Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Twinky

Idiom of Permission

Recommended Posts

Interesting that in the book, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", written by E.W. Bullinger. One of the long chapters in this over 1000 page book is a chapter titled "Idioma or Idiom. A chapter that I have not read, but with many verses quoted on this subject, it looks like a good biblical chapter. This chapter has 42 pages.

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Mark please let us know what you find, as I recently have been "witnessing" to an old friend & this seems to be his very hang up..he sees all the mass murdering in the ot & has no desire to worship a tyrant & mass murderer..lol..I shared with him the analogy of a God who is protecting his kids like a mother bear her cubs.but he doesn't buy it....he's quite bright, but had no father growing up, thus my words are of little use to his preconceived mindsets over his 60 years on the rock...so yeh I too am interested..as its not something one can just lightly toss aside & claim it has no validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jim jack said:

yes Mark please let us know what you find, as I recently have been "witnessing" to an old friend & this seems to be his very hang up..he sees all the mass murdering in the ot & has no desire to worship a tyrant & mass murderer..lol..I shared with him the analogy of a God who is protecting his kids like a mother bear her cubs.but he doesn't buy it....he's quite bright, but had no father growing up, thus my words are of little use to his preconceived mindsets over his 60 years on the rock...so yeh I too am interested..as its not something one can just lightly toss aside & claim it has no validity.

Hi Jim Jack: This would take a lot of research work to provide a remedy for this when only looking at Old Testament scriptures and not our loving savior Jesus Christ as seen in the New Testament. However, I have a number of reference books and even biblical study software with multiple reference books. Simply post the scriptures that this person does not like and I can help with the study of these scriptures. I also have a NIV study bible which has comments on the verses. If you want you could even start your own thread.

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly I cannot get this man to really accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God..I think he would like it to be, but is overly obstinent & has an awful attitude towards God & his plan for man's redemption..all based on God being a "bad guy" etc etc.. I sure wish  I could speak more into his life.but he's very easily able to just "forget the whole thing" & hope it'll all be ok after he dies....I'm at my wits end..honestly...BUT I believe God knows whats in his heart & I'd love to see a miracle for him, as he's always been upright IMHO....can't imagine him taking the time to research something he's only has an opinion of.. Thanx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Raf said:

i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.

Yes...please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 1:59 PM, WordWolf said:

*sighs*

No, what he wrote in his blog is straight out of BULLINGER, almost verbatim.    vpw isn't the only one who can read Bullinger and spit back what he wrote.  At least one page shows a healthy respect for Bullinger, and their explanation about who they are sounds NOTHING like ex-twi.  So, Bullinger is verbatim, but twi is not.

Like I said...almost. If it was “verbatim” I would have said “verbatim”. I said “almost verbatim”. Are you telling me that what was “almost verbatim” in Mr. Sebastian’s blog was not in pfal?

And for the record I find your “sighs” comment condescending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jim jack said:

sure Raf...whatcha got??

He asked, Raf, so I wouldn't say not to answer him.  I will ask for a bit of tact in how you phrase it, however.  We can all play nice even when disagreeing, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, jim jack said:

sadly I cannot get this man to really accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God..I think he would like it to be, but is overly obstinent & has an awful attitude towards God & his plan for man's redemption..all based on God being a "bad guy" etc etc.. I sure wish  I could speak more into his life.but he's very easily able to just "forget the whole thing" & hope it'll all be ok after he dies....I'm at my wits end..honestly...BUT I believe God knows whats in his heart & I'd love to see a miracle for him, as he's always been upright IMHO....can't imagine him taking the time to research something he's only has an opinion of.. Thanx

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God."

Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian.

2. "I think he would like it to be..."

Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis.

3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption."

A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption.

Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that).

So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written.

There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus.

The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. 

It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it.

But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either).

The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." 

A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech.

A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones!

God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done.

And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night!

So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion. 

And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point on the man picking up sticks, Raf. The other that always bothers me is God striking Uzzah dead for touching the ark after the oxen stumbled. 

-JJ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he HAD to do that to protect the Christline! [WTF????]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 3:52 PM, Raf said:

I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.

I would put K.C. Pillai in the same category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But his books had a lot of pages with chapters and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 3:08 PM, Raf said:

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God."

Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian.

2. "I think he would like it to be..."

Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis.

3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption."

A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption.

Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that).

So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written.

There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus.

The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. 

It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it.

But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either).

The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." 

A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech.

A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones!

God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done.

And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night!

So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

Raf, bingo!!:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...