Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Permissive Sense Debate

  1. #1

    Permissive Sense Debate

    What I first saw this (on FB) I thought you were talking to this guy (Sonny Hernandez). That would be very interesting:


  2. #2
    As I've put up videos it was the correct thing to do to listen to this.

    I did have a little fun moment though as to how we have to be careful with what we "see".

    I had to pause the video, and when trying to restart it heard the words "#1 seller". So went back and checked and it referred to his book
    "The Permissive Sense: Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation that Vindicates God's Character of Love".

    So I saw some stats that say:

    Permissive Sense Debate-capture-jpg

    I couldn't find how many copies were sold, but only two reviews seemed low, but when I look at the number of reviews on the current best seller maybe that isn't as bad after all.

    Permissive Sense Debate-capture-jpg


    I did some more Googling and found this (it was only posted in the last 24 hours)

    A Permissive Tense? God Is Love so He Cannot Punish Directly?

    There are so many bits I could quote, but I'll go with this. The whole thing is worth a read, because we are talking about, and must be correct about, The Character of God:
    "the negative actions attributed to God in the Old Testament are really just permissive withdrawings of his protection as intended in the Hebrew" is a theology that was derived from one man's mis-referencing another man's subjective listing of several possible intentions of active verbs in the Hebrew. The mis-reference was then used to create a non-existent Hebrew verb tense which was then applied to ALL instances of negative actions attributed to God in the Old Testament.

    (I'll write what was said said again because there's a lot of scope for error here)
    a theology that was derived
    from one man's mis-referencing
    another man's subjective listing
    of several possible intentions of active verbs in the Hebrew

    BTW, the guy this all comes from apparently translates the 10 Commandments thus:
    Thou dost not murder.
    Thou dost not commit adultery.

    The author "has changed what should be an imperative command and made it somewhat a statement of being or a statement of faith".

    Sorry, one more quote, because views always lead to questions, but there's probably an answer out there for this. "Just as (proponents of the permissive tense) say it's not really God who gives/does bad things, should it also not really be God who gives/does good things?"

  3. #3
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    According to my Blue Letter Bible app there are several passive tenses of verbs in the Hebrew and from context a permissive sense can sometimes be inferred. The problem is when people take examples of this from here and there, create a paradigm or formula of interpretation then force that paradigm onto every scripture there is that mentions God's judgments. That's no better than what OSAS proponents do with their principle that salvation cannot be forfeited which they force onto every scripture that apparently says the contrary. The result is that the Bible cannot say something else than the paradigm or principle that the proponent has decided must be true, whatever the scripture in question actually says. WCF-driven interpretation is of course no better at all, it's just more elaborate.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    According to my Blue Letter Bible app there are several passive tenses of verbs in the Hebrew and from context a permissive sense can sometimes be inferred. The problem is when people take examples of this from here and there, create a paradigm or formula of interpretation then force that paradigm onto every scripture there is that mentions God's judgments. That's no better than what OSAS proponents do with their principle that salvation cannot be forfeited which they force onto every scripture that apparently says the contrary. The result is that the Bible cannot say something else than the paradigm or principle that the proponent has decided must be true, whatever the scripture in question actually says. WCF-driven interpretation is of course no better at all, it's just more elaborate.
    You almost got a "thanks" for that. Blew it at the last moment

    Most of us can be like this at times Colonel

    Permissive Sense Debate-capture-jpg

    Man Leaves The 99 Bible Verses That Contradict Him To Go Find The One That Doesn't | The Babylon Bee

  5. #5
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by FunFromOz View Post
    You almost got a "thanks" for that. Blew it at the last moment

    Most of us can be like this at times Colonel

    Permissive Sense Debate-capture-jpg

    Man Leaves The 99 Bible Verses That Contradict Him To Go Find The One That Doesn't | The Babylon Bee
    I believe that the most basic principle should be that the Word of God in and of itself has authority, not my simplistic theory or principle or pet doctrine that I would like to have 100 % scriptural merit but which doesn't.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I believe that the most basic principle should be that the Word of God in and of itself has authority, not my simplistic theory or principle or pet doctrine that I would like to have 100 % scriptural merit but which doesn't.
    And that is how it is.

    In His wisdom God put stuff all over the place but once we link two bits of the Bible together we get into doctrine. Which we are meant to have, but it is to be sound.

    So one error, in my opinion that is, and it is not helped by having the Bible divided into verses, has come into the church because we have read in 1 John that "God is love", something written late in the first century. Thing is we ignore the next verse which explains it (This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him), think of "love" as we as humans/humanists see it (non-judgemental, tolerant, non-disciplining, nice, wouldn't hurt a fly; etc.) then try retrofit everything we've already learnt about God into our new misunderstanding. Not only that but forgetting that we've learnt that He is holy; just; finds things an abomination; even abhorred some nations.

    The idea that "the Bible cannot say something else than the paradigm or principle that the proponent has decided must be true, whatever the scripture in question actually says" is obvious in all of us.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Femme* View Post
    take you side discussion to a different thread please.
    I thought it was related, but OK, to be more direct.

    In a previous post we see:

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    The problem is when people take examples of this from here and there, create a paradigm or formula of interpretation then force that paradigm onto every scripture there is that mentions God's judgments.
    Rod and Troy this seems to be something you do. At one point of the chat (sorry I didn't recorded the time) you are talking about different translations and Troy says something along the lines of a translation sometimes translating things correctly and sometimes not, whereas others get that bit correct. What makes you so sure that you know which translations are correct and which aren't? As one person asks, are we to "truly assume that the many well-studied Bible translators could not figure out how to add the word "permitted" in reference to a verb's action if such a tense truly did exist in the Hebrew? Also, are we truly supposed to believe the translators were indeed baffled about how to translate this supposed permissive tense and therefor simply chose not to do so?" It seems a big ask if we're meant to believe that.

    Another question is "Is everything in the permissive tense or only the bad bits"? Should Genesis 1 be translated "In the beginning God permitted the creation of the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was permitted to move over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "I permit there to be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God permitted the calling of the light day, and the darkness He permitted to be called night." etc. If not why not?

    And before I go, in Gen 7 we see God say "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made." Now if that really should be translated "For after seven more days, I will permit (someone to) send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will permit someone to blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made" then who does it? If we are to believe that then how can it be shown from Scripture?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by FunFromOz View Post
    And that is how it is.

    In His wisdom God put stuff all over the place but once we link two bits of the Bible together we get into doctrine. Which we are meant to have, but it is to be sound.

    So one error, in my opinion that is, and it is not helped by having the Bible divided into verses, has come into the church because we have read in 1 John that "God is love", something written late in the first century. Thing is we ignore the next verse which explains it (This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him), think of "love" as we as humans/humanists see it (non-judgemental, tolerant, non-disciplining, nice, wouldn't hurt a fly; etc.) then try retrofit everything we've already learnt about God into our new misunderstanding. Not only that but forgetting that we've learnt that He is holy; just; finds things an abomination; even abhorred some nations.

    The idea that "the Bible cannot say something else than the paradigm or principle that the proponent has decided must be true, whatever the scripture in question actually says" is obvious in all of us.
    The first thing one needs to do in order to try to get away from that tendency is to look at verses or passages according to local context instead of merely superimposing upon them global principles that one has decided upon.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FunFromOz (05-29-2020)

  10. #9
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Femme* View Post
    guys.. THIS thread is about VW's interview.. take you side discussion to a different thread please.
    I'm halfways through the interview by now, I'll see if there is something new to address after I've finished the part about theology that starts at about 21:30.

  11. #10
    So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,824
    Thanked: 7519

    Permissive Sense Debate

    Permissive Sense Debate

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Chevy Impala extended warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.