RSS

Much To Talk About- 97

07 Feb

#1. Amazing

Got a response from a different publisher, in a different organization, in a different state, in a different time zone but the exact same attitude and message. No one wants to teach believers. That is the impression I am left with by their words not their rejections. The latter comes with the territory of writing and provides the reason why I do a lot of self-publishing.

The editorial direction of many current Christian magazines leans towards entertaining the troops than preparing them for spiritual battle. I am not upset about the rejections, I am not everyone’s cup of tea but I am disappointed that the quality of education in the Church realm is so lacking. How can people do what Paul said about growing up and being a Christian adult if no one teaches them what they need to know?

Now I am being very general here and I am sure there are those doing proper Christian education, I just do not see it nor find it.

#2. Civil Rightshttp://www.christianpost.com/news/pray-away-the-gay-program-why-doesnt-the-black-church-support-lgbt-rights-as-it-did-the-civil-rights-movement-133599/

In a feature titled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the Black Church,” Al Jazeera questions why the black church isn’t playing a central role in the movement for “LGBT rights,” as the institution did in the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

There is a lot of confusion about what is civil rights. Allow me to present a definition.

First, the actual and true civil rights movement pre-1970s was addressing sins against a group of people who were being clearly discriminated against and treated in an unjust manner. Their only crime was the color of their skin which is NOT a divine, biblical sin, but a human declared wrong. What was done to them came from sin and were sinful actions not from divine guidance.

Second, the term civil rights does not belong to the homosexual/same-sex issue because those people are practicing a divine, biblical sin, one which is clearly stated to be an abomination and sin. Depriving homosexuals from marrying a same-sex partner is not a violation of their civil rights nor is it discrimination because they still have access to the institution of marriage. It is the homosexual who is doing the rejection of that access not the rest of the world.

Third, homosexuality/same-sex marriage i snot limited to one group or nationality. It is an international infestation that affects all people and all nations. There is no real discrimination here because the homosexual community is not a national minority. The opposition to their ways is because they practice sin and perversion. Blacks cannot influence others to turn their skin black but homosexuals can deceive young vulnerable children and people to become homosexual and then carry out their lusts on those unwary victims.

There is a vast difference between the real civil rights issue and what the homosexual community is demanding. The black community was seeking justice, fairness, equal opportunities, a life and so on; while the homosexual already possesses those things. They are simply demanding a new avenue to practice their sinful sexual perversion.

The blacks know the difference in this issue I wonder how many whites do?

#3. Estherhttp://ageofrocks.org/2015/01/31/when-the-bible-makes-us-uncomfortable-a-refreshing-take-on-the-story-of-esther/

The main reason for the neglect, of course, is the narrative’s overtly secular nature. It is unclear to what extent God is involved in the course of events, let alone the lives of the individual characters. This absence of God stands firmly in contrast, for example, to the Exodus narrative or the tale of Daniel in the lion’s den. So what is a book like this doing in our Bibles?

I will disagree that the book of  Esther has a secular nature to it.  The interview you can discard or use as an example of how not to think about God’s word because he misses the point of the example set in that book.

The absence of God or the failure to mention his name does not make a work wrong or secular. The problem lies with those looking at the words and who fail to follow the HS to the truth about the book. I have no problem with God not being mentioned because we can see God work through timing, different decisions and behaviors, we see a good example of how women should behave towards their husbands.

What we are seeing in the book of  Esther is how believers should act in their daily lives. Mordecai gives wise counsel which is tested and confirmed then obeyed. Esther follows the proper way to approach her husband, and making her request and so on. These are all very biblical actions

We do not have to have a direct command of God for every good work we do. We are already commanded to do good and do not have to pray very time. Romans 12:21 tells us

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NASB)

When we see people unjustly treated we can step in and right wrongs being committed against them.  Here is another teaching that shows us that we can do good acts without direct push from God:

But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (1 John 3:17)

We are not robots and God wants us to think. If someone needs our help we do not have to call a quorum of the board and discuss the matter, we act. Here is a link to 190 verses containing the words ‘do’ & ‘good’, they let you know that Esther is a very spiritual and biblical book because they are practicing what God teaches

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=+do+good

Just because we do not see the prayer, hear God’s answer to the person involved, or see the correct Christian words doesn’t mean God is not involved. He has laid out lots of verses giving us permission to do good without first obtaining his permission.

#4. This Is A Prime Example...– http://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurch-pastor-ed-young-to-baptize-copies-of-fifty-shades-of-grey-calls-book-a-perverted-attempt-to-trap-readers-133655/

Just over a week before the steamy “Fifty Shades of Grey” movie opens on Valentine’s weekend, controversial founding pastor of the popular Fellowship Church in Dallas, Texas, Ed Young, says he will baptize copies of the book on which the movie is based, calling it a “perverted attempt to trap readers.”

of what I am talking about when I wrote I Am Disappointed 2. Pastors are going too far in their words and actions and they need to be reigned in then guided back to the proper boundaries and told to be careful.  This just makes Christ and that pastor look foolish. Certainly he does not appear Christian, wise or understanding.

#5. There Is A Time...– http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-respond-to-isis-burning-pilot-alive-churches-call-for-peace-and-religious-harmony-while-jordanian-king-vows-relentless-war-133617/

Churches in Jordan have offered their prayers and condolences to the Muslim family of the fighter pilot burned alive by ISIS earlier this week, and have urged for peace, religious harmony and unity. King Abdullah II has promised, however, that there will be a “relentless” war against ISIS in retaliation for the murder.

when such calls make you look naive, out of touch, and insane.  If any church thinks that they can reason with ISIS then I wish them well but I expect to mourn at their funeral. The people of ISIS are not truly religious, they are depraved sinners with blood lust and probably past the point of reconciliation (in general as there might be a few who could be saved) but the Bible warns about making deals with evil.

These people have no problem with lying to your face, making agreements then turning around and stabbing you in the back when you are not looking. Those churches just do not get it and they do not read the people of ISIS very well.

#6. And People Wonder...– http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-is-crucifying-burying-iraqi-children-alive-using-mentally-challenged-kids-as-suicide-bombers-says-un-watchdog-133704/

In issuing its first report on the plight of Iraqi children for the first time since 1998, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child painted a horrifying glimpse into how the Islamic State terrorist organizations is beheading, crucifying, and even burying alive religious minority children.

why God repented of his creating man before sending the flood. They also wonder why God could kill so many people, including children. This story should serve as an example to help you understand why God did what he did. The pre-flood world makes ISIS look like girl scouts.

#7. Let’s Not Forget About Dadhttp://www.christianpost.com/news/bobby-jindal-on-common-core-trust-moms-not-bureaucrats-133725/

Local parents, local teachers, local leaders need to make these decisions,” Jindal asserted. “The idea that through Common Core, that we would allow for the first time the federal government to be making curriculum decisions, in violation of the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution and violation of long-established federal law.”

I know it (the headline) is just political rhetoric but for years now Dads have been given the shaft and left out of the conversation.  I have to disagree with Jindal in part because the federal government does have the right to establish standards to ensure that their people are being properly educated. They may have implemented a wrong method here but it is not unfixable, if cooler heads prevail and this is where wise, knowledgeable men need to step in and calm things down.

For too many years education has been a political football for a variety of people and the only success has been the dumbing down of everyone. The only victims are the students as their parents and leaders are letting them down with all of this educational revision talk. Forget the games, just educate. If that means going back to the 3 Rs then so be it but anything is better than what adults are offering the students today– from Bill Gates on down.

Men time to step up, do it right and be counted

#8. Funny or Tongue In Cheek?http://www.christianpost.com/news/lgbt-community-if-you-believe-christians-mistreat-you-then-consider-how-isis-reacts-to-those-accused-of-homosexuality-133601/

Yesterday, Islamic State (ISIS) released more photos of executions of a man they said had a “homosexual affair”, showing photos of a man being thrown from a seven-storey building, and then stoned to death when he appeared to survive the fall.

I do not know if he was being humorous, or making fun of the homosexual community or not but he does have a point. Homosexuals have it easy in the West.

Advertisements
 

12 responses to “Much To Talk About- 97

  1. ageofrocks

    February 7, 2015 at 5:53 am

    “Just because we do not see the prayer, hear God’s answer to the person involved, or see the correct Christian words doesn’t mean God is not involved. He has laid out lots of verses giving us permission to do good without first obtaining his permission.”

    Sounds to me like you didn’t read the interview at all, or even a brief description of the book, the main thesis of which describes just how God is working in the backdrop of the story. He differs only on whether the main characters are aware of that guiding providence (the absence of God explicitly from their lives, and their neglect of His ordained feasts/prayer life tell us that no, they are not aware).

    On the other hand, I’m not sure how competing sexually for the favor of pagan royalty ought to be deemed ‘doing good’. We certainly don’t get a role model for women/wives before their husbands. Additionally, your simple search for ‘do’ + ‘good’ does not help us at all determine whether or not the book is secular (you obviously misunderstand this term as applied by the author), and it is somewhat insulting to the author, who put a great deal of work into his faithful analysis.

    “Esther follows the proper way to approach her husband, and making her request and so on.”

    How is that??

     
    • theologyarchaeology

      February 7, 2015 at 6:46 am

      I think you do not understand the book of Esther nor do you grasp the details of its purpose. Do you see either Esther or Mordecai doing anything evil? Obviously not thus their actions example the verse from Romans.

      Do you see Esther demanding to see the king, walking in on him when not invited saying she is his wife and she can go where she pleases? No you don’t. You see her submissive and obedient.

      You read into the book instead of taking out of it. You cannot decide they were unaware because there is nothing there to tell you they were ignorant of God’s actions. Plus you do not know them so you are placing your ideas into their actions.

      If you think the book is secular then why would God include it in his canon? It is not a secular work but shows that good works do not depend upon a special invitation from God but that they must be done when one has the opportunity to do so.

      Your insult about my search tells me that you did not read the verses and ignore their lesson. Oh and i couldn’t care about the interview, I was focusing a very limited point about the book of Esther and using that quote as a launching pad.

      please expand your knowledge of the different ways to write.

       
      • ageofrocks

        February 7, 2015 at 11:02 am

        “Do you see either Esther or Mordecai doing anything evil? ”

        The very names of the characters are derived from Babylonian mythology. This alone tells us how the author means us to view their attitudes. In any case, yes, as I mentioned: competing sexually for the favor of a pagan king; ignoring the Passover feast; using their cunning to slaughter Persians; taking the estate of Haman, rather than leaving it untouched. All of these are hinted strongly by the author, but you’ve read into the text a foreign faithfulness.

        “Do you see Esther demanding to see the king, walking in on him when not invited saying she is his wife and she can go where she pleases?”

        Essentially, yes. That is one of the main scenes that drives the plot. Don’t you recall? In any case, wives who wait on their husbands to invite them in when they have a request are not wives of biblical stature. You present a strangely denigrating view of submissiveness.

        “Plus you do not know them so you are placing your ideas into their actions. ”

        It’s a narrative—a story! The author lets us know these details via literary twists, symbols, wordplay, irony, drama, and the like.

        “If you think the book is secular then why would God include it in his canon?”

        That’s why you should have read the interview and/or the book. 🙂 That was the whole point of the conversation!

        “It is not a secular work but…”

        I think you still don’t know what this means, at least not in terms of how the book employed the phrase. Nothing in the story alludes to uniquely Jewish religious life; even the names of the Jewish characters are Babylonian. That’s what makes it a secular book—it is told through the lens of the world “out there” (outside of Israel). The protagonists are completely assimilated into that foreign culture, hence even they do not carry religious ideals with them (unlike, say, Daniel). You can’t get around this fact.

        “Your insult about my search tells me that you did not read the verses and ignore their lesson.”

        Your search exercise was completely unhelpful in establishing the point that was up for discussion. It told me that you didn’t understand what you were critiquing. Asking people to do a keyword search for “do good” is not research, in contrast to the position you tried to critique. In any case, I didn’t insult you; I accused you of insulting someone else.

        “Oh and i couldn’t care about the interview, I was focusing a very limited point about the book of Esther and using that quote as a launching pad.”

        This is your typical way of backing out once you receive criticism after mocking my posts. If you couldn’t care about the interview, then you shouldn’t cite it and then dismiss it condescendingly.

         
        • theologyarchaeology

          February 8, 2015 at 2:54 am

          “The very names of the characters are derived from Babylonian mythology.”

          Your evidence please.

          “s I mentioned: competing sexually for the favor of a pagan king;”

          she wasn’t competing ‘sexually’. Please read the text again and see she was vying for being his wife, replacing the old one.

          ” but you’ve read into the text a foreign faithfulness.”

          The only person I see reading into the text is you. You have no such evidence and declare the author is doing something but cannot prove it.

          “You present a strangely denigrating view of submissiveness.”

          You are reading your own ideas into my words.

          “It’s a narrative—a story! ”

          Wrong. it is a true event.

          ” even the names of the Jewish characters are Babylonian. ”

          two of my names are the same as the Hebrew people, does that make me Jewish? You leave no room for divine and make God a sinner for letting lies enter his book or telling lies. If Esther was a story, why didn’t Jesus correct everybody’s misunderstanding when he was on earth?

          He never corrects one thing about the OT

          “This is your typical way of backing out once you receive criticism after mocking my posts”

          You really have a problem of reading your own ideas into other people’s words. You obviously cannot handle being told the truth.

           
          • ageofrocks

            February 8, 2015 at 5:04 am

            David, your habit of pontification over dialogue makes commenting here both futile and intriguing at the same time.

            Most of your objections here are answered or discussed in the interview (or in the book). But telling someone “go read the text again and see that it’s this way” is neither an argument nor helpful. How does Esther become queen? By competing with the other virgins who were brought to the king one night only for a chance to please him. Further, there is no indication that she went reluctantly. So it matters not how many times either of us reread the text if you refuse to discuss why it means what you think it means.

            “Your evidence please.”

            Esther and Mordecai are Hebraic forms of the Akkadian Ishtar and Marduk. This has been recognized for millennia and would have stuck out like a sore thumb for those Jewish readers living in a postexilic age. Neither Esther nor Mordecai mean anything in Hebrew, because their etymology is rooted in Babylon; they are not Jewish names.

            “two of my names are the same as the Hebrew people, does that make me Jewish?”

            You’re missing the point. In Hebrew narrative, names of the characters reflect their role in the story (Abraham, Israel, Adam, e.g.). By introducing characters with foreign names (Moses also has a foreign name, by the way), the author is telling us how to interpret their story. See the interview for more details.

            “You leave no room for divine and make God a sinner for letting lies enter his book or telling lies. If Esther was a story, why didn’t Jesus correct everybody’s misunderstanding when he was on earth?”

            Because people didn’t misunderstand the book—you do. In Jesus’ day, the book was understood to be precisely that: a story. The evidence lies in the fact that the story was retold and reshaped differently by different communities. That’s why we have at least 3 versions, which vary quite a bit from each other. Again, read the interview or the book for more details.

            In any case, what lies are you talking about? Are you really going to equate telling stories with telling lies, as though the Bible can’t contain ahistorical stories?? And finally, why do you seem to assume that historical narrative cannot deviate from the details of history? Even if the story is “true”, it may not have happened exactly the way it is written in the Bible. That doesn’t make the author a liar, but a good storyteller.

            “You obviously cannot handle being told the truth.”

            Obviously. 😉

             
  2. theologyarchaeology

    February 8, 2015 at 7:23 am

    “But telling someone “go read the text again and see that it’s this way” is neither an argument nor helpful. ”

    You would be wrong of course as re-reading the text would help you find those scriptures which do not say what you think they say or allude to. Esther 1:19 provides the reason for the competition. Esther 2:19 refers to them as virgins thus no sex took place as you insist. You are reading your own ideas into the situation.

    “Esther and Mordecai are Hebraic forms of the Akkadian Ishtar and Marduk”

    That is still not evidence for anything except their parents favored non-hebrew names. You have no evidence proving it is just a story and borrowed. Also, there is nothing IN THE Bible saying it is only a story. That is something you are reading into the book and what law of God states that Hebrew parents are to give their children Hebrew names only?

    “You’re missing the point. In Hebrew narrative, names of the characters reflect their role in the story (Abraham, Israel, Adam, e.g.). ”

    No I am not and no they don’t. The OT tells us their real names or God lied or let lies into the Bible. What you are missing out on are the ramifications of your altered versions and what they do to God and salvation.

    “By introducing characters with foreign names (Moses also has a foreign name, by the way), the author is telling us how to interpret their story. See the interview for more details.”

    Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from the Bible or God. There is nothing anywhere that supports that kind of thinking. It is an excuse to avoid the truth found in God’s word.

    “Because people didn’t misunderstand the book—you do. In Jesus’ day, the book was understood to be precisely that: a story. The evidence lies in the fact that the story was retold and reshaped differently by different communities.”

    Me and millions of other believers but you would be the one who doesn’t understand the book. Wrong again on your part for there is no divine instructions anywhere that say it is only a story. You also do not have any textual support for that type of thinking. it is a true story about Esther and one facet of her life. Again, you have no evidence it was reshuffled and retold differently in different communities or that there are 3 different versions.

    “In any case, what lies are you talking about? ”

    Nice dodge on your part as you avoid dealing with Jesus’ not correcting any of the OT. That is your major problem. Jesus had ample opportunity to correct anything that was wrong in the OT and he did not

    You can point to different editions, name meanings and so on all you want but you do not have Jesus’ stamp of approval. My side does.The question is why are you afraid of it being a true story?
    Jesus also did not correct Genesis 1-10 so those who oppose those chapters are in error as well.

    The Bible contains the true story of Esther and the events, dialogues and so on took place exactly as recorded.

     
    • ageofrocks

      February 15, 2015 at 6:50 am

      “Esther 2:19 refers to them as virgins thus no sex took place as you insist. You are reading your own ideas into the situation.”

      Yes, the king preferred virgins to delight him sexually for one night… That’s what the text suggests; I don’t know of any commentator that missed this point, except for you.

      “That is still not evidence for anything except their parents favored non-hebrew names.”

      Why is it so difficult to see? It is the author that picked the names, not anyone’s parents. Do you really think faithful Hebrews would name their children after foreign deities? As one who claims to be trained in archeology, you ought to know better than this. The foreign names of the Jewish protagonists is a tell-tale sign of the story’s intent, which gives it a beautifully ironic twist.

      “The OT tells us their real names or God lied or let lies into the Bible. What you are missing out on are the ramifications of your altered versions and what they do to God and salvation.”

      Stories are not lies; they are ways of telling deep truths. Again, you claim to be trained in theology and archeology, but cannot see this?

      What do you mean by *my* altered versions? Are you unaware that there are 3+ manuscript traditions of Esther, all of which differ from each other substantially? All three of them have been accepted as canonical by Jewish/Christian circles, too.

      “Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from the Bible or God.”

      Hebrew tradition/storytelling, and the text of Esther. It takes very basic reading skills to pick up on these details… Each character takes upon the role of their namesake in the story. Is this coincidence? No, it’s just good narrative.

      “Me and millions of other believers but you would be the one who doesn’t understand the book. Wrong again on your part for there is no divine instructions anywhere that say it is only a story. You also do not have any textual support for that type of thinking. it is a true story about Esther and one facet of her life. Again, you have no evidence it was reshuffled and retold differently in different communities or that there are 3 different versions.”

      This entire paragraph is absolutely childish, I hate to say. Pick up a Septuagint and read the book of Esther. Then pick up a Hebrew Bible (or even an NIV/NASB/KJV) and read the same book. Notice any differences?

      Why are you so offended by the possibility that the story could just be good historical fiction? We have no indication that it should otherwise.

      “Nice dodge on your part as you avoid dealing with Jesus’ not correcting any of the OT.”

      Was that his mission..? I didn’t dodge anything here. 😉

      “You can point to different editions, name meanings and so on all you want but you do not have Jesus’ stamp of approval. My side does.”

      This is the basis of your delusion, David. You sincerely believe that Jesus would support every word that you write, but in so doing, you misrepresent the faith and place a stumbling block before believers.

      Please, give me a single NT verse (let alone the words of Jesus) that speaks anything of Esther. Can you do it? Yours is an argument from silence, because you must avoid what is obvious in the text. You take it for granted that the story was read as you want to read it, but this is demonstrably false. It’s unfortunate that you cannot carry on any rational discourse…

      “The Bible contains the true story of Esther and the events, dialogues and so on took place exactly as recorded.”

      And how do you know this? 😉 Can you give me a text that says “These events happened exactly as recorded?”

       
      • theologyarchaeology

        February 15, 2015 at 8:50 am

        “And how do you know this? 😉 Can you give me a text that says “These events happened exactly as recorded?””

        I will give you two: Titus 1:2 (if you believe God has preserved his word then the accounts are exactly as happened) & John 14:2 (do you think Jesus would allow his OT writers lie and not correct them when he had the chance?)

        “This is the basis of your delusion, David. ”

        why do you have such a problem with the Bible? you pick obscure reasons to dismiss the Bible and all God asks is for you to use faith. if you cannot have faith about Esther how can you have faith about Jesus, heaven, salvation? Do you need physical evidence for every character of the Bible and event? If so then you have no faith.

        “Hebrew tradition/storytelling”

        again, not from God or the Bible but from uninspired and fallible sources which lead you away from the truth.

        “Why are you so offended by the possibility that the story could just be good historical fiction? We have no indication that it should otherwise.”

        i do not think you know what the word ‘offended’ really means. I am not offended at all but wonder why Esther has to be unreal for you?What are you afraid of? That if Esther is real then Gen. 1-10 are real as well?

        “What do you mean by *my* altered versions?”

        you haven’t linked to them and in my research, there was only two different versions but easily explained how it came to be. i do not know why you have such a problem with Esther, when there is nothing wrong with it being a true story.

        “Stories are not lies; they are ways of telling deep truths. Again, you claim to be trained in theology and archeology, but cannot see this?”

        They are if they are represented as true and the Bible doe snot make any mention of any of the accounts are mere stories. When Jesus spoke in parables, the Bible tells u s he spoke in parables. No such wording is present for Esther

        “Why is it so difficult to see? It is the author that picked the names, ”

        You have no evidence for this.

        “Yes, the king preferred virgins to delight him sexually for one night… That’s what the text suggests; I don’t know of any commentator that missed this point, except for you.”

        Then maybe you and your fellow commentators need to get your minds out of the gutter. The book calls them virgins later after that supposed one night stand thus you are th eone reading into the text something that is not suggested,

         
        • ageofrocks

          February 16, 2015 at 5:20 am

          ” if you cannot have faith about Esther how can you have faith about Jesus, heaven, salvation?”

          I do have faith about Esther. Did you not read my post? By the way, you still have not cited a text that supports your claim.

          “do you think Jesus would allow his OT writers lie and not correct them when he had the chance?”

          First, they didn’t lie; they were telling a story, just like Jesus did on many occasions. Second, how do you know he didn’t correct that reading of the book? Many things he did/said were not recorded for us, do you not recall?

          “I am not offended at all but wonder why Esther has to be unreal for you?”

          It’s not unreal; it’s plenty real. Esther’s story is that of Jews in diaspora, the unfaithful living outside of the covenant land. Her story is the tale of how God remains faithful to those who are scarcely recognizable as his covenant people. Because she is eponymous, her story is far more real than a simple recounting of one person’s event-filled life (the same goes for Genesis 1-11, by the way). I don’t think you take these biblical texts seriously, and rely instead on novel traditions. That’s why so much of the story is missed by you.

          “you haven’t linked to them and in my research, there was only two different versions but easily explained how it came to be.”

          I told you how to find them, and you could just do a quick search to find the answer yourself.

          http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Purim/History/Book_of_Esther/Greek_Versions.shtml

          There’s a very quick summary; of course in the primary literature you’ll find detailed discussions.

          “They are if they are represented as true and the Bible doe snot make any mention of any of the accounts are mere stories.”

          Typically, stories don’t tell you which of their events are simply recounted from history, which are embellished, and which are creative additions, etc. You have to recognize this by studying it with serious rigor (i.e. having respect for the book). It is an exception to the rule that certain gospels tell us specifically that Jesus was speaking in parables (by the way, it seems he did not inform his audience of that fact).

          “Then maybe you and your fellow commentators need to get your minds out of the gutter.”

          Nope, it still seems pretty clear. Esther and all the virgins (really, this just means young women) had sex with the king, so that he could decide who pleased him the most. She won. The fact that the narrator uses the same word to refer back to the group of young women he had already introduced does not negate what is clearly implied. Do you think the women went one at a time to have dinner and a movie? 😉

          The Bible is true to life, you’ll need to accept that. You can’t just read into the story what makes you feel more comfortable about it.

           
          • theologyarchaeology

            February 16, 2015 at 5:44 am

            You just confirm for me the teaching of ‘casting pearls before swine’. it just doesn’t work and you are not the one casting pearls. For example

            ‘Second, how do you know he didn’t correct that reading of the book? Many things he did/said were not recorded for us, do you not recall?’

            Why would he tell the disciples and the early people yet not have those vital corrections recorded so the rest of us would be able to know the truth?

            another example

            “First, they didn’t lie; they were telling a story, just like Jesus did on many occasions”

            As I said, when Jesus spoke in a parable, scriptures told us he was speaking in a parable. no such instruction is present for the book of Esther

            a third example, your resorting to the insult

            ” I don’t think you take these biblical texts seriously, and rely instead on novel traditions. That’s why so much of the story is missed by you.”

            I do not miss any of the stories but you do.

            the rest of your post i will just ignore as it has no merit, no evidence and your insults are not worth responding to.

             
          • ageofrocks

            February 16, 2015 at 5:58 am

            That’s okay, I think you made my point well. It goes to show how powerful community traditions can be in the face of contrary evidence. It seems you’ll say anything to dodge a question.

            Like I said, not everyone in Jesus’ day felt the way you do about the story of Esther. That’s why they were comfortable rewriting the story (hence the Greek versions): they viewed it primarily as a story! So Jesus didn’t need to correct anything. Perhaps his silence was assent to the way Rabbinical Jews approached the text.

            Then again, there is no mention of the text in the NT, so far all we know, they didn’t consider it canonical.

             
  3. theologyarchaeology

    February 16, 2015 at 8:14 am

    “That’s okay, I think you made my point well.”

    You didn’t but then i am not using your mind when I read your work.

    “It goes to show how powerful community traditions can be in the face of contrary evidence”

    What community traditions? You are making assumptions and then attacking your own leaps to conclusions. You do not have any contrary evidence because your ideas are coming from uninspired, fallible sources that probably do not believe the Bible or God.

    “It seems you’ll say anything to dodge a question.”

    i went over my posts and your comments and I found you avoided so many points that it is impossible to have a real discussion with you

    “Like I said, not everyone in Jesus’ day felt the way you do about the story of Esther.”

    But you have not proven them to be true Christians who believe God. it seems you will accept anybody’s words just as long as they tell you what you want to hear. Marcion did not accept most of the NT does that make him a Christian? or following God? NO. You need to be more discerning in your acceptance of ancient sources.

    “That’s why they were comfortable rewriting the story (hence the Greek versions): they viewed it primarily as a story”

    and they would be wrong. Just because it was written in ancient times does not mean their work was of God or that it trumps what God has preserved in the Bible.

    “So Jesus didn’t need to correct anything”

    Right, because Esther is a true account of actual events and people as they happened, lived and spoke.

    ” Perhaps his silence was assent to the way Rabbinical Jews approached the text.”

    only morons think that silence means assent.

    “Then again, there is no mention of the text in the NT, so far all we know, they didn’t consider it canonical.”

    That is a faulty assumption and a very erroneous one at that. Ruth was only mentioned in Matthew’s geneaology so does that make that book’s details and canonicity suspect? 1st & 2nd Chronicles ar enot mentioned in the NT nor are their author’s names, does that make their canonicity suspect?

    The same for Malachi and Amos, though there is an Amos in Luke’s gen. I could come up with more examples if you wish but these should show you that your logic is faulty when it comes to Esther.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: