MGTOW A Culture Killer?

[The Revolting Man]

I get where you’re coming from @ZecAustin but when Scripture itself states that there is so much more that wasn’t written (John 21:25) that could have been written about the Word of God, as well as references to several other books written by recognized prophets of God, (obviously recognized by the writer of Scripture as Scripture) to argue that our “canon” is complete and entire argues against the witness of Scripture itself.

Wars of the Lord - Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher - Joshua 10:13
Annals of Jehu- 2 Chronicles 20:34
Treatise of the Book of Kings - 2 Chronicles 24:27
Chronicles of the Kings Esther 2:23, 6:1
Acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
Sayings of the Seer - 2 Chronicles 33:19
Chronicles of King David - 1 Chronicles 27:24
Book of Gad the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chronicles 13:22
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite - 2 Chronicles 9:29
Shemiah the Prophet - 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chronicles 29:29

Not to mention quotes in Scripture from other books recognized as Scripture in the first century AD like Enoch, Testaments of the Patriarchs etc. and lots of very familiar phrases and ideas taken from these and other source books, used as theological precepts and examples for first century Christianity and our cherished New Testament.

Does that mean that the Scriptures are corrupted? I don’t believe so. It just means that God preserved exactly what He wanted to preserve in the format that would be presented to us, and that if there is something not included it was by design, not deficiency. If it was by divine design that something was withheld or concealed for a period, then the revealing of the concealed in our era must also be by divine design.

There are also at least two other mentions of books written and sealed up for a later time by both John in Revelations and Daniel. These are obviously not included in our canon, but when the time is right, no doubt God will make them known.

As I’ve said before, I’ve no doubt that the Bible is all true, but this does not simultaneously mean that the Bible is (contains) all truth.

This is so dangerous VV76. Mohammed, the Mormons, the JWs and a host of others say the exact same thing. They all say there's more to be had if someone is wise enough or open enough to receive it.

But we can neither add or take away from Scripture. Those other works aren't Scripture because they faded away and we know that God's Words are eternal.

I am in danger of making an emotional plea here and I don't want to stray in to histrionics but this worries me so much. Do any of us really know scripture so well that the most profitable use of our limited study time is to try and cross check it against the pagans?

 

[Mojo]

This is so dangerous VV76. Mohammed, the Mormons, the JWs and a host of others say the exact same thing. They all say there's more to be had if someone is wise enough or open enough to receive it.

But we can neither add or take away from Scripture. Those other works aren't Scripture because they faded away and we know that God's Words are eternal.

I am in danger of making an emotional plea here and I don't want to stray in to histrionics but this worries me so much. Do any of us really know scripture so well that the most profitable use of our limited study time is to try and cross check it against the pagans?

I get where you are coming from, but if you picked up your NT for the first time and read about the crucifixion of Christ, would you be able to appreciate all the gnarly physical suffering he went through without a bit more context derived from historical documents from the Roman period? What about modern medical science confirming the manner in which he suffered and died?

Consulting historical references often is an apologetic endeavor too. So often, it just legitimizes what we have as revealed, authoritative Word.

That being said, I don't spend too much time in these other books. I'm guilty of not studying scripture as much as I should as it is.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Of course I'm fine with study and learning. I'm concerned when the Scripture is considered deficient and extra sources are needed to round it out or fill in the gaps.

I get worried when there is a hint that there might be a further revelation out there or that what we have isn't really a revelation at all but the work of men.

 

[rustywest4]

His Beardliness (@ZecAustin) is on 2nd base,

new cool Fox guy (@rockfox) is on 1st,

Lord Mojo (@Mojo) is on 3rd,

Sir Veritas (@Verifyveritas76) is up to bat...

Kev Dog (@Kevin) is the catcher throwing the curve ball signal,
..to homeboy Quartus (@Quartus) who is about to pitch a nasty fast ball instead...

...Uncle Andrew (@andrew) ,,the umpire has his eye on the gruff -n- scowling mountain man on 2nd who seems to have an attitude at times (usually the guy that starts the "rush the Feild" brawl)

AAAANNND there's the pitch!!! ... Mr. V swings .... WHAAAAACKKKKKK!!! ... it's , it's, ... it's OUTA HERE! ... Homerun!!!

#ironsharpensiron #bfbros

 

[andrew]

OMG, Rusty, you're killin it.

 

[andrew]

Your Beardliness, I think Lord Mojo has the sense of it. I understand your rightful concern with adding to or taking away; I just don't think that's what we're trying to do here.

I don't see anyone saying something along the lines of "because this secular authority over here says this therefore we're going to contradict what the bible says over here and replace it with this other thing we like better". The comparisons you make above are to groups who are backing up a dump truck of "new revelation" they just happen to have received (well, it was new when they got it) and burying the bible in it. Nobody here is doing that.

The crucifixion example is more on point. Faced with a topic or a word or a concept that the bible doesn't elaborate on much or at all (the original writer wouldn't have had to for his original intended audience), we have to figure out what that audience knew at the time, or what that writer was assuming they would know. So we look to historical sources to try to figure out what the background was for the writing. Not to contradict the writing, just to understand it.

If you've never seen a crucifixion, then consulting historical descriptions as well as medical science helps us understand the magnitude of Christ's suffering (as well as some details such as the broken legs and the spear in the side).

If you haven't been around sheep, then you don't realize that Christ didn't refer to us as sheep because we're cute and fluffy (well, you're kind of fluffy...), but because we're retarded and helpless (and maybe a little smelly). It helps to consult old records or talk to a farmer or even own some sheep.

