|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
openended? - 6/28/2008 10:46:31 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Is the bible in many cases openended?Does it purposely leave room for multiple applications?Is there good theological ground for this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 6/29/2008 2:48:45 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
The Scriptures are by implication open ended. Many say everything one need to know is in the Scriptures. I do not hold to this view. Shabbat(The Sabbath) is a good example. We are told in the Scriptures that we are to keep it, but with a few exceptions we are not told how to keep it. This is why, in my opinion, Paul tells us not to let others criticize how we keep Shabbat or the appointed times. I do not think this means that we are not to pay attention to what the Scriptures do say about such things, but that many of the details are a matter of personal study, revelation and conscience.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 6/29/2008 8:59:41 AM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
Is the bible in many cases openended?Does it purposely leave room for multiple applications?Is there good theological ground for this?
It is not open-ended. It contains all we need, and all God deems us to need. But the depth of what is contained therein is infinite.
Peace
_____________________________
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit,
are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Galatians 3:3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 6/30/2008 8:34:21 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
Is the bible in many cases openended?Does it purposely leave room for multiple applications?Is there good theological ground for this?
It is not open-ended. It contains all we need, and all God deems us to need. But the depth of what is contained therein is infinite.
Peace
Openended meaning leaving room for interpretation.It begs an answer that goes beyond yes or no.It can even have a seemingly contradicting meaning.That is mean two opposing things at the same time.I.E. If I ask you is it raining out today you can answer yes it is or no it isn't.If I ask how is the weather it mat be pleasantly warm to you and unpleasantly hot someone else.
There are so many examples I'm thinking of that I'm finding it difficult to list just one that would highlight what I'm seeing.
When Jesus fed the five thousand afterward he had them gather up the scraps that nothing be lost.This can mean any number of things.Jesus even reminded his disciples of this in Mark chp 8 vs 17-21 and he ended this by saying do you still not understand?
Even that question is open ended.In other words it does not necessarily ask what is implied.It is not an absolute.
I FIND THAT RAY SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS TRUE OF THE BIBLE;THAT IS THE BIBLE DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN WHAT IT SAYS,YET IT ALWAYS MEANS WHAT IT MEANS.
It is a magnificent book,that is most definitely alive and breathing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 1:52:40 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
sunofone,
i understand what you are saying. in 1 cor 9 paul is writing about the right of pastors/preachers to be paid for their efforts. in doing so he cites dt25:4 which reads
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
this law is given in the midst of variuos other laws. paul uses this in his argument about paying preachers when he writes
8 am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING." God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
if you read the passage in dt there is nothing to indicate that moses was writing/concerned about paying the preacher, yet paul re-interpets the law. what would make me hesistate in doing the same is paul did so under inspiration, i would not claim the same myself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 2:28:17 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
sunofone,
i understand what you are saying. in 1 cor 9 paul is writing about the right of pastors/preachers to be paid for their efforts. in doing so he cites dt25:4 which reads
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
this law is given in the midst of variuos other laws. paul uses this in his argument about paying preachers when he writes
8 am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING." God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
if you read the passage in dt there is nothing to indicate that moses was writing/concerned about paying the preacher, yet paul re-interpets the law. what would make me hesistate in doing the same is paul did so under inspiration, i would not claim the same myself
John I hear what you are saying by way of hesitation.I hesitate as well;but I know that God gave us the same exact spirit he gave Paul,and while we are not inspired as he was to pen a gospel book.
Jesus did say that he would teach us and bring things back to our remembrance.What I find being true is that we know we are on the right track when what is revealed to us directly corresponds to the revealed word of God.
We don't have to come up with a new revelation outside of what is already provided;however God can open up our understanding of scriptures that we have been reading for years while missing there hidden meaning the whole time.
Then when you see the hidden meaning,you will find that it was never hidden at all.You just didn't have eyes to see what was there the whole time.
