Commentary on Isaiah

Page 2 of 5 (82 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 81 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 10:25 AM

Ted Hans:

5 Solas, I can see from your post count that you are relatively new to the forum. You have listed some of Young's credentials but it is a miss fire with George because George disagrees profoundly with Young's view of the scripture. Below is what i am referring to & scholars who hold such a position are not real scholars in George's view

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."

 

I never said those who hold to the Chicago Statement were not "real scholars."  What I state is that they allow their theological presuppositions to control their understanding of scripture.  Therefore, according to them, the earth was subjected to a universal flood, contrary to all evidence.  How do they know?  "The bible told me so!"  But only according to their presuppositions. 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 382
Sacrifice | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 10:36 AM

Ted Hans:

5 Solas, I can see from your post count that you are relatively new to the forum. You have listed some of Young's credentials but it is a miss fire with George because George disagrees profoundly with Young's view of the scripture. Below is what i am referring to & scholars who hold such a position are not real scholars in George's view

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."

I see says the blind man, so he would not appreciate: http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=525

Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...

Yours In Christ

Posts 2706
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 10:41 AM

George Somsel:
I never said those who hold to the Chicago Statement were not "real scholars." 

Common on George you do not respect their scholarship, the forum is full of your quotes Wink. What can i say, you called Young an idiot, need i say any more Stick out tongue.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 2706
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 10:46 AM

5 Solas:
Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...

See this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/p/11287/88406.aspx#88406

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 10:54 AM

Ted Hans:

George Somsel:
I never said those who hold to the Chicago Statement were not "real scholars." 

Common on George you do not respect their scholarship, the forum is full of your quotes Wink. What can i say, you called Young an idiot, need i say any more Stick out tongue.

I still say he doesn't know how to read a book—at least when it comes to the bible he throws all common sense out the window and is dominated by his presuppositions.   He may be a scholar, but a scholar of the text of the bible, a scholar of the language of the bible, but not a scholar of the proper method of interpreting a text.  Imams are scholars too—scholars of the text of the Quran, but not religion or anything else.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2706
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:01 AM

George Somsel:
I still say he doesn't know how to read a book—at least when it comes to the bible he throws all common sense out the window and is dominated by his presuppositions.   He may be a scholar, but a scholar of the text of the bible, a scholar of the language of the bible, but not a scholar of the proper method of interpreting a text.  Imams are scholars too—scholars of the text of the Quran, but not religion or anything else.

Thanks for confirming my point, he is not a REAL scholar as per your definition.

Forum Guidelines: hint, hintEmbarrassed.

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 29
RMC | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:04 AM

Wow - I can see that I am in WAY over my head, at least in comparison to the scholarly views here.  Whew!  This is going to be an incredible study next year - I'm looking forward to it!  

Mark - Thank you so much for the screen shots. They are very helpful!  Unfortunately, barring a Christmas miracle, the NICOT is just not going to happen for me.  I'm just not scholarly enough to justify the expense.  However, the NIV application commentary is doable - I'm going to take a better look at that when I get a chance, thank you!  I'm also looking at Motyer.  I need something that's going to help with the interpretation part of the inductive study - context, language study, historical information, etc.

As far as the finer points being brought up, I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to contribute much to this conversation, but it is fascinating reading.  This thread will be interesting to come back to and thoroughly digest after I have a chance to do my own study.  As far as the original purpose of the thread, I do hold firmly to inspired biblical inerrancy (in its original language, as originally written - I do not hold to inerrancy of translations or even of the manuscripts that have been handed down, although I do hold to their reliability)  and would prefer a commentary that holds to this view as well.  In other words, for my purposes, if Matthew 1:22-23 says that Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy, I'm going to go with that unless it can be shown that that isn't what Matthew originally said.  It's fascinating to me to go into the original language and see how Matthew saw this as a Messianic prophecy, and to see how the multiple fulfillment of prophecy works out.  I just love the depths of God's word.

So thankful that we have a God who speaks to both the simple and the educated in His word!  Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, and that's good enough for me Angel

Posts 382
Sacrifice | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:11 AM

Ted Hans:

5 Solas:
Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...

See this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/p/11287/88406.aspx#88406

Ted,

Thanks that is an eye-opener. George you will be in our prayers (literally).

 

Yours In Christ

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:12 AM

Ted Hans:
Thanks for confirming my point, he is not a REAL scholar as per your definition.

You are attempting to twist my words, Ted.  I would have expected better from you.  Many are scholars in some field, but not in others.  I wouldn't attempt to speak regarding physics though I can speak regarding the bible and many things related thereto.  Young and others have their strengths, but they are not in understanding the intention of the text of the bible.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:16 AM

RMC:

As far as the finer points being brought up, I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to contribute much to this conversation, but it is fascinating reading.  This thread will be interesting to come back to and thoroughly digest after I have a chance to do my own study.  As far as the original purpose of the thread, I do hold firmly to inspired biblical inerrancy (in its original language, as originally written - I do not hold to inerrancy of translations or even of the manuscripts that have been handed down, although I do hold to their reliability)  and would prefer a commentary that holds to this view as well.  In other words, for my purposes, if Matthew 1:22-23 says that Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy, I'm going to go with that unless it can be shown that that isn't what Matthew originally said.  It's fascinating to me to go into the original language and see how Matthew saw this as a Messianic prophecy, and to see how the multiple fulfillment of prophecy works out.  I just love the depths of God's word.

What kind of inerrancy is that?  First you must know the original languages.  Then you must have the autographs (long since turned to dust).  I would contend that we have the word of God today—including in any decent translation.  It is the message conveyed by the text that informs our life in our relationship with God and our neighbor.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2706
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:46 AM

George Somsel:
You are attempting to twist my words, Ted.  I would have expected better from you.  Many are scholars in some field, but not in others.  I wouldn't attempt to speak regarding physics though I can speak regarding the bible and many things related thereto.  Young and others have their strengths, but they are not in understanding the intention of the text of the bible.

Sorry George, it is not my intention to twist your words. I guess reading many of your views in the forum and Newsgroup has led me to this conclusion. You did use  strong language to describe conservative Scholarship (The Newsgroup has been taken down by Logos but the Forum is still up).

Since you have clarified your position then accept my apologies.

Regards

Where is the forum Guidelines? Wink

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 1501
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:56 AM

George Somsel:

I never said those who hold to the Chicago Statement were not "real scholars."  What I state is that they allow their theological presuppositions to control their understanding of scripture.  Therefore, according to them, the earth was subjected to a universal flood, contrary to all evidence.  How do they know?  "The bible told me so!"  But only according to their presuppositions. 

And you don't have presuppositions that control your understanding of Scripture? I highly doubt it! 

Contrary to all the evidence? You do realize that ALL evidence is neutral right? This is because ALL evidence must be interpreted. What you should have said was "contrary to YOUR interpretation of the evidence".

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:13 PM

Joshua Garcia:

George Somsel:

I never said those who hold to the Chicago Statement were not "real scholars."  What I state is that they allow their theological presuppositions to control their understanding of scripture.  Therefore, according to them, the earth was subjected to a universal flood, contrary to all evidence.  How do they know?  "The bible told me so!"  But only according to their presuppositions. 

And you don't have presuppositions that control your understanding of Scripture? I highly doubt it! 

Contrary to all the evidence? You do realize that ALL evidence is neutral right? This is because ALL evidence must be interpreted. What you should have said was "contrary to YOUR interpretation of the evidence".

 

Of course I have presuppositions, but my presuppositions are that the writers of scripture were human beings with the abilities and knowledge of their contemporaries—not that they were infused with some knowledge of history and science beyond that of their contemporaries.  That they had a superior viewpoint of the relations of God, self, neighbors is granted or we wouldn't be using their writings to guide us today.  I also think that the views set forth in scripture developed over time and did not decend full-grown from the brow of God like Athena from Zeus when they were first written down.  We must seek to discern the intent of the writings and then further to follow the trail of breadcrumbs leading to the NT.