If "concubines" haven't been a thing in the Anglo legal tradition for, say, ever, so we have no modern working definition or example of what a "concubine" is, then we have to look at context clues in the scriptures (not many) and historical data (much more available) just to get our heads around what that Hebrew word translated "concubine" would have meant to an OT-era Hebrew.

Again, none of this is with the intention of adding to, subtracting from, or even tweaking the scriptural record in any way, and I think everyone is crystal clear on what's authoritative capital-S Scripture and what's not. Just trying to figure out what it meant when it was written....

 

[Mojo]

Boy, this post really veered off from the original. But a good few pages it's been.

"Context is King"

I don't remember when I first heard this, but old scholars I used to rub elbows with always stressed looking at each portion of scripture within the appropriate context. It's good to remember.

Zec, I lean your direction, but won't plant my feet in the ground that says the two terms "woman" and "concubine" are one and the same thing. I dont think the distinctions are all that great, but there probably were some significant ones.

Just for accounting purposes, are people trying to figure this out in hopes of reviving concubine relationships, or is this just a mental exercise?

 

[andrew]

Just for accounting purposes, are people trying to figure this out in hopes of reviving concubine relationships, or is this just a mental exercise?

There are guys out in the 'movement' that have some interesting ideas about 'bringing back concubinage', 'trial marriages', 'six different levels of marriage', &c, &c. It's good to know what's biblical and what's not, if we can figure that out.

Here, I think the main thrust was expressed recently by Steve, looking at marriage-for-a-finite-term as a way to combat the cultural problem of commitment-phobia. Not so much a 'concubine revival' as an interest in understanding more closely what God really wants and what he permits for male/female relationships, with a view to being sure we have all the tools in our toolkit, as it were.

In the same way that the legitimacy of biblical plural marriage opens our eyes to seeing situations around us with new eyes, we're working our way through a kind of 'if they were wrong about this, what else were they wrong about, what else are we missing?' analysis to be sure we're really getting everything God wants us to know about this.

 

[Mojo]

There are guys out in the 'movement' that have some interesting ideas about 'bringing back concubinage', 'trial marriages', 'six different levels of marriage', &c, &c. It's good to know what's biblical and what's not, if we can figure that out.

Any links or resources from these guys?

 

[andrew]

Absolutely not. This is all war story stuff from the BF vault, and nothing that I have kept any contact with, or that I would share if I had.

I only meant to contrast some truly weird stuff from a sensible approach to 'rightly dividing the word'. I don't see anyone here saying that some extra-biblical source is more authoritative than or even as authoritative as scripture, but I also don't see anyone here bringing in some bizarre new teaching that reveals some completely a-bibilical scheme. We're just trying to figure out what the bible language really means.

 

[rockfox]

Just for accounting purposes, are people trying to figure this out in hopes of reviving concubine relationships, or is this just a mental exercise?

Honestly, I've forgotten how we got on this subject in this thread. But my general purpose in studying this is to further my understanding of God's perspective on marriage, sex and sin and how we might apply that to the chaos of the vast cultural changes we are experiencing today. You could call that a mental exercise, but that makes it seem far more trivial than it is.

I'm not yet convince what a 'concubine relationship' is, so I haven't considered the question of reviving it. It is as likely as not we already have it, but under a different name. As to the short term marriage stuff, color me dubious; but I'll see what I learn here first.

But I think Steve is wise to point out there might be something useful here given opposition to it in the world. That could be the practice itself or even just what it teaches us about God's approach to marriage.

But on this matter like all things in theology, my aim is to go back to basics: establish my view based on what the scriptures teach first, not what I or tradition or the world thinks. Then work out from there in application.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wait a minute, who's on first?

Actually Andrew what you described I exactly what worries me, the idea that some bronze age goat herder wrote the Bible and that we have to get in to his world to understand what was really meant is, in my oh so humble opinion, a really slippery slope.

It was written by an omniscient and omnipresent God who knew beforehand every time someone would read it, what that person would need and what they could handle. The scribe's context is irrelevant because he was just taking dictation.

Now I do believe study and knowledge can be helpful but it has to be completely subservient to and in support of scripture. What we need has been given to us. Nothing else is necessary or even important. If it's not I there we don't need it and shouldn't be looming to add it. Rant over. Apparently I scored my run on the homer. I will go sit in the dugout now. And maybe beat a cooler with a bat. But just because it looks really fun. Not because I'm angry.

 

[andrew]

the idea that some bronze age goat herder wrote the Bible

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with your framing here, my bearded friend. That's not the idea. Never was.

 

[andrew]

Zec, you did get the crucifixion illustration, right? The bible says they crucified Jesus. We wouldn't know exactly what that means without reference to sources outside the bible to explain it to us....

 

[Mojo]

Zec, you did get the crucifixion illustration, right? The bible says they crucified Jesus. We wouldn't know exactly what that means without reference to sources outside the bible to explain it to us....

Which leads to another problem.

Was Jesus crucified on a cross or a stake? Does what we just read in plain scripture enough to tell us?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I understand the argument but don't think it's persuasive. The scripture is pretty explicit in describing what He endured. We know He was beaten, made to carry His cross, nailed to it, made to hang for hours and stabbed through the side. It doesn't hurt to know what else might have happened but we don't need to.

And the risk of falsehoods sneaking in means the firewall needs to be high and thick. Remember we're all here because of falsehoods that snuck in at the hands of scholars and experts.

 

[Mojo]

Analogy time?

Charcoal sketch
Watercolor
Oil
Black and white photo
Color photo