News:


Main Menu

LCMS kerfuffle

Started by Donald_Kirchner, December 08, 2017, 09:55:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave Benke

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Dave Benke on January 02, 2018, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: Team Hesse on January 02, 2018, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: aletheist on January 02, 2018, 09:16:37 AM

The inspiration of Scripture--and therefore its inerrancy and infallibility--is an article of faith.  To paraphrase Luther, I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe the Bible as the Word of God; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.



I tend to be very much in tune with what you post on here, Jon, but I would be cautious with a paraphrase like this one. It tends to make my teeth itch because it goes perilously close to an Islamic confession where "The Word became book and is among us." Jesus is Lord and He is revealed to us in scripture.


Lou

I'm very much in agreement with Lou on this, Jon.  It becomes a moving of the line - from Lord Jesus Christ to Book and then in the Missouri Synod and other denominations to the Handbook/bylaws/resolutions. 


Aren't the movements of the line necessary? If not, why was the Book written and preserved? For 20 years the church existed without any NT writings and 40 years without a written Gospel. Jesus Christ and the oral tradition about him (and the Hebrew Scriptures) was sufficient. Then, as the eyewitnesses were dying, another authority was necessary - a written account of Jesus. Even with that, it was deemed necessary to create a Creed that would try and unite the followers of Christ - and the Nicene Creed was created - and a canon of acceptable books was affirmed. The New Testament, creeds, canon laws, confessional statements, constitutions and bylaws were necessary when just confessing "Jesus is Lord," was insufficient to define the Christian faith..

Yes they are necessary, in their way.  What has happened through the course of history is that the tertiary, quaternary and quinary level disputes pretty much obliterate recollection of "Jesus is Lord" being sufficient for salvation.  Instead, high dudgeon ensues over comfort dog ministry and whether a non-clergy non-male can read a non-Gospel lesson in church on a Sunday.  The results of these disputes are then codified for the record.  You could take that from a different tangent in whatever denomination you'd like. 

The result of all of that in this country is the "nones."   They're done with all that huffing and puffing.  And the other result is the non-denominational approach.  Again, less huffing and puffing.

What's lost is the actual value of actual dialog and engagement with matters of faith and doctrine.  What's also lost is faith community costly discipleship as a witness to and in the world for the sake of the Gospel.

Dave Benke

It's OK to Pray

Dave Likeness

As Bishop Benke mentions, the LCMS has minor disputes over comfort dogs and female lectors.
But there is another area of contention in the LCMS:

In a recent survey among LCMS parishes in ten selected districts, it was discovered that the
laity have a misunderstanding about the Book of Concord.  Over 50% of our laity think the
Book of Concord is about grapes.   They had the understanding that Concord Grapes were
used for grape jelly and grape wine.  They believed that the Book of Concord provided recipes
for them.

Charles Austin

If that is really true, and not someone's idea about a parody, then I am really amused.
ELCA PASTOR. Iowa born and raised. Former journalist. Former news director and spokesman for the LCA. Former LWF staff in Geneva, Switzerland.  Parishes in Iowa. New Jersey and New York.  Retired in Minneapolis.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.


Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.


And when he writes: "It's a physical body when it's put into the ground, but it's raised as a spiritual body. If there's a physical body, there's also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44) That must mean that the resurrected Jesus must have a spiritual body - no longer a physical one.


Numerous passages talk about God's "right hand." To interpret that as it says: God has a right hand just like we have right hands; is to misinterpret the texts. It is metaphorical language. We need to interpret the words by what they meant to the original author and hearers. That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dave Benke on January 02, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Dave Benke on January 02, 2018, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: Team Hesse on January 02, 2018, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: aletheist on January 02, 2018, 09:16:37 AM

The inspiration of Scripture--and therefore its inerrancy and infallibility--is an article of faith.  To paraphrase Luther, I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe the Bible as the Word of God; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.



I tend to be very much in tune with what you post on here, Jon, but I would be cautious with a paraphrase like this one. It tends to make my teeth itch because it goes perilously close to an Islamic confession where "The Word became book and is among us." Jesus is Lord and He is revealed to us in scripture.


Lou

I'm very much in agreement with Lou on this, Jon.  It becomes a moving of the line - from Lord Jesus Christ to Book and then in the Missouri Synod and other denominations to the Handbook/bylaws/resolutions. 


Aren't the movements of the line necessary? If not, why was the Book written and preserved? For 20 years the church existed without any NT writings and 40 years without a written Gospel. Jesus Christ and the oral tradition about him (and the Hebrew Scriptures) was sufficient. Then, as the eyewitnesses were dying, another authority was necessary - a written account of Jesus. Even with that, it was deemed necessary to create a Creed that would try and unite the followers of Christ - and the Nicene Creed was created - and a canon of acceptable books was affirmed. The New Testament, creeds, canon laws, confessional statements, constitutions and bylaws were necessary when just confessing "Jesus is Lord," was insufficient to define the Christian faith..

Yes they are necessary, in their way.  What has happened through the course of history is that the tertiary, quaternary and quinary level disputes pretty much obliterate recollection of "Jesus is Lord" being sufficient for salvation.  Instead, high dudgeon ensues over comfort dog ministry and whether a non-clergy non-male can read a non-Gospel lesson in church on a Sunday.  The results of these disputes are then codified for the record.  You could take that from a different tangent in whatever denomination you'd like. 

The result of all of that in this country is the "nones."   They're done with all that huffing and puffing.  And the other result is the non-denominational approach.  Again, less huffing and puffing.

What's lost is the actual value of actual dialog and engagement with matters of faith and doctrine.  What's also lost is faith community costly discipleship as a witness to and in the world for the sake of the Gospel.


True. No longer can the world look at Christians and exclaim, "See how they love one another."


Or, to use a quote from Jonahathan Swift: "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." (The Battle of the Books,Ch. 15: Thoughts on Various Subjects) in 1711.



     
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.

Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.

There's a not-so-subtle (intentional) confusion of the Real Presence and confusion between 1Cor 11 and 12. I.e., just another manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

readselerttoo

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.


Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.


And when he writes: "It's a physical body when it's put into the ground, but it's raised as a spiritual body. If there's a physical body, there's also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44) That must mean that the resurrected Jesus must have a spiritual body - no longer a physical one.


Numerous passages talk about God's "right hand." To interpret that as it says: God has a right hand just like we have right hands; is to misinterpret the texts. It is metaphorical language. We need to interpret the words by what they meant to the original author and hearers. That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation.

"That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation."   What does this mean?

Jim Butler

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.


Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.


And when he writes: "It's a physical body when it's put into the ground, but it's raised as a spiritual body. If there's a physical body, there's also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44) That must mean that the resurrected Jesus must have a spiritual body - no longer a physical one.


Numerous passages talk about God's "right hand." To interpret that as it says: God has a right hand just like we have right hands; is to misinterpret the texts. It is metaphorical language. We need to interpret the words by what they meant to the original author and hearers. That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation.

1) Brian, you still haven't answered my earlier question. You said that the word "day" is not used in Genesis 1. You stated that was put there by English translators. What word would you use to translate yom?

2) 1 Cor 12:27a--Wow. You like to take stuff out of context don't you? I mean, why not quote the entire passage: "and each of you is a part of it"? Except, of course, it would destroy your point.

3) 1 Cor 15:54--Again, you like to rip out of context. The point Paul is making is contrasting our mortal bodies with the immortal. In Philippians, he notes that our bodies will be like Christ's "glorious body" which is saying the same thing.

4) "God's right hand"--you are correct, that is a metaphor. BTW, one interprets metaphors literally when one interprets it as a metaphor, because that is what it literally is.
"Pastor Butler... [is] deaf to the cries of people like me, dismissing our concerns as Satanic scenarios, denouncing our faith and our very existence."--Charles Austin

Rev Mathew Andersen

Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on January 03, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.

Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.

There's a not-so-subtle (intentional) confusion of the Real Presence and confusion between 1Cor 11 and 12. I.e., just another manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.
It may be dishonesty.  However, I am becoming more convinced that Brian simply lacks the ability to understand context.  He seems to interpret by throwing out multiple possible meanings of words without regard to the contextual clues within the passages in which they occur.  I am growing more and more concerned about Brian himself.  I hope he is OK.

Charles Austin

Here is what some of you guys do not understand about how some of us, people like Brian and this humble correspondent, do study of the texts. We are willing to explore a range of possibilities of meaning. We are willing to look at original context, the context(s) in which a passage has been interpreted, the current context and the context of the person doing the interpretation. We are willing to explore various meanings of words. We are willing to consider things "outside" the verse or word itself.
And then...
We are willing to consider what might be possible in interpreting a text. We need to see whether an earlier interpretation may have been skewed by its context. We need to see how a lot of things might have impacted what has been said about a text.
Then we may (or may not) choose a particular interpretation as true, or credible, or possible, or the one we use in preaching and/or teaching.
Some of you, I believe, (and of course I could be wrong) want to have meaning and interpretation nailed down or limited or formed to fit a setting, doctrine, or "church".
And of course, we may disagree on the interpretation of context or etymology.
So I think Brian is OK. And I don't always agree with him.
ELCA PASTOR. Iowa born and raised. Former journalist. Former news director and spokesman for the LCA. Former LWF staff in Geneva, Switzerland.  Parishes in Iowa. New Jersey and New York.  Retired in Minneapolis.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on January 03, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.

Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.

There's a not-so-subtle (intentional) confusion of the Real Presence and confusion between 1Cor 11 and 12. I.e., just another manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.


I'm showing the dishonest in RDPreus's approach. If "day" must mean 24-hours because that's what the text says, the "spiritual" must mean "spiritual" because that's what the text says. If the meaning of words can vary within different contexts, then we can't take the meaning from one context and automatically apply that meaning to another context.


An illustration I've used of this is that one cannot know the precise meaning of the word "bar" without the context of a sentence. Consider the different meanings in these sentences:


He was a member of the bar.
He sat at the bar in the bar.
The bouncer barred the entrance.
He was hit by a metal bar.
He was attacked by a grizzly bar.

I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: George Rahn on January 03, 2018, 09:20:40 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.


Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.


And when he writes: "It's a physical body when it's put into the ground, but it's raised as a spiritual body. If there's a physical body, there's also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44) That must mean that the resurrected Jesus must have a spiritual body - no longer a physical one.


Numerous passages talk about God's "right hand." To interpret that as it says: God has a right hand just like we have right hands; is to misinterpret the texts. It is metaphorical language. We need to interpret the words by what they meant to the original author and hearers. That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation.

"That can mean that interpreting the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation."   What does this mean?


It means that biblical writers used metaphors, similes, idioms, symbolisms, etc. where words represent something other than their literal meaning. For example, I don't believe that the number 144,000 in Revelation really means exactly 144,000 people (actual, to be really picky, it would have to be 144,000 male Jewish virgins). Those who interpret that number to be literal are making the wrong interpretation. It's meant to be symbolic.


Or, consider the Hebrew word elohim. It's a plural form of the noun. Literally, shouldn't it be translated "gods" or perhaps "divine beings" every time it occurs in the OT? However, when it is used of the one God of Israel, interpreting it as "gods" would be the wrong interpretation and translation. Consider a literal translation of Psalm 82:1: Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of elohim he holds judgment." If elohim is translated exactly the same both times it's used in that verse, it becomes heresy.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on January 03, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.

Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.

There's a not-so-subtle (intentional) confusion of the Real Presence and confusion between 1Cor 11 and 12. I.e., just another manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.


I'm showing the dishonest in RDPreus's approach. If "day" must mean 24-hours because that's what the text says, the "spiritual" must mean "spiritual" because that's what the text says. If the meaning of words can vary within different contexts, then we can't take the meaning from one context and automatically apply that meaning to another context.


An illustration I've used of this is that one cannot know the precise meaning of the word "bar" without the context of a sentence. Consider the different meanings in these sentences:


He was a member of the bar.
He sat at the bar in the bar.
The bouncer barred the entrance.
He was hit by a metal bar.
He was attacked by a grizzly bar.

To put the best construction on things, I'm beginning to go along with Matthew Andersen. You don't even comprehend, or at least acknowledge, the two contexts in the comparison you make, Brian, between 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 12. And this response is utter nonsense and confusion.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

SomeoneWrites

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on January 03, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2018, 02:06:35 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2018, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on January 02, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Faith in Jesus and faith in the inspiration of the Bible go together.  There is no incarnate Word except the One revealed in the written word.  The purpose of the written word is that we may know and believe in the incarnate Word.


I agree. Believing and declaring that the Bible is inspired by God is not the same thing as interpreting the Bible - discerning what God is saying and doing for us through those inspired words.

Quite right.  Some interpret Christ's words, "This is my body" to mean that his body is as far above the altar as heaven is above the earth.  Others interpret the words, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" to mean that there were billions and billions of days.  You're absolutely right.  Some interpret the Bible to mean what it says, while others interpret the Bible to mean what it doesn't say.

Quite right, so when Paul writes, "You are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27a) we must be just like the sacramental bread.

There's a not-so-subtle (intentional) confusion of the Real Presence and confusion between 1Cor 11 and 12. I.e., just another manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.


I'm showing the dishonest in RDPreus's approach. If "day" must mean 24-hours because that's what the text says, the "spiritual" must mean "spiritual" because that's what the text says. If the meaning of words can vary within different contexts, then we can't take the meaning from one context and automatically apply that meaning to another context.


An illustration I've used of this is that one cannot know the precise meaning of the word "bar" without the context of a sentence. Consider the different meanings in these sentences:


He was a member of the bar.
He sat at the bar in the bar.
The bouncer barred the entrance.
He was hit by a metal bar.
He was attacked by a grizzly bar.

I don't always disagree with you, and even appreciated your comment on presuppositions upstream. 

I think you'd be better served by again, using all your exegetical tools.  Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing multiple definitions of words.  You defend that the word can be different, but you often don't lay down a solid case why that word should be used.  Or at least, there seem to be very few people here that are compelled by your argument for a different word. 

Yom - for example.  Sure, we understand that day can mean 24 hour day.  It can also mean a longer stretch of time, like "in the day."  Considering your other thoughts on Genesis, I don't know why you're pushing for longer "days."  Sure, things have significant theological consequences (as was pointed out upstream on sin/death), if the narrative is not literal as a whole, why push so hard in that area?   
LCMS raised
LCMS theology major
LCMS sem grad
Atheist

Brian Stoffregen

#299
Quote from: jebutler on January 03, 2018, 09:41:03 AM
1) Brian, you still haven't answered my earlier question. You said that the word "day" is not used in Genesis 1. You stated that was put there by English translators. What word would you use to translate yom?


"Day" is the word that it used. What is meant by that word? There are eight definitions in It is used as a literary device to separate and organize the acts of creation into three or four parallel acts: day 1 is connected to day 4; day 2 is connected to day 5; both days 3 and 6 have two acts of creation. Genesis 1 is a marvelous literary work of art where the style of the text also conveys the meaning of the words - God is creating order out of chaos and the composer of the text has created a well-structured piece of literature that emphasizes and explains why Jews rest on the seventh day.


The account in Genesis 2 is much less structured. I note that if "day" as used in Genesis 2:4b means "a 24-hour period" it's in conflict with the six days.

Quote2) 1 Cor 12:27a--Wow. You like to take stuff out of context don't you? I mean, why not quote the entire passage: "and each of you is a part of it"? Except, of course, it would destroy your point.


That doesn't make any difference to my point. Does "body" change meanings when it's in the sentences: "This is my body" and "You are the body of Christ"?

Quote3) 1 Cor 15:54--Again, you like to rip out of context. The point Paul is making is contrasting our mortal bodies with the immortal. In Philippians, he notes that our bodies will be like Christ's "glorious body" which is saying the same thing.


So, you agree with me that context is important for understanding the meaning of a word: - that "day" in Genesis 1 could mean something different than in Exodus 20 because the contexts are different? The context of 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the context of what we know about our human bodies - they get old, they deteriorate, they do not last forever. Even when bodies are placed in our graves, they continue to decay and deteriorate. The stuff God gave us for our bodies during our short stay on earth just won't work for an eternal, resurrected life. If that's true for our bodies, why not also for Christ's resurrected, eternal body?

Quote4) "God's right hand"--you are correct, that is a metaphor. BTW, one interprets metaphors literally when one interprets it as a metaphor, because that is what it literally is.


So, why shouldn't "day" be considered a metaphor in Genesis 1? E.g., a reference to a huge division of time? Or just a literary divice?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk