higher capability of knowledge” (such as divine inspiration) and thus their writing is naïve and should not be considered an assertion of truth. Thesis 7 is exactly where you live.

Furthermore, the various sources and redactors have no Scriptural basis for most of the places higher criticism calls for it. The biblical doctrine of inspiration does not say that they “just made it up.” Nor does it deny the use of sources for the author. It denies that a redactor edited the works of say, Isaiah or Micah when Scripture testifies to no such thing and gives no evidence to support it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could care less how it is translated into English. The Hebrew says "raqia", which indicates a hard, hammered metal object. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which dictionary are you using for this definition??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PL: There is no indication of any "air bubble above the flat earth." You know that. (You persist with the "flat earth cosmology" as if it is real.) BW: That's the plain meaning of the text. Is the plain meaning not important? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not the plain meaning of the text. The expanse is not an air bubble above a flat earth. It would offer no protection if it were; things would come around it. It can only be a surrounding water canopy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It refers to the separation of the waters above (the water canopy) from the waters below (the oceans). BW:Funny how the space shuttle didn't crash into it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah that’s funny … especially since it is atmosphere. Kind of hard to crash into solid air.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The raqia is where the birds fly (Gen 1:20) and where the lights are (Gen 1:17). The water canopy kept the temperature on the earth and provided necessary dew at night to water the ground with a mist. This is shown by the modern science of weather phenomenon (dew point and temps). BW: There is NOTHING Biblical or scientific to support this garbage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing biblical?? Gen 2:6
Nothing scientific?? Let’s start with the constant temperature meaning no wind therefore evaporation of water goes straight up and falls straight back to the sea from which it evaporated. Let’s continue with the fact that dew and moisture in the air is caused when the temperature approaches the dewpoint and the air becomes saturated. It is what makes the ground wet on some mornings and not on others. It is what causes fog and clouds.

I found reference to your stone vault comes from “pre Christian Egypt and probably Babylonian mythology (TWOT, s.v. “raqia.”). Once again, it shows that I was right that your position denies the revelation from God and depends on sources outside of the biblical realm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ps. 19:4: "Their sound has gone out through all the earth." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

“Sound” is not the word you were referring to. Furthermore, v. 3 could be translated “There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.” (cf. NASB95, NIV margin, RSV, etc.) The point is that they do reveal something about God but not by speaking; it is by their appearance that they sound forth the glory of God. Ever heard a star? Me neither, but I have seen the night sky lit up beyond belief with stars beyond number. It is especially phenomenal in the northern regions away from city lights. Our God is great and there was no sound from the stars; their very appearances sounds forth the glory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Job 37:18: "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This too is a different word (shachaq rather than raqia) and it is a molten or hard mirror, not a bell. If you just want to exchange one word for another we can make all kinds of new “truth.” Job 37:18 most likely does not talk about the raqia. In any case, it does ask Job the question if he is as great as God is. Can he create a universe like God did?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"An understanding of the Priestly story of the Flood depends materially on the correct translation of the word "mabul". "Mabul" does not mean "flood", "inundation", or even "destruction", but it is a technical term for a part of the world structure, namely the heavenly ocean. This heavenly sea, which is above the firmament (raqia), empties downward through latticed windows (II Kings 7:2,19)", Von Rad, Genesis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be much more inclined to use lexical sources. The actual lexicons says “flood.” Check it out. Do you have lexical source that says differently? Who does Van Rad quote for his support of meaning? You cannot just randomly change definitions of words when you don’t like the one in the lexicons. The “priestly story” of the flood depends on an unproven hypothesis (form criticism) and the denial of the fact that God revealed history to Moses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Through sound study into their culture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More likely through pure conjecture based on the point you want to prove.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
To all: My apologies that we hijacked your thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL!