Commentary on Isaiah
I'm going to be starting a study on Isaiah in the new year, and was wondering if you have any recommendations for commentaries. What I'm looking for is something that gives cultural background and insights into the Hebrew text (preferably written in a way that someone who doesn't know Hebrew would understand). My preference is a commentary that is not heavy on application, but gives contextual information written in a way a layperson could understand. Any thoughts?
Comments
-
The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent
http://www.logos.com/product/3637/the-book-of-isaiah
Then there is Motyer
http://www.logos.com/product/601/the-prophecy-of-isaiah
NAC, Cornerstone, and WBC
CTS Commentary Recommendations:
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/library/guides/commentaries-isaiah/
Yours In Christ
0 -
The best commentary on Isaiah I've read is the one by Edward J. Young The Book of Isaiah 3 Volumes
Excellent commentary!
DAL
0 -
RMC said:
I'm going to be starting a study on Isaiah in the new year, and was wondering if you have any recommendations for commentaries.
I am not sure if this is of any help, you may have already come across it:
It's the Logos Product Guide for all things Isaiah.
http://www.bestcommentaries.com/isaiah/
is also helpful, it does say it indicates what is available in Logos format. What is useful, besides a community based rating, is that it gives an indication of whether the commentary is at a level of Technical, Pastoral, Devotional or Special Study.
Maybe if you can given an indication of whether you are purely doing personal study, preparing a sermon series or writing a paper etc it will be able to help those who are best equipped to give more specific recommendations to better serve you.
0 -
Andrew McKenzie said:
I am not sure if this is of any help, you may have already come across it:
It's the Logos Product Guide for all things Isaiah.
http://www.bestcommentaries.com/isaiah/
is also helpful, it does say it indicates what is available in Logos format. What is useful, besides a community based rating, is that it gives an indication of whether the commentary is at a level of Technical, Pastoral, Devotional or Special Study.
Maybe if you can given an indication of whether you are purely doing personal study, preparing a sermon series or writing a paper etc it will be able to help those who are best equipped to give more specific recommendations to better serve you.
That is very helpful - thank you!
I've been looking at Young's commentary - that one caught my eye earlier.This is just personal study - the class I'm a part of will be spending 2012 studying Isaiah. We focus on inductive study, so we tend to focus primarily on the text and move on to the commentaries to complement our study, gain extra insights, and check our own understanding. While I am currently not planning on leading the study, I do like to purchase resources with leading studies in mind as that is a possibility in the future.
0 -
Andrew McKenzie said:
I am not sure if this is of any help, you may have already come across it:
great link Andrew... now I've got to check the links for other books!
0 -
5 Solas said:
The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent
I wouldn't trust Young to take out the garbage. His introduction was so annoying that I was tempted to throw it against the wall. I would suggest Sweeny's work on Is 1-39 in the FOTL series.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
It's not a commentary but I just picked up Encountering the Book of Isaiah, part of the Encountering Biblical Studies collection. It written by Bryan E Beyer. Love to hear some input from the scholars on it, others in the series have been a nice addition to study and use in our Bible College.
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
bestcommentaries.com ranks John Oswalt's commentary on Isaiah in the NICOT as the best by far. They rank nobody else within 5 points of him on their scale. That is significant.
In my opinion that is the truth. It is a tremendous work from a great scholar. I am probably biased because John Oswalt was one of my professors in seminary. I have never known anyone who combined such scholarship with genuine deep spirituality and piety.
By all means get your hands on Oswalt's two volumes on Isaiah. I may be a little biased on this one, but I am a lot right on it.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
George Somsel said:5 Solas said:
The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent
http://www.logos.com/product/3637/the-book-of-isaiah
I wouldn't trust Young to take out the garbage. His introduction was so annoying that I was tempted to throw it against the wall. I would suggest Sweeny's work on Is 1-39 in the FOTL series.
Do you not like Young because he doesn't present Isaiah from a "Millennial" "Pre-millennial" point of view? I agree with others who like Young he's great and won't feed you lies like other premillennial/millennial liars do. Just face it Millennialism and premillennialism are just 2 dangerous -isms that will get your soul damned in hell for ever.
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
Do you not like Young because he doesn't present Isaiah from a "Millennial" "Pre-millennial" point of view? I agree with others who like Young he's great and won't feed you lies like other premillennial/millennial liars do. Just face it Millennialism and premillennialism are just 2 dangerous -isms that will get your soul damned in hell for ever.
You haven't been paying attention. I'm not a premillennialist. I'm amillenial. I don't like Young because he's an idiot.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I don't like Young because he's an idiot
George, you're writing like a curmudgeon! I find Young a bit verbose, but I usually look him up if I have a question about Isaiah which the other commentaries don't answer. I guess it's a matter of taste.
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
Do you not like Young because he doesn't present Isaiah from a "Millennial" "Pre-millennial" point of view? I agree with others who like Young he's great and won't feed you lies like other premillennial/millennial liars do. Just face it Millennialism and premillennialism are just 2 dangerous -isms that will get your soul damned in hell for ever.
You might have a point here. I hold a premillennial view AND I am a liar.
EDIT: I forgot to post the commentary that I thought is good. Though it is brief, I think the Bible Knowledge Commentary is pretty good on Isaiah. But then again I am pretty bias. [;)] EBC is good too.
0 -
Michael Childs said:
By all means get your hands on Oswalt's two volumes on Isaiah. I may be a little biased on this one, but I am a lot right on it.
Oswalt is excellent, if rather meaty. He's less dogmatic than Young, and also less stodgy, but demands more from the reader. Yet he's also available in the NIV Application series, which is much more accessible and applied. Unfortunately both his commentaries are only available in sets.
http://www.logos.com/product/5461/niv-application-commentary-old-testament-prophets
http://www.logos.com/product/5185/the-new-international-commentary-on-the-old-and-new-testament
Here are two screenshots for comparison. The first shows Oswalt's NICOT on the right, and Young on the left. The second shows two pages from Oswalt's NIVAC. The format from that commentary is to split comment into three sections, so you need to see an extract from each section for a true comparison.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Though I am A-Mil, I still like Young for the scholarship he brings to the table. I read 'outside' of my theological persuation as often there is A LOT of good stuff in their content overall. I never agree 100% with ANY commentary. As matter a fact, as I mature in grace and truth, 10 years from now I will find some things I do not even agree with in my own ..... Always Reforming. Additionally, you may well note that two of Young's books are required reading at WTS: "Thy Word is Truth" and "My Servants the Prophets." Just because we may disagree with a person somewhere along the line does not mean we need to throw everything they have said to the wind. I have an idea that through Paul withstood Peter to the face (Gal. 2), he still listened and learned from him ....Giovanni Baggio said:George Somsel said:5 Solas said:The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent
I wouldn't trust Young to take out the garbage. His introduction was so annoying that I was tempted to throw it against the wall. I would suggest Sweeny's work on Is 1-39 in the FOTL series.
Do you not like Young because he doesn't present Isaiah from a "Millennial" "Pre-millennial" point of view? I agree with others who like Young he's great and won't feed you lies like other premillennial/millennial liars do. Just face it Millennialism and premillennialism are just 2 dangerous -isms that will get your soul damned in hell for ever.
As Mathison states:
Edward J. Young was one of the founding faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary and taught Old Testament there for many years. His massive three-volume commentary on Isaiah is something of a modern classic among Reformed students of Scripture. It has been replaced in the NICOT series by the fine work of Oswalt, but it should not be relegated to the dust bin. There is much of value in these volumes.
Yours In Christ
0 -
5 Solas said:
Though I am A-Mil, I still like Young for the scholarship he brings to the table. I read 'outside' of my theological persuation as often there is A LOT of good stuff in their content overall. I never agree 100% with ANY commentary. As matter a fact, as I mature in grace and truth, 10 years from now I will find some things I do not even agree with in my own ..... Always Reforming.
My opposition to Young stems not from any eschatological position. My comment on that was simply in response to the Bag's remark. I rather oppose his view of scripture and the tediousness with which he writes. If you would care to post his remarks on Is 7.14, I think that will well demonstrate the problem.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Yes, you made this clear above - however I was not responding to your assertion, I was answering GB.George Somsel said:5 Solas said:Though I am A-Mil, I still like Young for the scholarship he brings to the table. I read 'outside' of my theological persuation as often there is A LOT of good stuff in their content overall. I never agree 100% with ANY commentary. As matter a fact, as I mature in grace and truth, 10 years from now I will find some things I do not even agree with in my own ..... Always Reforming.
My opposition to Young stems not from any eschatological position. My comment on that was simply in response to the Bag's remark. I rather oppose his view of scripture and the tediousness with which he writes. If you would care to post his remarks on Is 7.14, I think that will well demonstrate the problem.
I do not know how to attach texts and all to this forum, but it is online:
http://www.dabar.org/SemReview/Young-Isaiah7.htm
Yours In Christ
0 -
5 Solas said:
I do not know how to attach texts and all to this forum, but it is online:
Young attempts to establish that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus. Shazzam! [li] He knows it all. Am I saying that God could not have put such in his mind? No, that is not what I am saying. God is God and can do whatever he jolly well pleases, but that is not the way he operates. We find that God is faithful and maintains the "rules" by which the universe he has created operates. First, it should be noted that this is designated as a sign. A sign which signifies nothing is not a sign. OK, here is a portion of his statement
Edward J Young said:Why too does not Isaiah make clear who this child is to whom he is referring? From the meager data which he gives there is not sufficient warrant for saying that the child is his own. And certainly there is no warrant for saying that the child is Hezekiah, for as Jerome long ago pointed out, Hezekiah had already been born at this time. What warrant would the wife of Isaiah have for calling a child of hers Immanuel, supposing that there were some child born to her in addition to Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and assuming that this particular child was the sign intended? And what warrant would the wife of Ahaz have for making a similar assumption about the birth of Hezekiah? For if the sign was to have meaning, not only the mother of the child know by direct revelation from God that her own child is the precise sign intended by God, but the nation generally must also know this fact so that it can properly appreciate the sign. Otherwise, the child might be born and the nation would have no means of knowing, unless further revelation were given to it through the prophet, that one particular child was the sign intended by God.
Note that Young attempts to pooh-pooh the idea that Isaiah could have been referencing Hezekiah by stating categorically that Hezekiah had already been born. But had he? The time-line at this point is totally unclear. The AYBD notes
AYBD said:The precise timing of Ahaz’s accession is obscured by the conflicting references in 2 Kgs 16:2 and 2 Chr 28:1 when compared with the contradictory information about the death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:19–20; 18:1). If Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz when he was 25 years old (2 Kgs 18:2), then Ahaz could only have been 11 years old when he became a father since he is said to have been 36 at the time of his death (2 Chr 28:2).
. Edited by Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al sv "Ahaz". New York: Doubleday, 1996.
The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
It is possible, and probably has happened, that an 11 yr old could become a father, but it seems highly unlikely—as does the requirement that he would have died at 36 (possible, but not likely given the details of the record).
Regarding the use of the Hebrew word עלמה to designate the mother he states
Edward J Young said:And this is a good consideration, one which cannot be avoided in any serious study of this particular Messianic prophecy. Why is it that, of the various available words in the Hebrew language, Isaiah selects this particular one for a designation of the mother? …. Why, however, did he choose the word 'almah? The answer is ready at hand, for 'almah is a word which is never used of a married woman.
Really?? Well, perhaps not married, but certainly not a virgin in the modern sense of the term
TANAK said:
2 Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth, For your love is more delightful than wine.3Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance, Your name is like finest oil— Therefore do maidens [עלמות] love you.4Draw me after you, let us run! The king has brought me to his chambers. Let us delight and rejoice in your love, Savoring it more than wine— Like new wine they love you!
Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth, For your love is more delightful than wine.3Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance, Your name is like finest oil— Therefore do
Regarding the name he states
Edward J Young said:The sign, then, which the Lord gives to His people is simply the declaration that the Messiah will be born and that His birth will be of a supernatural kind. Matthew is entirely correct in thus interpreting the verse, when he remarks: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold! a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matthew 1:22,23). And what greater, more comforting sign than this could there be? Those who truly waited for the consolation of Israel need not fear even the folly of their king, for this dark moment of Israel's history God sent a ray of light, the announcement of the sure birth of the promised Redeemer.
But still a sign which is not seen is not a sign. Let us consider the name Emmanuel—"God [is?] with us."
The king was considered to be adopted as the son of God at his accession to the throne.
TANAK said:
4He who is enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord mocks at them.
5Then He speaks to them in anger,
terrifying them in His rage,
6"But I have installed My king
on Zion, My holy mountain!"
7Let me tell of the decree:
the Lord said to me,
"You are My son,
I have fathered you this day.Ps 2:4-7
The author of the Gospel according to Matthew used this passage and understood the "maiden" to be a literal virgin in the modern sense of the term. Such appropriation of an OT passage is not uncommon in the NT. It did not, however, thereby obviate the meaning of the text in its historical context. The sign in Isaiah was that a member of the group at court designated as a member of the עלמות was pregnant and would bear a son who would subsequently become king.
TANAK said:
6For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.
I. e., before the child achieves the status of manhood, the kings whom Ahaz dreaded would be no more.
Judaism 101 said:So what does it mean to become a bar mitzvah? Under Jewish Law, children are not obligated to observe the commandments, although they are encouraged to do so as much as possible to learn the obligations they will have as adults. At the age of 13 (12 for girls), children become obligated to observe the commandments. … The celebrant is also generally required to make a speech, which traditionally begins with the phrase "today I am a man."
http://www.jewfaq.org/barmitz.htm
Young's problem is that he never learned to read a book. You don't read from back to front (unless you are reading Hebrew, in which case "back" is still "front"). You don't read Matthew and use it to interpret Isaiah.
Song of Solomon 1:2-4george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
As
I stated above, I do not completely agree with every single item in every single
commentary I read (I have over 20 commentaries in Logos on Isaiah, not including
what else is on the shelf, journals, etc.). IMO, Young tries to work around
some of the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 (see JETS 30/3, 1987, you may find Grace
Journal 10.2 valuable as well). However, in Young's 7:14, I do learn some
things from him that are helpful for my understanding of the text (he presents
several readings of the information, etc.).But
just to be clear, commentaries are meant to be guidelines – we should not consider
them – ANY of them - to be perfect or inspired, et. al. We all should mature in
the faith (compare the 1536 and the 1559 version of the Institutes, 200 pages
vs. 1500 pages, et. al.). While some guide better on particular passages than
others, we are responsible for studying to show ourselves approved unto God…..On
this particular passage, my studies have actually lead me to have an
understanding which is consistent with the Spirit of the Reformation Study
Bible, which states:
Ahaz refused to choose a sign, so God selected on for him. ….Virgin,
The Hebrew word for 'almah' signifies a maiden of marriageable age, with
connotations of virginity (see Ge 24:43 [HALOT list among its meanings: "marriageable girl," "a
girl who is able to be married," and "a young woman" (until the
birth of her first child]); it occurs seven times, never clearly of a maiden who had lost
virginity. The Septuagint… strongly supports the translation
"virgin," as does the NT (Matt. 1:23). Nevertheless, the sign did not
specify that such a woman would conceive while still a virgin (see below).
Immanuel. Literally, "God with us." This name was symbolic; it was
not the child's actual name (cf. 9:6). The implication was that the child would
symbolize God's willingness to accompany Judah in battle against Syria, Israel
and Assyria (see 2 Ch 13:12). God offered to protect Judah from the
Syrian-Israelite coalition and from Assyria, but Ahaz rejected the offer. Thus
the Immanuel child to be born would later display the folly of rejecting God's
gracious offer. The NT identifies Jesus' virgin birth as a fulfillment of this
sign (Mt 1:23), but Christians have taken different views as to how this
fulfillment is to be understood. The traditional Christian understanding is
that Isaiah himself had in mind the supernatural birth of the Messiah and
directly pointed to this event in the distant future as a sign against Ahaz's
disbelief. The principle difficulty with this view are that this sign was
directed to Ahaz who died hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and
that the birth of the Immanuel child was to take place before the destruction
of Syria (Aram) and Israel (v. 16), which happened shortly after the prophecy
was given. [so it does not adequately address the meaning to the
"immediate audience," or Deut 18:22, etc.].Second,
a number of interpreters have held that Isaiah was referring to virgin [young
woman] to whom he was betrothed (cf. 8:3), his first wife having died. In this
view the child he had in mind was Maher-Shala- l-Hash-Baz, who is described in
the next chapter (cf. 7:15-16 and 8:3-4). From this perspective, the woman and
child of Isaiah's day were types or foreshadowings of Jesus' virgin birth. As
the child of Isaiah's time was a
sign of the redemption of God's people as well as of judgment against unbelief,
so Jesus was the ultimate sign that God would rescue his faithful people and
bring judgment against unbelief among the Jews who rejected God's offer of
salvation in him. See BC 10.17; HC 15. –but, see "Double Reference and
Fulfillment" - http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40346 and "Literal Interpretation" - http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40074Enjoy.
Yours In Christ
0 -
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."Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I see says the blind man, so he would not appreciate: http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=525Ted Hans said: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."Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...
Yours In Christ
0 -
George Somsel said:
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 [;)]. What can i say, you called Young an idiot, need i say any more [:P].
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
5 Solas said:
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
0 -
Ted Hans said:George Somsel said:
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
. What can i say, you called Young an idiot, need i say any more 
.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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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, hint[:$].
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
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 [A]
0 -
Ted,Ted Hans said:5 Solas said:Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...
See this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/p/11287/88406.aspx#88406
Thanks that is an eye-opener. George you will be in our prayers (literally).
Yours In Christ
0 -
Ted Hans said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
RMC said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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? [;)]
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
George Somsel said:
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".
0 -
Joshua Garcia said:George Somsel said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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 said: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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
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!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
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 22.18Does this mean
- That there is a possible use of words and objects to bring about some event in real life?
- 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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Joshua Garcia said:George Somsel said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Mark Barnes said:
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
- That there is a possible use of words and objects to bring about some event in real life?
- 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.
0 -
George Somsel said:
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), 22.0 -
Joshua Garcia said:
Two words: different covenant.
One verse:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17-18
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Joshua Garcia said:
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?
Better question: Why would God wish to teach that creation took place in six normal days? It seems like a rather absurd thing to require that one accept. I'll take the Big Bang, etc.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
With Psalm 131:1 on my mind, I'm going to take my leave of this thread. Thank you so much for the recommendations you have given me, they've been very helpful. Enjoy your discussion gentlemen! [:)]
0 -
George Somsel said:
You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live. Ex 22.18
Does this mean
- That there is a possible use of words and objects to bring about some event in real life?
- 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.
One of my presuppositions, George, is that the OT Testament self-consciously points to Jesus Christ. Following his perfect life, atoning death, and glorious resurrection, the law is fulfilled in him. It's those who don't believe that the Old Testament points to Christ that has problems with texts like that, not those who do.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.
I see why you take issue with Young[:P]
In the words of E. J. Young, "If the 'framework' hypothesis were applied to the
narratives of the virgin birth or the resurrection or Romans 5:12 ff., it could
as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content of those passages
as it now does the content of the first chapter of Genesis."
The question
must be raised, "If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the
purpose
of mentioning six days?" For, once we reject the chronological
sequence which Genesis gives, we are
brought to the point where we can really
say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is
impossible to hold
that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . .
speaks of
God's placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament,
however, had been made on the
second day. If the fourth and the first days
are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day
also (which speaks of
the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be
allowed,
with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be
consistent and equate all four of these
days with the first verse of Genesis?
There is no defense against such a procedure, once we
abandon the clear
language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that
the
first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one
and four? To ask that
question is to answer it."[Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed,
n.d.), 99.]Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
George Somsel said:Joshua Garcia said:
Two words: different covenant.
One verse:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17-18
Yes, but what does this verse mean:
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40010
Yours In Christ
0 -
Ted Hans said:George Somsel said:
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.
I see why you take issue with Young
In the words of E. J. Young, "If the 'framework' hypothesis were applied to the narratives of the virgin birth or the resurrection or Romans 5:12 ff., it could as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content of those passages as it now does the content of the first chapter of Genesis."
The question must be raised, "If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose
of mentioning six days?" For, once we reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are
brought to the point where we can really say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is
impossible to hold that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of
God's placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on the
second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day
also (which speaks of the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed,
with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate all four of these
days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no defense against such a procedure, once we
abandon the clear language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the
first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one and four? To ask that
question is to answer it."[Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed, n.d.), 99.]Consider this
Enuma Elish said:
When on high the heaven had not been named,
…
The divine brothers banded together,They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth,Yea, they troubled the mood of TiamatBy their hilarity in the Abode of Heaven.Apsu could not lessen their clamorAnd Tiamat was speechless at their [ways].Their doings were loathsome unto.…Unsavory were their ways; they were overbearing.Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,Cried out, addressing Mummu, his vizier: "O Mummu, my vizier, who rejoicest my spirit,Come hither and let us go to Tiamat!"They went and sat down before Tiamat,Exchanging counsel about the gods, their first-born.Apsu, opening his mouth,Said unto resplendent Tiamat:"Their ways are verily loathsome unto me.By day I find no relief, nor repose by night.I will destroy, I will wreck their ways,That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!"
…
That she was girding for battle, was divulged to Ea.As soon as Ea heard of this matter,He lapsed into dark silence and sat right still.Then, on further thought, his anger subsided,To Anshar, his (fore) father he betook himself.When he came before his grandfather, Anshar,All that Tiamat had plotted to him he repeated: "My father, Tiamat, she who bore us, detests us.She has set up the Assembly and is furious with rage.All the gods have rallied to her;Even those whom you brought forth march at her side.They throng and march at the side of Tiamat,Enraged, they plot without cease night and day.They are set for combat, growling, raging,They have formed a council to prepare for the fight.
…
From among the gods, her first-born, who formed her Assembly,She has elevated Kingu, has made him chief among them.The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly,The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat,In battle the command-in-chief—These to his hands [she entrusted] as she seated him in the Council:
…
I sent forth Anu; he could not face her.Nudimmud was afraid and turned back.Forth came Marduk, the wisest of gods, your son,His heart having prompted him to set out to face Tiamat.He opened his mouth, saying unto me:‘If I indeed, as your avenger,Am to vanquish Tiamat and save your lives,Set up the Assembly, proclaim supreme my destiny!
…
They addressed themselves to Marduk, their first-born: "Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.Open thy mouth: the Images will vanish!Speak again, and the Images shall be whole!"At the word of his mouth the Images vanished.He spoke again, and the Images were restored.When the gods, his fathers, saw the fruit of his word,Joyfully they did homage: "Marduk is king!"
…
In fury Tiamat cried out aloud.To the roots her legs shook both together.She recites a charm, keeps casting her spell,While the gods of battle sharpen their weapons.Then joined issue Tiamat and Marduk, wisest of gods.They strove in single combat, locked in battle.The lord spread out his net to enfold her,The Evil Wind, which followed behind, he let loose in her face.When Tiamat opened her mouth to consume him,He drove in the Evil Wind that she close not her lips.As the fierce winds charged her belly,Her body was distended and her mouth was wide open. He released the arrow, it tore her belly,It cut through her insides, splitting the heart.
…
Then the lord paused to view her dead body,That he might divide the monster and do artful works.He split her like a shellfish into two parts:Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky,Pulled down the bar and posted guards.He bade them to allow not her waters to escape. He crossed the heavens and surveyed the regions.He squared Apsu’s quarter, the abode of Nudimmud,As the lord measured the dimensions of Apsu.The Great Abode, its likeness, he fixed as Esharra,The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament.Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places.
…
Having opened up the gates on both sides,He strengthened the locks to the left and the right. In her belly he established the zenith.The Moon he caused to shine, the night (to him) entrusting.He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days:"Monthly, without cease, form designs with a crown.At the month’s very start, rising over the land,Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days,On the seventh day reaching a [half]-crown.
…
Who was it that contrived the uprising,And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle?Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising.His guilt I will make him bear. You shall dwell in peace!"The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him,To Lugaldimmerankia, counselor of the gods, their lord:"It was Kingu who contrived the uprising,And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle." They bound him, holding him before Ea.They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels).Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.He imposed the service and let free the gods.
Compare that with the Genesis creation account(s) where the world is created for man whose first day on earth is not service to God but communion with him.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
5 Solas said:George Somsel said:Joshua Garcia said:
Two words: different covenant.
One verse:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17-18
Yes, but what does this verse mean:
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40010
I would say that it means exactly what it says. The problem is that some seem unable or unwilling to understand its meaning and to live according to it. This reminds me of Jesus' reply to the Pharisees
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!Mt 23.23-24
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:5 Solas said:George Somsel said:Joshua Garcia said:
Two words: different covenant.
One verse:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17-18
Yes, but what does this verse mean:
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40010
I would say that it means exactly what it says. The problem is that some seem unable or unwilling to understand its meaning and to live according to it. This reminds me of Jesus' reply to the Pharisees
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!
So, are you are still offering animal sacrifices ...?
Yours In Christ
0 -
Joshua Garcia said:
Are you seriously asking this? What covenant do you think I am under??
Joshua, 5 Solas is responding to George.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0
