What does the bible teach about Christians and war?
Comments
-
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.
-
@Dave_L said:
You are flatly denying what Scripture plainly says. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
No, I'm saying that isn't what it says. That's what they KJV says.
You still have yet to counter my point.
-
@Dave_L said:
If we go back to Adam, both he and Satan were evil. Adam lusted after an object of human value. And Satan was merely a spectator. So the love of money (apples) was the root of all evil. We don't know if Satan was under law. We only know he is evil and God uses him in this capacity.No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
-
Receiving the truth of the Bible by faith is a good thing. So is reading it in context. The issue in the 1 Tim 6:10 pericope is error because of greed. The love of money was the motive behind false teaching--not much has changed since those days, has it?
The backdrop for this passage statement is very clear and, in the same pericope, immediately precedes the statement: 1 Tim 6:5 "...useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
Keep in mind that the "LOVE of money is the root of all evils" as is any LOVE for an idol or inappropriate appetite we have. παντων των κακων, of all these evils; i. e. the evils listed in the passages preceding. ῥίζα, lacking an article probably is intended to be definite (the root, not a root), but even IF that is true, the context does not indicate exclusivity.
Translating this exactly into English isn't possible. "a root of all kinds of evils (as listed above)" could be an acceptable rendering. The Gk isn't that exactly clear either---probably because the intended meaning wasn't to be that exacting or limited in scope. Funny how we ferhoodle the original further by translating it and then argue nuances of the translation.
Applying a little practical common sense we can see that greed is the root of much evil, but cannot be the root of evil where money or its equivalent is not known to exist. Maybe someone could make a case for Eve hoarding up apples or something to barter with Adam.
Meanwhile, back at the farm....where were we. Deciding if money was the root of all war? Or if war could ever have a cause just in God's eyes?
-
@reformed said:
No Dave. That is twisting it. Apples did not have human value at the time, nor do we even know it was an apple. Money had not yet been created. Adam and Even had no use or even concept of money.
What does Satan being under the law have anything to do with this? He is evil and if the love of money was truly the root of all evil there must be money involved with Satan, but there isn't.
Eve saw value in the apple.
-
@reformed said:
No, I'm saying that isn't what it says. That's what they KJV says.
You still have yet to counter my point.
All evil includes All sorts of evil.
-
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
-
@reformed said:
It doesn't say the love of value. That being said, what about Satan? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
-
@Dave_L said:
Eve saw the fruit having value. And her and Adam's eating of it is the source of all war and every other evil.
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
-
@reformed said:
What about Satan? And for the last time, value is not the same as money. You can't twist things to fit your misinterpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
-
@Dave_L said:
Adam & Eve sinned. Satan only offered suggestions but also sinned doing so.
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
-
@reformed said:
Satan fell before Adam and Eve. No money involved. You lose on this one Dave, why can't you just admit it?
How do we know Satan fell before then?
-
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
-
@reformed said:
Genesis 3. Satan lied before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, he fell first. But he also fell from Heaven prior to that.
Even if true, Adam & Eve saw value in eating from the fruit.
-
If its true it means your interpretation is wrong (which it is)
-
@reformed said:
If its true it means your interpretation is wrong (which it is)
Would they have eaten if it was invaluable to them?
-
@Dave_L said:
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10)
The war on terror is about Israel's money and territory.Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C_M_ said:
Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see See Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Thanks for the solid advice. But even James says war is about money. So I'm far from being alone in this.
-
@C_M_ said:
Dave,
May I suggest you review the Methods, Steps, and Tools for Biblical Interpretation. The part, in particular, is when dealing with a text. One must address the Relevance. It deals with application and tells us what the text means for people living in the twenty-first century.
To ignore this factor is to do injustice to the text. Exegesis is NOT strictly historical. Mostly for three reasons:
- It ignores the purpose of doing exegesis, namely, to hear and obey God's word.
- It deals exclusively with the historical, thereby refusing to realize that God's word has present-day value.
- It leaves the passage to the subjective interpretation of the hearer.
In sum, Stuart, said, "The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least."
In dealing with relevance, we must also be cognizant of our contemporary needs, issues, and circumstances. In other words, in order to meaningfully apply
the text to our situation, we must be aware of what is happening in the world around us.I know we often tend to think that the biblical message is solely spiritual or religious. However, we cannot ignore the fact that parts of the Bible deal with social issues, economic matters, marriage, and the family, and so forth. These must be faced for what they are and not merely spiritualized. For example, the book of Amos aims directly at the injustices of the rich against the poor. Cf. Acts 6:1-7. See also, the texts that deal with Economic matters – [See Jer 32:6-12; Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:41-44; 1 Tim 6:10.]. For marriage and family understanding, see See Gen 2:24; 24:67; Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11; Eph 5:28,33; Col 3:19.
I hope this help with understanding and move all to a correct interpretation of 1 Tim 6:10. Blessings. CM
SOURCE:
-- Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2d ed., rev. and enlarged (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 8, 40.
Do you mean that Scripture changes meaning in different circumstances? Is that what you are saying? If you are saying that I adamantly disagree. It only means what it meant to the original audience. We then must bridge that and apply it to today's circumstances.
-
@reformed said:
Do you mean that Scripture changes meaning in different circumstances? Is that what you are saying? If you are saying that I adamantly disagree. It only means what it meant to the original audience. We then must bridge that and apply it to today's circumstances.
This is just a snippet out of the process of exegeting a passage. A text has its meaning to the original audience and then the principle application of the meaning is made to the modern audience.
If one ignore the relevance of the text and view the text strictly historical, "the exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least." CM
-
@C_M_ said:
This is just a snippet out of the process of exegeting a passage. A text has its meaning to the original audience and then the principle application of the meaning is made to the modern audience.
If one ignore the relevance of the text and view the text strictly historical, "the exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least." CM
Trying to understand. You are NOT saying the meaning changes, just the application? A passage only has one meaning but can have many applications. Is that what you are saying?
