Liberal Christianity 2

[Coolhand]

I would call that Paul being unprincipled and fake.

Handle scripture properly, I guess you mean your way. I also notice that your overlooking the quote about all congregations of the saints silence women in their churches.

Ok Pete, if women were not to speak in all for the congregations why did Paul then not mention it to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Colosians, the Philliians, and the Thessalonians?

Another interesting point is this verse:

26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 14:26-27.

Brothers (adelphoi) has the connotation of male and female, opposed to adelphos which would be just male. And here it is saying that everyone is to have a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, etc. This can certainly be complicated beyond any usefullness.

Women are supposed to come with a song, a teaching, a revelation, and tongue but no questions......lol.

Do you see my point though Pete?

[Coolhand]

I also feel it is foolish to presume that your the one to listen to over the bible. Totally unbiased opinion like. Your committed to proving it right but refuse to recognize for many of us it just does not make sense and contains some things that many of us would not want to be associated with.

Infallible would mean it would be inerrant or it would not be infallible. Again I would not say a thing is reliable if one cannot vouch for its inerrancy. Just because a Dud note can be passed of to an unsuspecting shop keeper does not make the note anything but a Dud.

To argue that it was accurate when it was first written but one cannot produce what was first written makes no sense and asks me to take it on trust. Something I am not prepared to do. Even so, if all churches of the saints were asking women to be silent it would not inspire me to believe it inspired even if I had the very first copy.

Its all a bit like giving your wallet to a stranger and trusting that you will get it back.

I told you from the start Pete, I do not like discussing Scripture with you. Now you are insinuating I would somehow lie to avoid being wrong. I guess this means you have run out of meaningful comments and now you have to attack character. How is that liberal?

The Bible does not need me to take up a defence for it; it has done just fine for thousands of years. I will make sure it gets a fair trial however, comparing apples with apples.

Infallible means that it cannot fail. Innerracny means it is without error. I have never seen its teachings fail, however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is without error. The way you approach innerrancy Pete has you stuck in the trap that the enlightenment philosophers hoped to trap you in.

[Coolhand]

Infallible means that it cannot fail. Innerracny means it is without error. I have never seen its teachings fail, however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is without error.

Hmmm something wrong here, should say: "however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is not without error.

[Pete]

I told you from the start Pete, I do not like discussing Scripture with you. Now you are insinuating I would somehow lie to avoid being wrong. I guess this means you have run out of meaningful comments and now you have to attack character. How is that liberal?

The Bible does not need me to take up a defence for it; it has done just fine for thousands of years. I will make sure it gets a fair trial however, comparing apples with apples.

Infallible means that it cannot fail. Innerracny means it is without error. I have never seen its teachings fail, however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is without error. The way you approach innerrancy Pete has you stuck in the trap that the enlightenment philosophers hoped to trap you in.

If reading Leviticus and other books I could name and being told that these are the laws directly given of a loving God then I guess we have to have two differing opinions.

Are you now saying that philosophers think in order to snare people. I do not believe that is the motive. It is so people can expand their thinking to be much more freer (IMO).

Praising Paul's ability to try to be all things to all men (but not women in some cases) I do find sinister. I am sorry about that Cool but I do. Its like a traveling salesman. The end justifies the means and it does not matter what way one goes about it as long as there is a sale. That approach is just not admirable (IMO). Hence, I never buy off pushy salesmen.

There are also countless questions I believe you have not answered in these postings but you evaded them and that does not bred trust in me. Love is one thing, trust is another. Its no good asking how am I a liberal and asking me to reject it and accept only your take on things. I just do not agree with it.

Sorry if that is a clash with your character but there it is..

Edited July 2, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

If reading Leviticus and other books I could name and being told that these are the laws directly given of a loving God then I guess we have to have two differing opinions.

Are you now saying that philosophers think in order to snare people. I do not believe that is the motive. It is so people can expand their thinking to be much more freer (IMO).

Praising Paul's ability to try to be all things to all men (but not women in some cases) I do find sinister. I am sorry about that Cool but I do. Its like a traveling salesman. The end justifies the means and it does not matter what way one goes about it as long as there is a sale. That approach is just not admirable (IMO). Hence, I never buy off pushy salesmen.

There are also countless questions I believe you have not answered in these postings but you evaded them and that does not bred trust in me. Love is one thing, trust is another. Its no good asking how am I a liberal and asking me to reject it and accept only your take on things. I just do not agree with it.

Sorry if that is a clash with your character but there it is..

Compare the law to the laws surrounding nations, that should clear that up for you.

I think many of the philosophers of the enlightenment era and on to today are looking for a way to throw off religion and establish their own rules for mankind based on their own limited understanding. That is sinister to me, yes. This brand of thinking is not freer at all, it further places man into bondage.

Do you think it would be more effective for Paul to appraoch Gentiles as a Pharisee? Or as a Roman citizen? What about the Jews, do you think he would be more fruitfull approaching them as a member of the tribe of Benjamin? Or as a Roman citizen? It makes perfect sense.

Well ask the questions Pete. The reason I show up here is for discussion.

The only character clash we have is when you insult my chartacter; which is uncalled for.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Coolhand

[Bro. Hex]

Yes, The text "says that"...

it's just not talking about YHWH.

Led to this reply:

How can the text mention YHWH specifcally and not be talking about YHWH? Are you serious?

Might we consider this:

THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THOUGHT

There are three elemental laws of all rational thinking:

(1) the law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A);

(2) the law of identity (A is A);

(3) the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).

Each of these laws serves an indispensable function in theology.

The Law of Noncontradiction

(et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum)

Putting aside, for the moment, the condescension reflected in the above reply,

I have been thinking about your earlier claim that "the underlying text said YHWH",

and I have concluded that this cannot be correct.

I will proceed to explain exactly why

I am personally convinced that this passage from Micah was NOT talking about Yahweh.

As with all the other books in the Bible, Micah existed as a stand-alone work before it was compended into the Bible. It is my contention that the actual author of Micah (who I will refer to as "Micah", for simplicity's sake) was not a Jew.

Next, I now raise the question: If the "original text" had indeed been written in the Hebrew tongue,and if YHWH had indeed been regarded by Biblical translators as the correct and original rendering, WHY didn't the majority of the translators use the word Yahweh when translating into English? Why is it that the translators consistently opt for the word God instead of using Yahweh? I say it is because they are aware of the dissonance in using either YHWH or Yahweh. They know that the text has been tampered with, and are restoring the perceived intent of the original composer ("Micah"). There is simply no excuse NOT to use Yahweh, if indeed that was the perceived original.

Now for a little ad hoc literary criticism:

Let's consider that "dissonance" that I mentioned:

Try it out for yourself. Put the (English equivalent) of the original text as you claim it was written...into words.

You get this:

"and walk humbly with your Yahweh".

Notice how easily it trips off the tongue?...NOT.

Notice how two particular words in that verse "don't belong in the same sentence"? The words are "your" and "Yahweh".

You can have EITHER of them, and you can make sense of the sentiment:

Either: "and walk humbly with Yahweh"

Or: "and walk humbly with your (God)".

So, if these two words "ought not be in the same sentence", what can possibly explain how this came to pass? Enter my theory that "Micah" was not a Jew. His "work", however was recognized as both inspired and prophetic, and was eventually translated into "Hebrew" (a working assumption). What does the pious Jewish scribe do?

He translates (accurately) "and walk humbly with". into "Hebrew"...and then he encounters a word meaning "God".

Now, a pious Jew would never write the word/name-of "God", so what does he do? He substitutes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)

as he has been taught to do. A good Jew never writes or speaks

the word Yahweh...and I suggest that he never even allows himself to think the name of God in his mind's voice.

So he never realizes how Yahweh "does not fit" with the immediately preceding words. He does not allow himself to "hear"

how stilted it would sound to say: "and walk humbly with your Yahweh". He cannot allow himself to even think the sound of that Holy Name.

The professional linguists who translated the text of Micah into English are almost universally consistent in rendering Micah 6:8 as "walk humbly with your God". Why? It is not because they are all pious Jews...if that were the case, they would simply have retained YHWH. Why not simply say "Yahweh"? Gentiles have no problem doing so. I say it is because these professional linguists recognized that the original text was written "exactly as it now appears in almost every English version of Micah:

"and walk humbly with your God".

Edited July 3, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

Led to this reply:

Putting aside, for the moment, the condescension reflected in the above reply,

I have been thinking about your earlier claim that "the underlying text said YHWH",

and I have concluded that this cannot be correct.

I will proceed to explain exactly why

I am personally convinced that this passage from Micah was NOT talking about Yahweh.

As with all the other books in the Bible, Micah existed as a stand-alone work before it was compended into the Bible. It is my contention that the actual author of Micah (who I will refer to as "Micah", for simplicity's sake) was not a Jew.

Next, I now raise the question: If the "original text" had indeed been written in the Hebrew tongue,and if YHWH had indeed been regarded by Biblical translators as the correct and original rendering, WHY didn't the majority of the translators use the word Yahweh when translating into English? Why is it that the translators consistently opt for the word God instead of using Yahweh? I say it is because they are aware of the dissonance in using either YHWH or Yahweh. They know that the text has been tampered with, and are restoring the perceived intent of the original composer ("Micah"). There is simply no excuse NOT to use Yahweh, if indeed that was the perceived original.

Now for a little ad hoc literary criticism:

Let's consider that "dissonance" that I mentioned:

Try it out for yourself. Put the (English equivalent) of the original text as you claim it was written...into words.

You get this:

"and walk humbly with your Yahweh".

Notice how easily it trips off the tongue?...NOT.

Notice how two particular words in that verse "don't belong in the same sentence"? The words are "your" and "Yahweh".

You can have EITHER of them, and you can make sense of the sentiment:

Either: "and walk humbly with Yahweh"

Or: "and walk humbly with your (God)".

So, if these two words "ought not be in the same sentence", what can possibly explain how this came to pass? Enter my theory that "Micah" was not a Jew. His "work", however was recognized as both inspired and prophetic, and was eventually translated into "Hebrew" (a working assumption). What does the pious Jewish scribe do?

He translates (accurately) "and walk humbly with". into "Hebrew"...and then he encounters a word meaning "God".

Now, a pious Jew would never write the word/name-of "God", so what does he do? He substitutes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)

as he has been taught to do. A good Jew never writes or speaks

the word Yahweh...and I suggest that he never even allows himself to think the name of God in his mind's voice.

So he never realizes how Yahweh "does not fit" with the immediately preceding words. He does not allow himself to "hear"

how stilted it would sound to say: "and walk humbly with your Yahweh". He cannot allow himself to even think the sound of that Holy Name.

The professional linguists who translated the text of Micah into English are almost universally consistent in rendering Micah 6:8 as "walk humbly with your God". Why? It is not because they are all pious Jews...if that were the case, they would simply have retained YHWH. Why not simply say "Yahweh"? Gentiles have no problem doing so. I say it is because these professional linguists recognized that the original text was written "exactly as it now appears in almost every English version of Micah:

"and walk humbly with your God".

The tricky thing here my friend is the two languages. According to the "The interlinear NIV Hebrew to English Old Testament" it says and I am sorry I cannot type the Hebrew, but the literal word for word translation as given in the translation is:-

"requiring - Yahweh - and what?- good- what - man - to you - he showed- soul of me - sin of- to walk - and to make humble - mercy- and to love - justice - to act - indeed - surely - of you - he sees - and wisdom - he calls - to the city - voice of "

It then translates this to:-

He showed you, O man, what is good,

and what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy with your God.

The language is different and so are the rules of sentence make up. I am not saying that it is not a book that has been spliced into Jewish history from somewhere else, as I really do not know, but it could easily still be referring to Yahweh (IMO)..

Cool :- how about that creation question about God creating that which he knew would fail him. Answer it with logical argument rather saying the Satan fell from grace (which we have no evidence for) and evil started there.

As I see it if God is all knowing then he did not act to stop evil or create so evil would not occur (after all that is what is supposed to happen in the next life is it not).

If God is all powerful and does not act in the face of suffering then how is that loving. Its no good (IMO) declaring that it is a war because what war is possible with a so called all powerful God who can stop it before it begins?

The trouble is as I see things Cool - Philosophy is out, as is none biblical reasoning and we are then asked to look at the bible objectively. It just sounds so biased to me.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Bro. Hex]

The tricky thing here my friend is the two languages. According to the "The interlinear NIV Hebrew to English Old Testament" it says and I am sorry I cannot type the Hebrew, but the literal word for word translation as given in the translation is:-

"requiring - Yahweh - and what?- good- what - man - to you - he showed- soul of me - sin of- to walk - and to make humble - mercy- and to love - justice - to act - indeed - surely - of you - he sees - and wisdom - he calls - to the city - voice of "

It then translates this to:-

He showed you, O man, what is good,

and what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy with your God.

The language is different and so are the rules of sentence make-up.

Good point, Pete. I am very familiar with the "wrinkle" that you describe here. Most languages have such idiosyncrasies, some languages more than others. Moreover I am not above altering my belief as to the "original intent" of the author, as, for me, all such beliefs are both tentative and provisional, always subject to being altered upon the arrival of "new information". For me there "is no fixed and final answer' to questions concerning things that can never be known "without doubt".

In the final analysis, what the text of Micah 6:8 speaks TO ME about, is what it says in MY native tongue.

That is the only version that I revere. And I certainly do not think of the mean and nasty "God of justice and retribution" that is portrayed elsewhere in the Bible. I reject that description of God. For me, that God does not exist.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

Good point, Pete. I am very familiar with the "wrinkle" that you describe here. Most languages have such idiosyncrasies, some languages more than others. Moreover I am not above altering my belief as to the "original intent" of the author, as, for me, all such beliefs are both tentative and provisional, always subject to being altered upon the arrival of "new information". For me there "is no fixed and final answer' to questions concerning things that can never be known "without doubt".

In the final analysis, what the text of Micah 6:8 speaks TO ME about, is what it says in MY native tongue.

That is the only version that I revere. And I certainly do not think of the mean and nasty "God of justice and retribution" that is portrayed elsewhere in the Bible. I reject that description of God. For me, that God does not exist.

I share much of that too Hex. The idea of God hardening the heart of pharaoh just to heap more pain on the people, the destruction of cities just because they forgot to censure a tribe and bearing in mind the people destroyed had no choice in the matter of census, the destruction by drowning of the whole world and then to suffer pain on the cross to save the whole world and many other things just do not add up for me. The idea of a God who creates the world and all in it but only centres upon one nation of people, the making of laws such as burning witches, and stoning Gay people and requires mankind to carry this out and then teaching forgiveness and that we should not judge others again does not add up. That idea of God for me is one in which the notion of God is being used for political expediency of the then rulers.

For me, getting to know God is a journey and not one that is arrived at by the quotes from a book or the determining that ones understanding of God can be forever accurate in the light of further and continuing revelation.

That listening to revelation is my understanding of walking with God and not the standing still on the premises of a book and thought only of those in the past. God is living (IMO) and ever grows in the hearts of those listening and cannot be contained in a book. I also like you do not believe God wrote or is the author of any book and just because some one in the past has written something down saying that God is the author does not make a thing so (IMO).

God existed before Abraham, Isaac, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and has always spoken to those who listen and God's revelation did not start with the bible or is fully contained within it (IMO).

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Led to this reply:

Putting aside, for the moment, the condescension reflected in the above reply,

I have been thinking about your earlier claim that "the underlying text said YHWH",

and I have concluded that this cannot be correct.

I will proceed to explain exactly why

I am personally convinced that this passage from Micah was NOT talking about Yahweh.

As with all the other books in the Bible, Micah existed as a stand-alone work before it was compended into the Bible. It is my contention that the actual author of Micah (who I will refer to as "Micah", for simplicity's sake) was not a Jew.

Next, I now raise the question: If the "original text" had indeed been written in the Hebrew tongue,and if YHWH had indeed been regarded by Biblical translators as the correct and original rendering, WHY didn't the majority of the translators use the word Yahweh when translating into English? Why is it that the translators consistently opt for the word God instead of using Yahweh? I say it is because they are aware of the dissonance in using either YHWH or Yahweh. They know that the text has been tampered with, and are restoring the perceived intent of the original composer ("Micah"). There is simply no excuse NOT to use Yahweh, if indeed that was the perceived original.

Now for a little ad hoc literary criticism:

Let's consider that "dissonance" that I mentioned:

Try it out for yourself. Put the (English equivalent) of the original text as you claim it was written...into words.

You get this:

"and walk humbly with your Yahweh".

Notice how easily it trips off the tongue?...NOT.

Notice how two particular words in that verse "don't belong in the same sentence"? The words are "your" and "Yahweh".

You can have EITHER of them, and you can make sense of the sentiment:

Either: "and walk humbly with Yahweh"

Or: "and walk humbly with your (God)".

So, if these two words "ought not be in the same sentence", what can possibly explain how this came to pass? Enter my theory that "Micah" was not a Jew. His "work", however was recognized as both inspired and prophetic, and was eventually translated into "Hebrew" (a working assumption). What does the pious Jewish scribe do?

He translates (accurately) "and walk humbly with". into "Hebrew"...and then he encounters a word meaning "God".

Now, a pious Jew would never write the word/name-of "God", so what does he do? He substitutes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)

as he has been taught to do. A good Jew never writes or speaks

the word Yahweh...and I suggest that he never even allows himself to think the name of God in his mind's voice.

So he never realizes how Yahweh "does not fit" with the immediately preceding words. He does not allow himself to "hear"

how stilted it would sound to say: "and walk humbly with your Yahweh". He cannot allow himself to even think the sound of that Holy Name.

The professional linguists who translated the text of Micah into English are almost universally consistent in rendering Micah 6:8 as "walk humbly with your God". Why? It is not because they are all pious Jews...if that were the case, they would simply have retained YHWH. Why not simply say "Yahweh"? Gentiles have no problem doing so. I say it is because these professional linguists recognized that the original text was written "exactly as it now appears in almost every English version of Micah:

"and walk humbly with your God".

Go back to page 10. You seem to be arguing now a different point than what I was making in that discussion. My argument was what YHWH said that quote that you said was your favorite verse. The point was not who we are two walk with, but rather that it was a command of YHWH. I was using the NIV which says:

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mic 6:8.

The NIV follows the Hebrew text perfectly by the way.

[Coolhand]

Cool :- how about that creation question about God creating that which he knew would fail him. Answer it with logical argument rather saying the Satan fell from grace (which we have no evidence for) and evil started there.

As I see it if God is all knowing then he did not act to stop evil or create so evil would not occur (after all that is what is supposed to happen in the next life is it not).

If God is all powerful and does not act in the face of suffering then how is that loving. Its no good (IMO) declaring that it is a war because what war is possible with a so called all powerful God who can stop it before it begins?

The trouble is as I see things Cool - Philosophy is out, as is none biblical reasoning and we are then asked to look at the bible objectively. It just sounds so biased to me.

God did create something He knew would fail, and He did it on purpose, evidenced by His name the "LORD God" (meaning, the creator redeemer).

I did not say evil started at any point it time but rather that we start with the presupposition that evil exists.

God allowed evil to continue to happen on purpose, but not through His effort: it came through the efforts of His creation; and He knew it would happen.

God acts on behalf those who do not reject Him; as He says He would and He repeats over, and over, and over in the Bible.

Just like the harvest examples given all through Scripture state: when the fruit is ripe, then comes the harvest. The same applies to evil.

[Pete]

Go back to page 10. You seem to be arguing now a different point than what I was making in that discussion. My argument was what YHWH said that quote that you said was your favorite verse. The point was not who we are two walk with, but rather that it was a command of YHWH. I was using the NIV which says:

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mic 6:8.

The NIV follows the Hebrew text perfectly by the way.

I think the point was also discussed that liberals make a connection with a verse rather than insisting that it was God given or that it was God spoken or God demanded. The difference continues with fundamenalism in that your saying Yahweh said this but do you have proof of it. No its something you believe and that is fine (IMO), but that does mean everyone else has too.

Hex has said it was a favorate verse for him but I think again we are reading things very differently and I believe your assuming to much of the rest of us from a fundamentalist standpoint which we do not share.

God did create something He knew would fail, and He did it on purpose, evidenced by His name the "LORD God" (meaning, the creator redeemer).

I did not say evil started at any point it time but rather that we start with the presupposition that evil exists.

God allowed evil to continue to happen on purpose, but not through His effort: it came through the efforts of His creation; and He knew it would happen.

God acts on behalf those who do not reject Him; as He says He would and He repeats over, and over, and over in the Bible.

Just like the harvest examples given all through Scripture state: when the fruit is ripe, then comes the harvest. The same applies to evil.

So again we are saying 6 million Jews rejected God and thats why they died. Something I really do not believe. I also pointed out other incidents that point to me very clearly that God does not interviene on the basis of some having rejecting him or not. My Father having a stroke has not made one difference to his praying and believing on God but he still has his memory destroyed.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

I think the point was also discussed that liberals make a connection with a verse rather than insisting that it was God given or that it was God spoken or God demanded. The difference continues with fundamenalism in that your saying Yahweh said this but do you have proof of it. No its something you believe and that is fine (IMO), but that does mean everyone else has too.

Hex has said it was a favorate verse for him but I think again we are reading things very differently and I believe your assuming to much of the rest of us from a fundamentalist standpoint which we do not share.

No assumptions being made on my part Pete; just simply reading the text. The whole text. The proof of my point, is the text itself Pete. Liberal and fundamentism are irrelevant to this point, this point is purely based on reading.

You seem to be upset that you cannot squish this into a specific form.

[Pete]

No assumptions being made on my part Pete; just simply reading the text. The whole text. The proof of my point, is the text itself Pete. Liberal and fundamentism are irrelevant to this point, this point is purely based on reading.

You seem to be upset that you cannot squish this into a specific form.

Me personally Cool, I do not care.

You read the text and believe it and I read the text and askwhat does this mean to me. That approach is very different. One is demanding it is so because it is written and the other not insisting it is so but looking for meaning.

No assumptions being made on my part Pete; just simply reading the text. The whole text. The proof of my point, is the text itself Pete. Liberal and fundamentism are irrelevant to this point, this point is purely based on reading.

You seem to be upset that you cannot squish this into a specific form.

Me personally Cool, I do not care.

You read the text and believe it and I read the text and askwhat does this mean to me. That approach is very different. One is demanding it is so because it is written and the other not insisting it is so but looking for meaning.

[Coolhand]

So again we are saying 6 million Jews rejected God and thats why they died. Something I really do not believe. I also pointed out other incidents that point to me very clearly that God does not interviene on the basis of some having rejecting him or not. My Father having a stroke has not made one difference to his praying and believing on God but he still has his memory destroyed.

The Jews died because Hitler had them killed.

We need to pray about your father, that is not over, it is not time to give up.

[Pete]

The Jews died because Hitler had them killed.

We need to pray about your father, that is not over, it is not time to give up.

But God let him..

[Coolhand]

Me personally Cool, I do not care.

You read the text and believe it and I read the text and askwhat does this mean to me. That approach is very different. One is demanding it is so because it is written and the other not insisting it is so but looking for meaning.

Who determines the meaning of the text Pete, is it: (a) the author; or (b) the reader?

[Bro. Hex]

Go back to page 10. You seem to be arguing now a different point than what I was making in that discussion. My argument was what YHWH said that quote that you said was your favorite verse. The point was not who we are two walk with, but rather that it was a command of YHWH. I was using the NIV which says:

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mic 6:8.

The NIV follows the Hebrew text perfectly by the way.

RE: "You seem to be arguing now a different point"

You are correct, I AM arguing a different POV.

I thought I made that clear when I said

"I have been thinking about what you said"

(vis-a-vis Yahweh being the underlying text)

and I have concluded that "I don't agree"

RE: "My argument was what YHWH said "

I never agreed (nor even imagined) that "Yahweh" was speaking.

I took it as a given that "Micah" was speaking.

If you were arguing that "it was Yahweh speaking",

I didn't pick up on that.

RE: "The point was not who we are to walk with"

Well, YOUR point might have been "who was speaking",

but that was never MY point.

BTW I didn't hear any "command" spoken.

If that really was your point, I don't think you made that terribly clear.

I will re-read what you previously posted to see if I can "read that meaning into your words".

In any event, not only do I believe that it was Micah "speaking" (not Yahweh),

I want to emphasize that the words that I revere

are "walk humbly with your God".

It does not matter to me who said them...

It is THOSE WORDS THEMSELVES...as they speak to me" that I hold sacred.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

Who determines the meaning of the text Pete, is it: (a) the author; or (b) the reader?

The reader for a liberal and all will find meaning for themselves.

The belief that God is the author is a factor for a fundamentalist but not one for a liberal. That is a belief we do not share Cool. We look for meaning from where ever it comes and make connections with it in our personal journey with God.

[Coolhand]

I want to emphasize that the words that I revere are "walk humbly with your God". It does not matter to me whether Micah was speaking or Yahweh, or Moses... whoever..."it is THOSE WORDS...as they speak to me" that I hold sacred.

Amen brother! Right on! Me too.