Right Divider
Body part
I already showed you the immediate context and that didn't seem to matter to you.
Please demonstrate how I "completely interpreted one author by looking in a different book".
That is just another false accusation.
Question: "They will return here." How do we understand this Biblical phrase?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Please demonstrate how I "completely interpreted one author by looking in a different book".
That is just another false accusation.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It's corroborating evidence.
Derf
Well-known member
Of course it mattered to me! But it didn't persuade me. It wasn't strong enough to say "and they shall not sorrow any more at all" and presume that means the kingdom of the messiah has arrived.
The jump to the other books might be warranted, but it might not be. If the Jeremiah passage is comfortably fulfilled with the events of the return from Babylon, we shouldn't go looking for other events to fulfill it. That doesn't mean the passage has no bearing on more future events, but too many of us tend to look at passages as if they are happening right now, or just over the next hill of time. Maybe some of these don't even apply where we are trying to apply them.
Let's just be careful how we apply the passages. Isn't that your point about Paul's letters vs Peter's, James', and John's? It's good advice when you give it--why does it become bad advice when I give it?
Derf
Well-known member
Only with certain assumptions.
That is nonsense.
Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Daniel 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
Those words in Matthew are based on Daniel, which, in turn, was based on Jeremiah, which, in turn, was based on Deuteronomy.
And so on...
Put your ever obvious books learned reasoning of men, away.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Right Divider
Body part
The lack of persuasion in these matters is your problem and not mine.
That's easy to say.
Since it didn't, then we need to look further.
More vague talk.
You're certainly confusing the issue.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
"Based on"? More like "quoted from". But if Daniel 9:2 was talking seventy years, which he got from Jeremiah, why are we saying that Jeremiah's prophecy is still to be fulfilled?
Don't you know how to read and write, and even reason, because you learned it from men? Like your parents and school teachers and bible teachers? Are you suggesting we put all of that away and not even use any of the skills we learned from men? (If you answer "yes", you'll have refuted your imperative, since you can't even type "yes" without using those skills. If you answer "no" you will have refuted your imperative by your inconsistency--your choice.)
Derf
Well-known member
Our pastor on Sunday had us read this from Isaiah 8:
[Isa 8:14 KJV] And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
I think this helps answer your question in this thread. Paul quoted this verse here:
[Rom 9:33 KJV] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
He seems to be conjoining Is 8:14 with Is 28:16:
[Isa 28:16 KJV] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
So here's the argument: If Jesus was a stumblingstone and rock of offence to Judah, but the verse in Isaiah specifically says it will be so to BOTH houses of Israel, then I would think Paul's account of Is 8:14's fulfillment is not a partial, but a complete fulfillment, which would necessitate that it include BOTH houses of Israel, which would necessitate that both houses of Israel must have returned already in some fashion.
There's more. In Is 9, we find the famous passage of the Messiah's birth, and a couple verses later it tells us to whom the good news will be given:
[Isa 9:6 KJV] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
...
[Isa 9:8 KJV] The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
[Isa 9:9 KJV] And all the people shall know, [even] Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,
Why thank you. I am not sure of your point. But thanks. It is usually or almost always good to look at scripture.
Derf
Well-known member
God laid "in Zion" a stumblingstone for BOTH houses of Israel. Paul says they stumbled over that stumblingstone. The stumbling was the rejection of Jesus as their king/messiah. So both houses (including the ten northern tribes) must have been back in the land when Jesus, the stumblingstone, was laid and subsequently rejected.
Oh. Thanks. Not for this time but 2,000 years ago.
Not in the least, for my point is the need to not over rely on what the traditions of men over rely on, in their endless books "about" the Bible - on the reasoning of men within its own vacuum.
Case in point, most within Christianity learn "about" the things in the Bible, from books supposedly based on the Bible.
And I have actually walked in on various people I was to meet with about one thing or another, who were sitting their reading one of those endless books, they would then turn to their Bible and read that book's assertions into their Bible.
Such are well read in such endless books.
And out of their kind arise a next generation of writers "about" "what the Bible says..." about this, that, the other.
Theirs is much more often than not, the traditions of men; the reasoning of men.
Such "know" what their Bible says about one thing or another in this or that passage based on their traditions of men books based reasoning, together with their own reasoning into...a thing.
Thus, their straw man arguments.
That is what I am referring to, when I say "put away your books based reasoning."
Your reply herein above only revealed how badly said practice ends up crippling one. For you sure read all sorts of notions into what I'd meant.
Notions from within which you then posed your argument in your reply too me.
Straight out of your own reasoning about what I'd meant.
No offense intended, and none taken (because Romans 5:6-8 is that sufficient a COMPLETE provision for the Believer, no matter what might come his, or her way).
I am merely pointing out the flaw in over relying on the reasoning of men "about" one thing or another "in the Bible."
Isaiah 8:20.
Derf
Well-known member
But if I didn't get the material from my posts from other men/commentaries (I didn't), then the remaining flaw, if there is one, is that my REASONING is flawed. The reasoning, or logic, that I'm proposing is merely that we look at the text to see what it says, then look at other texts to see if it was fulfilled. Is that so bad?
If you are concerned about the commentaries I'm using, consider them already put away.
But if I come to the same conclusion as commentaries you disagree with, when I'm not using those commentaries, maybe those commentaries you disagree with are not as bad as you think--since some of their conclusions seem to be easy to reach using just the scriptures. I'm speaking rather specifically of this conversation--surely there are other aspects of those commentaries, whichever ones you don't like, that I also disagree with.
On the other hand, if you are using commentaries you agree with to disparage commentaries I'm not even using, what does that say about YOUR reasoning.
That is the question such things boil down to - how much of one's reasoning is actually aligned with Scripture.
And unlike most, you are obviously aware that that in itself can also end up in the eye of each beholder.
For the other side of the coin is often no better off - the side that is ever asserting it alone has a thing right and one is wrong to dare to even question it.
All of which boils down to the particular study approach.
As is in the case, say, with a passage like 1 Tim. 3:16, for example.
The study approach of some leads them to conclude that Paul is referring to Christ.
In contrast, the study approach of others, leads them to conclude that Paul is referring to the Body of Christ.
While the "study approach" of most will have been to have reached for various books "about" it.
The result of said third approach being that having relied on the conclusions of another man's labor, whether or not said other man's reasoning was sound, such never really reach a point where they are often able to get the actual gist of another's words on their own, be it those of a writer of Scripture, or those of any other individual.
And so, round and round, every one goes.
Isaiah 8:20