God bless John.I know you are one that God has given eyes to see.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 2:40:56 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6608
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
sunofone,
i understand what you are saying. in 1 cor 9 paul is writing about the right of pastors/preachers to be paid for their efforts. in doing so he cites dt25:4 which reads
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
this law is given in the midst of variuos other laws. paul uses this in his argument about paying preachers when he writes
8 am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING." God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
if you read the passage in dt there is nothing to indicate that moses was writing/concerned about paying the preacher, yet paul re-interpets the law. what would make me hesistate in doing the same is paul did so under inspiration, i would not claim the same myself
If you are unwilling to allow the Holy Spirit to open up that kind of latitude to you, then you're open to the same mistake as the Pharisees etc. - i.e. requiring an exhaustive set of clear-cut rules that leave no room for an infinite God to reveal more of Himself in the scriptures to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 2:42:27 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4110
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
Take a look at the beginning of Matthew or Mark with the various messianic prophecies they pull together. If you read the texts you will see the peshat, plain meaning is far from what Matt or Mark are saying.
Much of scripture is open to multiple valid intrepretations.
For instance Paul tells us this:
Rom 14:5 One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn’t eat, to the Lord he doesn’t eat, and gives God thanks.
Sounds like the apostle expected multiple intrepretations and wanted to make sure that the church at Rome was ok with that.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 3:14:02 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
If you are unwilling to allow the Holy Spirit to open up that kind of latitude to you, then you're open to the same mistake as the Pharisees etc. - i.e. requiring an exhaustive set of clear-cut rules that leave no room for an infinite God to reveal more of Himself in the scriptures to you.
if scripture is open to multiple expressions, then what makes one viewpoint/interpetation more valid than another? if we both read a passage and come to different understandings and the Holy Spirit has lead us both to these differnt viewpoints, then doctrine becomes limited. for expample if one person reads revelation and sees premillinial viewpoint and another comes to a amillinial viewpoint, both would have to correct, would they not
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 3:18:51 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Much of scripture is open to multiple valid intrepretations.
For instance Paul tells us this:
Rom 14:5 One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn’t eat, to the Lord he doesn’t eat, and gives God thanks.
Sounds like the apostle expected multiple intrepretations and wanted to make sure that the church at Rome was ok with that.
what would limit only much of scripture being open to valid intrepretations, would not all of scripture be open in like manner? if what your saying is true it would render most christian debate as useless. if one sees a literal 7 day creation and ones sees 7 eons of time, both would be valid, would they not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 3:28:13 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6608
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
if scripture is open to multiple expressions, then what makes one viewpoint/interpetation more valid than another? if we both read a passage and come to different understandings and the Holy Spirit has lead us both to these differnt viewpoints, then doctrine becomes limited. for expample if one person reads revelation and sees premillinial viewpoint and another comes to a amillinial viewpoint, both would have to correct, would they not
You're mixing doctrine with different aspects from the same passage. I don't know about you, but I have read some passages dozens of times and, due to something the Lord was teaching me, I suddenly saw something in it that never occurred to me before. The scripture had not changed, but the Holy Spirit revealed a new dimension to me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 3:43:16 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
You're mixing doctrine with different aspects from the same passage. I don't know about you, but I have read some passages dozens of times and, due to something the Lord was teaching me, I suddenly saw something in it that never occurred to me before. The scripture had not changed, but the Holy Spirit revealed a new dimension to me.
if your saying that as you grow God reveals more and sheds more light, i whole heartly agree. i would understand to OP though to be meaning that that two people might read the same passage and walk away with a different doctrine or belief. hence my example about revelation. is the book of revealtion open to multiple views/understanding, or only one?
in my example from dt25:4 paul seemed to come to a different understanding than moses seemed to write. paul indicates that God wasnt even talking about oxen in dt25:4.
would i have the same right to say that when God said dont muzzle the oxen, He meant dont restrict the gift of speaking in tongues? or would i need to restrict my understanding to what other passages say?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 4:40:04 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
You're mixing doctrine with different aspects from the same passage. I don't know about you, but I have read some passages dozens of times and, due to something the Lord was teaching me, I suddenly saw something in it that never occurred to me before. The scripture had not changed, but the Holy Spirit revealed a new dimension to me.
if your saying that as you grow God reveals more and sheds more light, i whole heartly agree. i would understand to OP though to be meaning that that two people might read the same passage and walk away with a different doctrine or belief. hence my example about revelation. is the book of revealtion open to multiple views/understanding, or only one?
in my example from dt25:4 paul seemed to come to a different understanding than moses seemed to write. paul indicates that God wasnt even talking about oxen in dt25:4.
would i have the same right to say that when God said dont muzzle the oxen, He meant dont restrict the gift of speaking in tongues? or would i need to restrict my understanding to what other passages say?
As the OP,I can tell you that I mean both what JF has said and what you allude to as well.
We all live here on planet earth yet if I ask a question such as what time is it? Or is it hot outside,or cold outside?Dark out or daylight?
The question is both specific and openended at the same time.On the east coast it's four o clock on the west one,It may be hot outside to me 78 degrees but cool to you,It may be night time in America and daytime in Japan.
When we read passages of scripture we bring with it our perspective individually,and our limited understanding as well.In the end although God's word is true,and clearly means what it means.Ultimately for us humans,the only thing that is true,is what's true to us.
Look at this forum,and Christianity as a whole and you will find us polarized by our doctrinal stances.We see one thing as being true today,and tomorrow God may open up our understanding to see something completely different.
It really isn't much different than life itself is.Our kids think they know everything,we're the misinformed who just don't understand,yet as they continue to grow and mature they come to realize that they didn't know as much as they thought they did.
Now this is at the same time not to say that they haven't figured some things out that may have slipped past us,for certainly each generation continues to surpass the next.
I believe that the bible in many cases is this way purposely.God allows us to grow in faith and knowledge of him.In fact it is when we try so hard to get our theological ducks in place,and our doctrinal stance firm and fixed,that we become most like the Pharisees.
When this happens not even the scriptures can rescue us.Jesus told the Pharisees to search the scriptures for in them they think they have eternal life,but they spoke of him.
I encourage all of us to do as Jesus said we should,that is ask God to give us this day our daily bread.We need to stop storing up manna as if it will run out,and ask God to feed us daily.
Then God can give us a fresh word,a word that can be like honey for the child,bread for the youth and oil for the old or mature.We know that God's word is capable of doing this as it is.It is milk for the immature and meat for the mature at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 5:00:29 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
sunofone,
didnt mean to put words in your mouth, yet this a simple example of what your getting at. two people read a message and come to 2 different yet valid understandings.
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I believe that the bible in many cases is this way purposely.God allows us to grow in faith and knowledge of him.In fact it is when we try so hard to get our theological ducks in place,and our doctrinal stance firm and fixed,that we become most like the Pharisees.
i agree with you completely. i would venture to say that we will not completely know till we see Him, or we may never completely know. to completely understand God way not be possible for the creature.
so how do we or should we decide what is a valid understanding of a passage and what is heresy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 5:35:52 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
sunofone,
didnt mean to put words in your mouth, yet this a simple example of what your getting at. two people read a message and come to 2 different yet valid understandings.
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I believe that the bible in many cases is this way purposely.God allows us to grow in faith and knowledge of him.In fact it is when we try so hard to get our theological ducks in place,and our doctrinal stance firm and fixed,that we become most like the Pharisees.
i agree with you completely. i would venture to say that we will not completely know till we see Him, or we may never completely know. to completely understand God way not be possible for the creature.
so how do we or should we decide what is a valid understanding of a passage and what is heresy?
The bible is it's own witness to itself and no one scripture is capable of interpreting itself,that is I have found that if something revealed is true,it can easily be confirmed with the balance of scripture.
You will find it consistently weaved throughout the balance of scripture.There are literal keys to scripture,and we are gate keepers to the kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 5:46:52 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1537
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
I believe the Scriptures are openended in that not all details of every particular circumstanc are laid out for us in the Scriptures. It is left to us with the guidance of Ha Ruach(The Spirit) and those who "sit in the seat of Moshe"(the rabbis or theologians if you prefer) to determine what Adonai would have us do in various situations.
However, I do not believe that two differing views on a Scripture are correct simply because both proponents claim the have been directed by Ha Ruach(The Spirit). I believe, one or both of them must be wrong in that case. That does not mean one or both of them are "in the flesh" as some would say, as long as they are not elevating their interpretation to the level of Scripture. There is a proper interpretation in context, though honest men may not understand it right away.
Now, what Paul is doing with the passage on the muzzeling of an ox is not interpreting the actual passage, but drawing a principle from that passage. He then applies that principle to a different but similar situation. Matteyahu(Matthew) is doing the same thing when he uses the term fulfilled. He is not finding a different interpretation of those passages. He is selecting Scriptures that the rabbis have associated with certain life principles and pointing out how those principles apply to Yeshua.
Now there are some passages from the Tanach(old testiment) that directly relate to Yeshua in the context of the passage from which they are taken. However, to say that all passages one quotes must be direct interpretations of that passage is not consistent with the proper use of Scripture, in my opinion.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: openended? - 7/1/2008 9:34:42 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
The bible is it's own witness to itself and no one scripture is capable of interpreting itself,that is I have found that if something revealed is true,it can easily be confirmed with the balance of scripture.
You will find it consistently weaved throughout the balance of scripture.There are literal keys to scripture,and we are gate keepers to the kingdom.
so if i understand you correctly, our individual understanding of a passage is limited by what the rest of scripture says. if that is true, and i think it is, then scripture itself would limit how open ended any passage can be? i hope i am making sense here  . but that brings us back to the original problem, can two people read a passage and come to different understandings of that passage and both be right? do we end up with two different groups each throwing out the passages that support thier viewpoint and ignoring the passages that dont. boy i have been guilty of that one 
Consider this in answer to your question.Jesus said to the Disciples,this is borrowed from a brother in Christ that I had the opportunity to discuss the passage earlier I brought on a post on Jesus feeding the five thousand:
There are so many examples I'm thinking of that I'm finding it difficult to list just one that would highlight what I'm seeing.
When Jesus fed the five thousand afterward he had them gather up the scraps that nothing be lost.This can mean any number of things.Jesus even reminded his disciples of this in Mark chp 8 vs 17-21 and he ended this by saying do you still not understand?
Even that question is open ended.In other words it does not necessarily ask what is implied.It is not an absolute.
would share something with you that I discovered and found pretty interesting, it had to do with looking deeper into John 6:9 "There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?"
At first I was intrigued by what the possible significance of what the "lad" might be when it struck me that I never really paid any real attention to the "barley" and what it could mean as well.
(Of course I went to esword and checked for the other verses with barley in it and found, to me at least Wink some mind blowing stuff.)
Keep in mind that chonologically the feeding of the 5000 came before the feeding of the 4000. When Christ performed the multitude feeding the first time it is recorded that this was close to the Passover Festival which uses unleavened bread (barley flour), the next feeding (of the 4000) was close to Pentecost which does use leavened bread (wheat flour).
Two things that jumped out at me here was the difference between Passover and Pentecost, remember Passover was celebrated in remembrence of the angels painting the posts with blood to signify those who were not to die, and the mercy shown to His people? (a type/shadow of those will not taste of the second death) Pentecost was originally a celebration of the Law being given to Moses at Mount Sinai, then we have the church age also beginning at Pentecost. A coincidence? The degeneration of man made doctrines (leaven of the Pharisees) started in the churches almost immediately.
Did you know that barley cannot be influenced by yeast? It has no gluten so it does not interact with yeast, IT CANNOT BE LEAVENED! Kind of reminded me of Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
It is not possible to leaven barley as it is not possible to deceive (with man made doctrines) the elect! Which brought me to the realization that perhaps it has been overlooked that barley actually is representative of the elect rather than the wheat and the tares version. Also did you know that barley is actually harvested first? Barley in April and wheat in May! Both are planted in fall but barley matures quicker.
2Ki 4:42 And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat.
Interesting? Now look at this;
Mar 8:8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. (leavened wheat bread)
Mar 8:9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away.
Rev 1:20 The mystery (sacred secret) of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Mat 14:20 And they did all eat and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. (unleavened barley bread)
Mat 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman (virgin church) clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
See it? The seven representing the "leavened" churches and the twelve representing the elect, the undefiled true church/kingdom?
Mark 8
14Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
15And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
17And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
18Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
19When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
20And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
21And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
I don't believe Jesus intended for them to understand at that time, maybe not at all as this really seems to speak of a time that was yet future, when the church would be leavened by the doctrines of devils. You will see these feedings also written in Matthew, Luke and John with some variations.
I believe two people can see the same elephant and yet not see the whole elephant.I think we get into trouble when we act out in pride or fear like the Pharisees declaring that we hold the truth while every one else is in error.
We see what we can we see,when we see it.We have to remain humble and seek the bread of God daily,never assuming that the truth we hold in our hand today is something to be held onto.
Manna is fresh every morning.God can give us a new word,a new understanding of his word,if we don't assume we already know everything there is to know about whatever it is we think we know.
I know I don't know anything,save what he teaches me,and even that is subject to change as he shows me more.It's called growing.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
