[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

There's a reason we use the KJV rather than The Message. Dr. Peterson took way too many liberties with the text as he translated.

Wow. I didn't even realize this was from a purported translation. How can anyone move that far away from the text and still call it a translation without calling himself a Unitarian?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Wow. I didn't even realize this was from a purported translation. How can anyone move that far away from the text and still call it a translation without calling himself a Unitarian?

The first time I encountered it, I thought it was a joke, like the Valley Girl Bible or the Jive Bible. Then I learned that some deluded would-be Christians are actually trying to build doctrine from it. Jesus weeps.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

What are you talking about, the message is available on biblegateway and I use it to make more sense of bits of the KJV i don't understand.

I was merely asking if the message was saying the right thing here, i didnt cite it in fear of a barrage of "USE KJV AND NOT ANYTHING ELSE" as I already know that. And don't come out saying "why are you looking st the message in the first place" because the fact i'm asking you about it nullifies that complaint.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I was merely asking if the message was saying the right thing here

I answered that question, up here. Dr. Peterson missed about half of the point of the passage.

If you aren't capable of understanding the KJV without the help of a commentary, might I suggest John Calvin's commentary. John Calvin was a man who understood the Bible, and his commentary is much truer to the Bible than Dr. Peterson's version. You can read it online here.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

I answered that question, up here. Dr. Peterson missed about half of the point of the passage.

If you aren't capable of understanding the KJV without the help of a commentary, might I suggest John Calvin's commentary. John Calvin was a man who understood the Bible, and his commentary is much truer to the Bible than Dr. Peterson's version. You can read it online here.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Ah yes thanks, I was just a little outraged by the suggestion that I might have been pretending to have written the message myself, and missed your post in a hurry to reply .

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

What are you talking about, the message is available on biblegateway and I use it to make more sense of bits of the KJV i don't understand.

Just a misunderstanding, it looked like some professor's completely errant gloss on the verses. In a million years I would not have thought that was a translation. The guy who "translated" that verse obviously doesn't know a zeta from a zinfindel or an alpha from his armpit.

Luckily, Pastor Billy-Reuben, as always, set us straight.

I... didnt cite it in fear of a barrage of "USE KJV AND NOT ANYTHING ELSE" as I already know that.

Well, that is sound advice.

And don't come out saying "why are you looking st the message in the first place" because the fact i'm asking you about it nullifies that complaint.

Look at whatever you want, but don't expect us to agree with or justify a bad translation.

Here's a better metaphor for this passage: anyone can cook pancakes using a prepared mix, following the recipe on the box cover. A great cook understands the process of preparing pancakes on a much higher level. She takes flour, eggs, milk, sugar, etc. and blends them together from scratch. The result is, inevitably, better than what you'd get from Aunt Jemima. Christianity's approach to sin is like that--you can follow the recipe (i.e., the law), but once you are saved, the state of grace in which you live takes you far beyond the need for the law. A save Christian can no more sin than can an experienced cook prepare bad flapjacks.

μπορειτε να μιλατε ελληνικα;

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

Here's a better metaphor for this passage: anyone can cook pancakes using a prepared mix, following the recipe on the box cover. A great cook understands the process of preparing pancakes on a much higher level. She takes flour, eggs, milk, sugar, etc. and blends them together from scratch. The result is, inevitably, better than what you'd get from Aunt Jemima. Christianity's approach to sin is like that--you can follow the recipe (i.e., the law), but once you are saved, the state of grace in which you live takes you far beyond the need for the law. A save Christian can no more sin than can an experienced cook prepare bad flapjacks.

μπορειτε να μιλατε ελληνικα;

But Smith, the passage would therefore be saying... nothing new at all.. A saved person doesn't need the law because he would would never break the law........ But the law is the same, still there, still breakable.

Whereas the passage certainly seems to say something along the lines of departing from the old law....... what you say means we don't depart from it at all.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Smith, the passage would therefore be saying... nothing new at all.. A saved person doesn't need the law because he would would never break the law........ But the law is the same, still there, still breakable.

Whereas the passage certainly seems to say something along the lines of departing from the old law....... what you say means we don't depart from it at all.

Brother Smith is exactly right. You are misunderstanding the passage, and your Message bible is making it worse. I think reading John Calvin's commentary on this passage will do you good.

The passages tells us that we are departing from the old ways of serving to the letter of the law, and now we are to serve to the spirit of the law.

The law remains the same. The way we follow it is what has changed. Sin remains sin.

I thought I explained all of this on the previous page.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

You did Reubs, but Smith said it in a different kind of way that revealed to me slightly more obviously that this passages seems to say very little.

How exactly are we serving the law differently if the law hasn't changed at all?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

How exactly are we serving the law differently if the law hasn't changed at all?

Firstly, we do not serve the law, we serve God.

God gave the law. He only gave it because he knew that it would be injurious for His people to behave in a certain a way.

He works towards a state of affairs where man will instinctively behave correctly. He does this by revealing his Truth in The Bible (KJV).

Once mankind behaves correctly and instinctively, the law sits there as a monument to a Wise God. No more than that.

It is all a question of motive. Do you forebear from killing an ox, in the camp (Le:17:3), because (i) God’s law say you must not do it, or do you forebear because (ii) you understand why a certain action is wrong and refrain or (iii) you unquestioningly accept that it is the wrong thing to do and it would never cross your mind?

The best course is clear. (The answer is (iii) just in case it wasn’t clear)

If the state is reached whereat no one, for example, uncovers the nakedness of his son's daughter, (Le:18:10), should the law be removed? No, that law is now a monument to the wisdom of the Drafter and the success of the society.



And what would happen if the law were repealed on grounds of redundancy and one evil person did uncovers the nakedness of his son's daughter – there would be no recourse for public safety and mayhem, revenge, and a general bloodbath would break out… which is bad for the people.

There are quite a few man-made laws that have been repealed only to be reintroduced in one form or another. It is clear that mankind, being imperfect (except for True Christians™) requires even obsolete laws, as not every one is Saved and not everyone will answer (iii) above.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Zeke, you only mention laws we still follow (by instinct as you call it) today. What about the laws in Leviticus we do not follow! That is the point.
The law is still there as a monument, but we're breaking the law, with things like sowing fields with 2 seeds, or wearing cotton polyester blended shirts or jeans

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

But Zeke, you only mention laws we still follow (by instinct as you call it) today. What about the laws in Leviticus we do not follow! That is the point.
The law is still there as a monument, but we're breaking the law, with things like sowing fields with 2 seeds, or wearing cotton polyester blended shirts or jeans

No True Christian™ breaks any of those laws. We even have city of Freehold ordinances forbidding the sale of blended fibers. Brother BJ can tell you amazing stories about the undercover work that he and his boys in security do on enforcing Leviticus Laws in Freehold.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

How exactly are we serving the law differently if the law hasn't changed at all?

We are to follow the spirit of the law rather than merely abiding by the letter of the law.

Let's take Deut 25:4 as an example. It says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

Someone who follows the letter of the law only, while violating the spirit, might find other ways to prevent his ox from eating the grain while it is being harvested. Or he might use his ass to thresh the grain instead. The law doesn't say I can't muzzle my ass.

In the New Testament (I Cor 9:9-10; I Tim 5:17-18), we learn the full spirit of this law. That is that in general, laborers are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor. For example, a business owner who abides by the spirit of this law will have a profit-sharing plan in place for his employees.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

We are to follow the spirit of the law rather than merely abiding by the letter of the law.

Let's take Deut 25:4 as an example. It says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

Someone who follows the letter of the law only, while violating the spirit, might find other ways to prevent his ox from eating the grain while it is being harvested. Or he might use his ass to thresh the grain instead. The law doesn't say I can't muzzle my ass.

In the New Testament (I Cor 9:9-10; I Tim 5:17-18), we learn the full spirit of this law. That is that in general, laborers are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor. For example, a business owner who abides by the spirit of this law will have a profit-sharing plan in place for his employees.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

So the old law as a clear and distinct law becomes invalid?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Bible Time with Falso

So the old law as a clear and distinct law becomes invalid?

There is no such thing as "the old law". There is only the old way of abiding by the law.

What is made invalid is the old way of seeing the law as a bright red line that one can safely walk right along the edge of, just so long as one doesn't actually cross it. The old way allowed people to remain in sin by violating the spirit of the law.

Modern Christians are to stay well within the line specified by the law. Violating the spirit of the law is as bad as violating the letter of the law.

Basically, we are now required to stick to the letter of the law, and then some. We are to go above and beyond the letter of the law. That's why Jesus said this:

Matthew 5:40-41 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

To give some modern examples, if a judge orders you to pay alimony and child-support to your ex-wife, you should pay her double the judge's order. If you are sentenced to a year in prison, you should insist on staying for two.

Pastor Billy-Reuben