T
TheButler
Guest
Wasn’t Adam in a state of grace at the time? In such a state is not prophecy part and package of the condition? Can you name a prophet who wasn’t in a state of grace?
- Status
M
MT1926
Guest
Not that I’m aware of? Can you show me were the bible it says being in a state of grace gives us the ability to prophecy?
T
TheButler
Guest
Acts 6 8
Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
M
MT1926
Guest
Great verse about Stephen. Where is the prophecy?
T
TheButler
Guest
The word ‘signs’ refers to prophecy as in ‘You will see a sign’. Or at least that is my take on it.
M
MT1926
Guest
That usually means miracles.
You know like when the Pharisees ask Jesus to show them a “sign”. (Matthew 12:38) How could Jesus show them a prophecy of a future event?
Same with the Jews in John 2:8
How about Herod in Luke 23:8.
They weren’t asking to see future prophetic events, they wanted an immediate sign.
Not sure why you believe every “sign” in the Bible is a prophecy?
R
RedFan
Guest
Why are we discounting a third possibility: that the author of Genesis was simply adding some personal commentary?
M
MT1926
Guest
I see no objection to this, as long as we keep in mind that all scripture is inspired by God. Which would mean the Holy Spirit guided this “personal commentary” of the author. Which would further mean that this verse still gets attributed back to God and not to Adam, which is what TheButler is trying to claim. This way he can make it fit into his theology and claim that homosexual sex is not a sin because God didn’t make the proclamation of Genesis 2:24-25
T
TheButler
Guest
Oh, OK. I thought the wonders were the miracles. Doesn’t one talk of ‘Signs of the End Times’?
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
“good will toward men” or “to men of good will”?
Jesus did not speak English.
Jesus did not speak English.
R
RedFan
Guest
Sure, but TheButler would be wrong regardless of whether the personal commentary was or wasn’t inspired. As long as the clinging-to-your-wife comment wasn’t Adam’s, TheButler’s musings fail.
T
TheButler
Guest
.
I’m not convinced. As I said, Jesus uses the verb ‘to say’ of ‘He which created them’ quoting Genesis 2 almost verbatim. Genesis 2 at that point does not apply ‘to say’ to the Creator, only to Adam. There are plenty of examples of the Creator speaking directly. Why did the narrator just not add ‘And God said’ to ‘Therefore man shall leave his mother and father…’? Clearly Jesus does not make mistakes so there has to be a reason for the misquote.
The institution of marriage is a corner stone of the Church and as Peter says in 1 Peter 2 corner stones are prone to becoming stumbling blocks and rocks of offence.
Last edited:
M
MT1926
Guest
Because the Bible was not written as an instruction manual.
This is the reason why…
Your interpretation on Matthew 19 is so far reaching. Why on earth would Jesus use a fundamental misinterpretation against the Pharisees question on divorce?
What was He trying to teach?
What correction was He trying to make in their belief?
What error was Jesus powerless to correct and persists to the modern day?
R
RedFan
Guest
Because God didn’t say it! The author of Genesis did (inspired or not).
M
MT1926
Guest
I just want to point out that in Matthew 19
Verse 5 starts with “and said”. This could be taken to mean God said back in Genesis 2 or we could say it means Jesus is saying it here. In either case as far as we should be concerned these words officially came from the mouth of God. So when we read the Bible as a whole we should proclaim that God did say it.
God Bless
R
RedFan
Guest
Or, that Jesus was simply adopting the accepted position that all of Genesis was, in effect, God’s word – not necessarily God’s word spoken in the Garden at the time (I would say definitely not!), but God’s word in written form.
T
TheButler
Guest
I think we can agree that Jesus is anti-Pharisee. He’s anti-priest and anti-Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan both part of the religious establishment. There was never any love lost between Jesus and those who tested him. Therefore is it likely that Jesus would simply roll over and agree with them? He clearly can’t just say ‘Adam created marriage’ as he still has work to do. So he contradicts them in a very subtle way, so subtle they don’t notice. As I say, Jesus isn’t prone to mistakes. He chooses his words carefully. Saying that ‘He which created them’ ‘said’ the phrase we are talking about when it’s actually not true can only mean the ‘mistake’ is intentional. Sure, one can imply that the joining of flesh is the intention of the Creator but as the Creator didn’t directly say it one can’t assert that definitively.
What was he trying to teach? He was demonstrating that an error made in the past can last for eternity and that a persisted falsehood eventually becomes ‘truth’.
He wasn’t trying to correct them. Trying to correct them would be a futile exercise. However his response was recorded to be discovered.
“What God has joined let no man put asunder” is the foundation for marriage. However it is not rock solid. One cannot say with 100% certainty that it was actually God that did the joining. There is also the possibility that Adam did the joining. Therefore the foundation is unstable and we know what happens to things built on dodgy foundations in one of Jesus’ parables.
While you might be convinced that God said ‘man and woman become one flesh’ I’m not.
R
RedFan
Guest
But Matthew doesn’t. For example, Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah.
If you want to believe that Matthew accurately recorded Jesus’ exact words in chapter 19, go right ahead.
T
TheButler
Guest
Jeremiah bought a field for 17 silver shekels each weighing 14g making a total of 238g. At the time of Jesus the silver stater was the currency weighing 8g. 238 divided by 8 is 30 silver staters. The field sale in Zechariah would have been 52.5 pieces. The reference to Jeremiah is valid when one does the conversion…
R
RedFan
Guest
Yes, I’ve heard that theory. Typical inerrntist banter.
The typical inerrantist will go to great lengths to imagine a harmonizing explanation, however improbable it may be, for each of these couplets. I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy.
This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom with which to assess the evidence. My problem with Scriptural inerrancy is not so much that it presumes the thing to be proven as that it presumes that no proof is needed. Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.
I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter.
The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned. In Matt. 19:4-6 the author intends to relate that Jesus was making a point about marriage and divorce. If the author had put “it is written” rather than “and said” into Jesus’ mouth, the theological message would have been the same.
The typical inerrantist will go to great lengths to imagine a harmonizing explanation, however improbable it may be, for each of these couplets. I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy.
This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom with which to assess the evidence. My problem with Scriptural inerrancy is not so much that it presumes the thing to be proven as that it presumes that no proof is needed. Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.
I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter.
The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned. In Matt. 19:4-6 the author intends to relate that Jesus was making a point about marriage and divorce. If the author had put “it is written” rather than “and said” into Jesus’ mouth, the theological message would have been the same.
- Status