Theoblogian.org

anybudee on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

anybudee — 10/30/2005 1:23:00 PM

Charlie,

Of course not everything in the Bible is true, as you earlier pointed out -the devil speaks there. But everything is truly written. Meaning that we can trust that it was truly recorded. (I thought I posted this once right after your 11:46. Hmmm. The internet gremlins ate it, I guess) As for discerning truth from falsity, the scripture provides its own commentary. We must 'rightly divide the Word of Truth.' There are other liars recorded in scripture; false prophets, the Pharisees, etc. And there are people that are just plain wrong at times; Job's friends, Solomon, the disciples, etc. That dividing is done by using other scriptures as 2nd witness or giving general tenor.

For example, the point I was trying to make was concerning David's being a man after God's heart. Paul was quoting Samuel. The Samuel passage was obviously referring to David, Paul quotes it. Plus the the flow of his life and the Psalms echo it.

Charlie on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

Charlie — 10/29/2005 4:16:00 AM

You can keep your sun, I like the rain! That was one of the things I missed the most when I was living in Israel: rain. But my body did get used to the heat, and when I came back to Washington I was freezing.

I shall play my hand: I disagree with Vreeland's take on "a man after God's heart." I do think that David was this man. Based on that, a few comments.

Brian: Even though Samuel did not know specifically who the next king was going to be, it seems that he could at least describe generically what the next king was going to be like. I don't see any problem with having a three chapter gap inbetween.

anybudee: I agree that David was a man after god's own heart. But I do see Vreeland's position as legitimate. What I see in your posts is that you want to say that if the Bible says it, then it must be true. But I'm sure that you would agree that the statements of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 is a lie, right? So just because someone speaks in a narrative does not mean that it is absolute truth. I agree that Samuel and Paul spoke the truth, but I do not think it is a knee-jerk response of: well, they said it, its in the bible, its true. There is more to the process than that. Or am I misreading what you are saying?

anybudee on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

anybudee — 10/27/2005 4:14:00 PM

That's why I moved to the Springs from Minnesota. 300+ sunshine days a year and still has 4 seasons.

Are you still thumping that same tub? Either the canon was inspired or not. Inerrant or not. Trustworhty or not. Settle it, man. The reference to about 'a man after God's heart' was spoken about David, complete with warts. It matters not when Sam found out. Or when he wrote it. Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? There are biblical wonders to behold. Wisdom to be sought. God's hand in man's affairs to be seen. And you keep straining at gnats!

Brian! Tell us what you know of God 1st hand. (that lines up with the Scriptures of course) Tell us what promises you have found the faith to walk in. Tell us what you've seen God do in your days. Inspire us to seek Him by the goodness you've tasted.

This trying to play 'Gotcha!' with some sort of evidentiary rules is beneath you. "Unto you is given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven." The world is waiting. They are largely confused about God and aren't convinced that they find can Him on their own. Tell them what you know.

Brian on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

Brian — 10/18/2005 2:26:00 PM

Anybudee,
It's October here in the NW and gray is all we get.

If we follow the standard interpretation that 1 Samuel is chronological, we have a conundrum. Samuel's statement in 13:14 that God sought a man after his own heart is 3 chapters before we get introduced to David. And then even Samuel doesn't know who the next king is until David is standing before him.

Charlie on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

Charlie — 10/15/2005 6:46:00 AM

It is the same principle as we use in regards to the words of Satan in Job. Inerrancy tells us that we know that Satan actually said that, but inerrancy does not tell us that he spoke correctly. Or any other lie in Scripture: just because it is spoken in a narrative does not mean that the person is speaking the truth. It is exactly the same principle with Paul in Acts. The only difference is that Paul wrote other letters that are inspired Scripture, so we get used to thinking of the words of Paul as inspired. But this is not a good jump in this case. I do not doubt that most of what Paul says in Acts is truthful, but we cannot be guaranteed by our theology.

anybudee on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

anybudee — 10/15/2005 3:49:00 AM

Then you guys like skating in the gray. The salient part about David being a man after God's heart is right out of 1Sam13. For Paul to be quoting it just gives it 'second witness'. So, you got inerrant X 2.

I s'pose I'm a little wary, I've read enough liberal garbage out of the blogs at B4G to get me ordained in the UCC. But it's good to hear that someone believes in inerrancy. I don't think you'd want to see a poll of that taken at B4G. It seems that anything goes there.

Anything not Arminian, that is. : )

Brian on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

Brian — 10/14/2005 9:04:00 PM

Vreeland is not a "higher critic." He believes that Scripture is absolutely true. Paul made this statement. That is inerrancy. The point Vreeland makes is that Paul's statement concerning David in Acts 13:22 is not guaranteed to be inerrant.

Acts 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, 'I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.'

While it is absolutely true that Paul made this statement (Inspiration and Inerrancy), we have no guarantee that Paul was right. I, for one, do not believe that Paul could not make a mistake. He could have spoken incorrectly here. That does not alter the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

anybudee on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

anybudee — 10/14/2005 6:52:00 AM

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit is no net? We should ALL be so insecure.

And Paul's writings not Scripture? Do yourself a favor, reread the beginning of James 3, and then go work with your hands. You don't want anybody actually following you in that mess, you'll have to answer for it. Proverbs says not to move ancient boundary stones. Revelation warns about adding to and taking from. I've seen the glorious results of Paul's gospel. And I've seen the destruction and confusion sown by 'higher criticism'.

gdv on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

gdv — 10/14/2005 12:24:00 AM

That's the point; but I wouldn't want to presume upon God's mercy as an excuse for bad living.

Problem: Paul says so in an ex tempore statement in Pisidian Antioch. Luke is writing Scripture not Paul.

Paul is working without a net - no antecedent Scripture.

Paul is assembling something traditionally, most probably, from several Scriptures.

Scripture cannot be broken; but Luke is quoting accurately: Paul may not be speaking accurately.

Blessings!
gdv.

anybudee on Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

anybudee — 10/12/2005 10:02:00 PM

If the bible says that David is a man after God's heart (and the scripture cannot be broken) then he surely is. It's His heart, it's His call. Was David flawed? Well, let's see -a lousy father, a lecher, adulterer and murderer. You know it's possible that he broke all TEN commandments! I mean, I ain't never hit the big two, have you? And not only was this guy the apple of God's eye, the 2nd Person of the Godhead is named after him - the Son of David.

So if a guy like that could be all that and a bag of manna, then maybe, just maaaaybe, He's got goodies in mind for us yokels who claim Jesus as our righteousness. What thinkest thou?