While I agree with the comparison point by NN and DaveW, there's actually a little more nuance to the explanation that makes it all a little more concrete. In 1 Ch 20:5, "Goliath" is preceded by "achi" which specifies "brother of", thus "brother of Goliath" is clear. In 2 Sam 21:19, Goliath is preceded by "et". This is an untranslatable word that can is used as either a particle to designate a definite direct object (i.e. divides the subject/nominative and predicate/accusative parts of a sentence), or signify "with" or "among" for the following word. In essence, then, what we have in 2 Sam 21:19 is probably an example of the latter that would woodenly read something like "...slew among/with Goliath the Gittite". Here's the really cool part, 2 Samuel was written at a time when the immediate audience would be well aware of who Elhanan killed and therefore it wasn't necessary for the author to be as explicit, but rather used elliptical language. 1 Chronicles, on the other hand, was written centuries later to an audience who would not have been as immediately familiar with the events, and the author therefore needed to be explicit. What we have in the KJV appears to be both a comparison and a faithful rendering of the text as it was intended.
I typically do 5-10 chapters chronologically, a Psalm, and a Proverb for my daily reading and then have a chapter or two that I sit down for more in-depth (usually whatever I'm making a lesson for on Sundays). I'm a big fan of bulk reading combined because it helps me keep contexts and the big picture in mind as well as keep things fresh; but I also believe that you have to get below surface reading on a regular basis as well.
Howdy everyone. It's been about a year since I last logged on here for anything other than to respond to a personal message, but I think a lot of you may remember me. I feel much refreshed after my time away and the environment looks to have cooled off a bit. Life also got a lot busier while I was away, so I don't know if I'll be able to contribute as much as I did, but I'm looking forward to some thoughtful discussions again.
You know...with most things in life I’m able to let personal attacks false accusations roll right off of me; but you’ve taken it beyond too far.
How dare you presume to know what I believe. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I consistently tout the unparalleled accuracy of the KJV in rendering the Greek/Hebrew and that it is without error. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I have never attempted to correct an KJV English rendering with a Greek or Hebrew word, and that I am overly careful not to. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I only ever use the original languages to narrow range of meaning for the English word and enhance the understanding of it. How dare you bear false witness against me. What? Know ye not that a false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord among brethren are an abomination unto God (Pro 6:16-19)?
How dare you call me a hypocrite. I’ve made all of this plainly clear every time it’s come up and always uphold the authority, accuracy, and inerrancy of the KJV and only supplement other resources for better understanding it. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you sit there and claim English superiority and show a remarkably poor grasp of the language, its usage, or its history. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you claim to be a Christian and then seethe contention and malice rather showing love to your neighbors and brethren (Matt 22:39; John 13:34-34, 15:12, 15:17). Why do you call Him Lord and do not the things that He says (Luke 6:46)? What? Know ye not that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10)?
After taking a few days of cooling off I got on to respond to a couple of personal messages. I let my curiosity get the better of me and decided to check a notification from this thread. Why, I’ll never know. You’ve cemented the decision to leave this forum for good because you’ve sullied the environment beyond the point of Christ-honoring edification. Shame on you. I hope for your sake and the sake of those who will continue on OB that you take some serious prayer time and figure out how to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ with love and respect, because this vile garbage absolutely breaks the heart of God and if your unkind and unloving attitude chases away someone earnestly seeking Jesus Christ you'll have to live with that for eternity...and so will they.
It's become clear that some on here refuse to allow a fruitful adult discussion to occur. Those that actually want to discuss things in a respectful and mutually edifying way are unable to do so because of the poor attitudes, attacks, and generally unchristian behavior of some. Of late, it's enticed me to retort in an unedifying way, and I that disgusts me. Clearly I need a break from OB. At this point I'm not sure whether I'll come back or not, but for those of you who've remained cordial and respectful, I'll still respond to messages for a short while should you need anything or desire to interact some other way. Bro. Matt and Mods, this was an excellent and enjoyable site for a while, thank you for your hard work on it and best of luck in the future.
For those that are the reason for this decision, please feel free to continue to leave ungodly comments and show your colors.
Hello Pot. My name is Kettle, and I think you got your black all over me because yeah...I did stoop to your level a little bit with that. Allow me to translate that usual ending of a Pauline epistle for you: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you."
Why? You don't think the original meaning is discernable in English? I thought you had faith in the KJV....Or is it that you don't care what the original meaning was and prefer whatever meaning you can muster from a wide range of disparate definitions? Either way, I don't really care anymore. I'm all done dealing with you. Adding "Brother" to a snarky comment doesn't make it kind or respectful. It makes it sarcastic and hypocritical.
Because I believe God, and His Word by extension, don't change (Heb 13:8; Mal 3:6) and His truth remains the same regardless of how a language developes/changes over time and so we are not free to choose any definition we want because that leads to various strange doctrines (Heb 13:9) like Pentecostals babbling unintelligably, Lutherans pouring water all over babies' heads, Calvinists teaching double-predestination, or Catholics claiming the Pope is Peter's successor and has the authority of Christ. I believe originally intended meaning matters and we're to make valid applications from it.
I see what you're saying, I just disagree with it because I think it plays a little too fast and loose with the Word of God and leaves biblical truths at the whims of ever-changing human communication.
I agree with much of what you have to say, particularly regarding Tertullian. I know a lot of people like Caroll's The Trail of Blood, but I really think a lot of it is a stretch as well. One thing I would add to your millennial discussion is that the shift in thought from a soon-coming of Christ in terms of premillennialism appears to have held strong through the first 3-4 centuries. After that (around the time of Augustine), there was a definite shift to what you described because people grappled for a way to fit their current understanding into the concept of the millennium when they hadn't yet seen the Second Coming. What I see from my study of the issue (which I would like to study more to be honest) is that the shift to premillennialism (and associated views of the rapture) are a return to that ideology rather than a new concept.
I'll have to go back and dig into my stuff a little to recall and give a well-explained answer (it's been a year or two since I encountered his stuff with any depth). One thing I do recall is that he is considered the father of amillennialism, which asserts no earthly reign of Christ, because he saw the one-thousand-year figure as symbolic rather than literal. When I can muster enough time at home I'll be happy to find some more detailed examples for you.
Irenaeus, an exerpt from Against Heresies - "Those nations, however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;” so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption [emphasis added].
There aren't enough writings of Polycarp to discern his stance on the millennium or rapture. The only statements he makes are to affirm the resurrection of the saints and the reality of hell. I included him in the above explanation to show the close and short line of teaching between John and Irenaeus.
I've never been a fan of Tertullian. He was a Montanist, which were ardent legalists that strangely also had a lot of practices similar to Pentecostals today. Generally speaking, not someone I want to take theological input from, though some of his early apologetic writings were good.
After reading your description of what you gleaned from Tertullian, I don't see how it precludes a pre-trib position. In my understanding, there appears to simply be a misapplication (i.e. bad guess) on who the eschatological prophecies referred to. Since they expected Jesus Christ to be coming again soon, they would naturally have considered Rome and the Emporer as major players in the end-times narrative. It is the same thing people do now in trying to guess who the Antichrist is.
Does Scripture anywhere say that we should not read other books to help us understand the the most important book? Does it say anywhere that we should not learn from people more mature in the faith than we are? Does it say anything about listening to wise counsel and/or teachers? Anything about receiving instruction?
I would also consider myself a young-earth creationist. I'm always so baffled at how a professing Christian can embrace a system that must be embraced by faith and exists solely to explain existence without God....especially when it relies on incredibly bad "science" and has to throw every scientific method out the window in order to make it work...
I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.
As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.