Commentary on Isaiah

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.

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!

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

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 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

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.

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

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.
 

Firm ground below had not been called by name,Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,(And) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,Their waters commingling as a single body;No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,When no gods whatever had been brought into being,Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined—Then it was that the gods were formed within them.

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 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!

Mt 23.23-24

 

So, are you are still offering animal sacrifices ...?

Sorry...I'm getting too emotionally involved now. I will step out because of forum rules.

5 Solas said:

So, are you are still offering animal sacrifices ...?

Ha, ha.  I told you there was a progression in revelation.  The sacrificial terminology is used for Jesus' death, but that is not the only terminology used.  Consider

Re 5.9-10

    ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ,
    ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου
    ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους

10  καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς,
     καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

Here it is pictured as a financial transaction—Jesus by his death purchased the Church.

5 Solas said:

George, that does not answer the question! All has not been fulfilled yet, so are you still doing animal sacrifices ...? Yes or no? 

Are you deliberately trying to be redicalicalous? 

6
With what shall I approach the Lord,  Do homage to God on high?  Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,   With calves a year old?7Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,   With myriads of streams of oil?   Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,   The fruit of my body for my sins?8"He has told you, O man, what is good,   And what the Lord requires of you:   Only to do justice   And to love goodness,   And to walk modestly with your God;9Then will your name achieve wisdom."