P.S.:  The difference is that my presuppositions do not prescribe what the interpretation of any passage will be.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:43 PM

George Somsel:
Of course I have presuppositions, but my presuppositions are that the writers of scripture were human beings with the abilities and knowledge of their contemporaries—not that they were infused with some knowledge of history and science beyond that of their contemporaries.

George Somsel:
The difference is that my presuppositions do not prescribe what the interpretation of any passage will be.

If the Bible inspired, inerrant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as the inspired, errant word of God. If it's not the inspired, errant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as an ordinary fallible text.

Whichever position we take on God's role in the writing of scripture has a massive impact on what our interpretation will be. I think most evangelicals are pretty up front about that. It's up to you whether you disagree on our view of the Bible, but its rather silly to pretend that your presuppositions don't affect your interpretation. All our presuppositions affect our interpretation, which is why it's so important to get them right.

It's also worth pointing out that for evangelicals our view of scripture has largely been determined from Scripture itself. I don't mean because of a particular proof text that 'proves' the Bible is the Word of God, but because we have tested it and found it to be trustworthy in our own experience. We live by it, and it hasn't let us down. What is says about God and about us is borne out in our own experience. Experientially, it has proved itself reliable, and we're therefore prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt where there are uncertainties.

Posts 10309
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:44 PM

RMC ... there's is NO WAY that you can not use all the Logos resources profitably.  Which scholar ever started out 'scholarly'? I say this as a compliment. Granted ... money can often be a challenge!


Posts 1501
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:44 PM

George Somsel:

P.S.:  The difference is that my presuppositions do not prescribe what the interpretation of any passage will be.

Really? Why do you interpret the days in Genesis to be longer than normal days? Surely this has nothing to do with your presupposition that the Earth has existed for billions of years.

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 1:10 PM

Mark Barnes:

If the Bible inspired, inerrant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as the inspired, errant word of God. If it's not the inspired, errant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as an ordinary fallible text.

Whichever position we take on God's role in the writing of scripture has a massive impact on what our interpretation will be. I think most evangelicals are pretty up front about that. It's up to you whether you disagree on our view of the Bible, but its rather silly to pretend that your presuppositions don't affect your interpretation. All our presuppositions affect our interpretation, which is why it's so important to get them right.

You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.  Ex 22.18

Does this mean

  1. That there is a possible use of words and objects to bring about some event in real life?
  2. That one who seeks to do such should be put to death?

How many witches have you executed lately?  It's in there so according to that view, it is the inspired word of God. 

 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 1:12 PM

Joshua Garcia:

George Somsel:

P.S.:  The difference is that my presuppositions do not prescribe what the interpretation of any passage will be.

Really? Why do you interpret the days in Genesis to be longer than normal days? Surely this has nothing to do with your presupposition that the Earth has existed for billions of years.

 

I don't interpret the days of Genesis as anything other than a framework to support the teaching that God did not create man to be a drudge but that he should take a day for R & R and for spiritual renovation.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 1501
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 1:13 PM

George Somsel:

Mark Barnes:

If the Bible inspired, inerrant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as the inspired, errant word of God. If it's not the inspired, errant Word of God, then it needs to be interpreted as an ordinary fallible text.

Whichever position we take on God's role in the writing of scripture has a massive impact on what our interpretation will be. I think most evangelicals are pretty up front about that. It's up to you whether you disagree on our view of the Bible, but its rather silly to pretend that your presuppositions don't affect your interpretation. All our presuppositions affect our interpretation, which is why it's so important to get them right.

 

You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.  Ex 22.18

Does this mean

  1. That there is a possible use of words and objects to bring about some event in real life?
  2. That one who seeks to do such should be put to death?

How many witches have you executed lately?  It's in there so according to that view, it is the inspired word of God. 

 

 

 

Two words: different covenant.

 

Posts 1501
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 1:19 PM

George Somsel:

 

I don't interpret the days of Genesis as anything other than a framework to support the teaching that God did not create man to be a drudge but that he should take a day for R & R and for spiritual renovation.

If the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six normal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does?

The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They are permitting scientific hypotheses—mere human opinions that have no divine authority whatsoever—to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted. [1]

1. John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning : The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam (Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group, 2001), 22.

 

Page 2 of 5 (82 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS