Are Commentaries on the Bible Necessary?

[Danny Carlton]

Well brother' date=' I am not convinced it isn't Rahab. Any way you look at it in the book of mathew you only have about 12 generations from Judah to David. Now we know that Judah went down to egypt and presumably died there. We know from Gods promise to Abraham that the children of Israel spent 400 years in egypt. We also know directly from scripture that they would return to canaan in four generations, ie. at least 100 yrs. each.[/quote']

Which scripture would that be? What specific passages says the generatons would be 100 years?



Nonetheless, it's a far cry from 100, and if there were so many successive generations where the fathers were 100 when the sons were born, why was such a big deal made about Abraham's age? In the end it's one mention not even spelled the same way, with absolutely no other proof.



Yet there are people mentioned ioin the New Testament that aren't mentioned in the Old.

[Guest Guest]

Which scripture would that be? What specific passages says the generatons would be 100 years?

Well brother, I don't think I said that the bible said that in those exact words but here is the passage I infered it from. "Genesis 15:13-16 13: And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14: And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15: And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16: But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Now that passage says that they would be there 400 years, it also says that they would come out in the fourth generation. Hence with a little simple math it looks to me as if those first four generations are counted by God at aprox. a hundred years each. Fair enough?

Okay, you're again, making a claim someone or something says something, then inserting your own opinion into that claim to make it sound as is what's quoted actually makes the complete claim, including your opinion. Strong's does not say that the Rachab of Matthew 1:5 is Rahab the Harlot. If the truth of the Bible matters, then fudging facts to make a nice story is very wrong, regardless of how interesting the "story" may be. The Bible is a book of facts and truth, not a nice story book to be molded to the occasion.

Well, I do hope you didn't mean that as hostile as it comes across. I didn't state in dogmatic fashion that "Rachab" DEFINATELY WAS the Rahab of the OT, I just offered my opinion. This wasn't an attack on you and I hope you didn't take it that way, if I offended I apologize. I certainly am not trying to "fudge facts" so here is what strong says of "Rhachab" word for word. I will let each of our members decide as they see fit who or what he meant." 4477 Rhachab, from the same as 4460; Rachab, a Canaanitess: - Rachab". Please note that 4460 is the strongs number for the Rahab mentioned in hebrews etc. of which there is no doubt that those passages refer to the Rahab of the OT. Further the strongs definition of 4460 is almost word for word the same as 4477 and says in part and I quote "(ie. Rachab)". I trust the readers will see why I felt strong is saying that the Rahab of the OT, of hebrews etc., and the Rachab of mathew 1:5 are the same and will not feel that I was "fudging the facts" to "make a nice story". Grace and peace brother... :Green

[Danny Carlton]

Well brother, I don't think I said that the bible said that in those exact words but here is the passage I infered it from. "Genesis 15:13-16 13: And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14: And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15: And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16: But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Now that passage says that they would be there 400 years, it also says that they would come out in the fourth generation. Hence with a little simple math it looks to me as if those first four generations are counted by God at aprox. a hundred years each. Fair enough?

But the ambiguity of the word "in" makes the time frame very much diferent. Which is the fourth generation? Four Generations from Abraham? from Jacob? Four generations from Abraham would be the twelve brothers, who entered into Egypt with their families. So is it four generations from Jacob? From his twelve sons? Does Jacob or his sons count as the first, or does the first of the four start with Jacob's grandchildren. The point is, when th Bible is vague, it almost always is a message from God to not use it as proof of anything.

Okay, I need to explain my way of discussing things. People wear masks. Almost everyone does. It's the "personality" they put out in much the same way that they wear clothes. Some times you'll hear it refered to as "company voice". There are generally 5 levels, or five masks. One people show to everyone, one they show to their friends, one they show only to those closest to them, one they show only to themselves, and a fifth only God sees (which is the real person). Few people act toward strangers the way the behave at home, behind closed doors.

Call in a spiritual gift, but I've always been able to see through those masks almsot as if everyone's clothing were transparent. therefore, I also don't tend to mess with them myself. I see cushy politenes as something you do to strangers and bluntness as what you offer those closest to you. So my personality tends to be a little more blunt and "familiar" than most. It simply goes against my grain to soft-peddle things, especially when talking with family, and Christian brothers and sisters are family.

If your shirt's really ugly, who'd be more likely to tell you? a stranger or family? What you call hostility is what the Brits might call "me in shirtsleeves".

[Guest Guest]

Call in a spiritual gift, but I've always been able to see through those masks almsot as if everyone's clothing were transparent. therefore, I also don't tend to mess with them myself. I see cushy politenes as something you do to strangers and bluntness as what you offer those closest to you. So my personality tends to be a little more blunt and "familiar" than most. It simply goes against my grain to soft-peddle things, especially when talking with family, and Christian brothers and sisters are family.

There was a point in my life I felt that way to a fault... and then I saw that in my case anyway, it was indeed a fault. But I understand where you are coming from.

If your shirt's really ugly, who'd be more likely to tell you? a stranger or family? What you call hostility is what the Brits might call "me in shirtsleeves".

Ok, I will take your word for it, just remember that your brothers in Christ or the lost on this forum may read "you in shirtsleeves" and at first glance simply think you are being rude and overbearing. No offense though :frog. Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them :thumb .

Another thing about me, is that I've spent year debating Atheists and Agnostics and therefore approach any discussion with a search for tight, unattackable logic.

I use to do that too. But let me tell it still doesn't work. You can have the tightest most "idiot proof" logic in my or your mind and someone or a lot of someones won't see it that way :loco . As I go along the Lord shows me more and more that you cant "prove" truth to people in such a way that they must except it. There is always a arguement against truth and there is always a choice for man to except it or not. The truth of Gods Word needs a spirtually open mind to grow. As it is written, where for is there a price in the hand of the fool to get wisdom seeing he hath no heart for it. So now I rarely try to "prove" the bible to the lost, I just sow seed, knowing that some will fall on the stony ground, the birds will get some, and that by Gods grace some will grow and bring forth fruit. Let me make myself clear though, I would NEVER recomend knowingly offering a flawed statment "because it sounds good" if I felt this was such an area I would drop it like a hot potato... the world doesn't need any more "if it sounds good say it" christians. When I see that happening, particularly in doctrinely correct "preachers and teachers", it makes me feel terrible :sad . Never the less the Word of God cannot be bound :Green . You and I might not see eye to eye on the Rahab and Rachab issue but I can live with that. Grace and peace.

[Guest Guest]

Does that go against the basic principle of being a Bible alone Christian?

Yes, anything other than the Bible goes against that theory. However I think that they are nice study tools.