God is green

[Guest]

but if goliath was only 6 feet or so, that's hardly a giant, is it? please dont ask me to accept that goliath was only 6' 2" or so. dont think i could take that. wasnt his spear the size of a weaver's beam, whatever that is? and if he was only a relatively little guy, why was all of israel afraid of him?

come on now, dead sea scrolls or not, Goliath was a nasty great big guy.

TK

[Guest]

TK, if Goliath had been four cubits and a span, as the Septuagint and the dead sea scrolls affirm, he would be 6ft. 4 in. (if a "cubit" is 18 inches).

Have you ever seen a man of this height who is also broad and muscular?
I have, and such a man can hardly be described as "a relatively little guy". Such a man towers above a crowd of people, and could appropriately be called a "giant". I wouldn't want to meet such a man at night in a back alley if he were "nasty".

In any case, I don't think this is a crucial theological issue. If you want to think he was over 9 ft., go ahead. I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

[Guest]

paidion wrote:

I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

thank goodness for that, because you'd probably succeed.

TK

[Guest]

I've read, but cannot verify and do not necessarily believe, that the average height of a male of Semitic descent in the first century was about 5'1" and the weight, about 110 pounds.

[Guest]

Dear Rick,

So you have seen and experienced the Green Side….maybe that’s what drove you to drinking. Those Marines do a little too much of that (of course, I’ve seen most every branch of the Service in the same boat). I have seen it from boredom, loneliness from a spouse, a cheating spouse, trying to be just one of the guys..etc. The good thing is that you recognized it and have taken control of it. I will say a prayer for you tonight with your continued success.

Father Kienzle sure sounds familiar but I am not sure to be positive. I have done all my work on the West Coast. Joined in 1982 and loved President Reagan. He made you feel special being a part of the Armed Services. Most of my work is at the MCAS Miramar (previously Navy Top Gun) and Camp Pendleton. Almost went to Camp LeJeune last year but my orders were pulled.

I was not the most observant Catholic Christian back then because I was attending Vineyard Fellowship with my wife in the Los Angeles area. Just like Oral Roberts University, Vineyard Fellowship and then Horizon Christian fellowship were great places to learn and study scripture and worship from a Protestant Christian perspective. But, like most of us in our conversion moments I was hit between the eyes with a difference between the two Christian faiths that will never allow me to leave the Catholic Christian faith again(unless Jesus sits down and tells me I am wrong, yikes!).

I think Father K was trying to reach out to you as a human being, not as a Protestant and that would be natural for all pastors, Catholic and Protestant. Forgiveness from a Catholic perspective comes from several points, personal (you must come to terms with your transgression), inter-personal (your friend/associate who have suffered from your transgression must forgive you) and God (He ultimately forgives you). God is slightly different.

God knows and sees all, whereas you and your friends can be lied to and maybe forgiveness can be given when not deserved. God must see a contrite heart to give forgiveness. God also wants to see a remedy to the sin, ie, you bust your neighbor’s window you simply don’t ask for forgiveness, you fix it WHILE asking for forgiveness. Father K during counseling probably (I assume) saw a contrite heart and gave forgiveness. Catholics get this in scripture from the Book of John (20:23) “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." Here the Apostles are given the ability to forgive sin…that is, if they wish to or they can have the sins remain on those individuals…whoa doggy!

We must also remember that not all sin is forgiven, ie, Lk 12:10 “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.” Why is this important? Well, does the thief have the ability to forgive himself, no, only God. So can the thief have a “conversation” with God and say “God forgave me”? Of course, it happens everyday in every prison around the world and I will bet only a fraction are truly contrite (simply my wild eyed opinion). I have worked in prison ministries like one of the other authors so I am sure he has seen/heard/felt the same.

So who can tell what sin can be forgiven or not. Who can tell what sin is forgivable? The Apostles were given this ability through God, right? This is where Protestant Christians have a tough time because that have no belief in passing on of Apostolic succession and Catholic Christians refer (again) to scripture for succession that is supported with the very earliest Christians. The Bishop and his priests forgive sin only when they see a contrite heart. When a priest forgives your sin he does so in the "In Persona Christi" In the person of Christ, (2 Cor 2:10). The priest will say, and probably did so with you, by saying …. "God the Father of Mercy, through the death & resurrection of his son, has reconciled the world to himself, and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God grant you pardon & peace, & I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit. " Protestants will howl about this but again Catholic Christians only do what Paul did in 2 Cor 2:10 “…But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ…” Paul was not merely forgiving a personal confession for a single Corinthian but all the sinners in Corinth!! Whoa doggy!

So take the forgiveness from Father K with all sincerity as the same forgiveness that Paul did so in Corinth. Unfortunately, you have probably continued to sin (good bet?) and Catholic Christians do so also, but we continue not only to ask forgiveness from those around us but also from our parish priest “In Persona Christi”.


Dear Paidion and TK,

Paidion, thanks for your input regarding scripture manuscripts and its relationship to cubits. TK, yes it does matter. Goliath was a big guy. If he was 6.5’ tall he was probably a giant figure for his time. In those times in 3rd World places the average height was probably much less, therefore making Goliath look huge.

What I was asking is “how much are we as Christians willing to overlook Scripture versions (interpretation, interpolation, transliteration, translation, etc)”. If you are willing to forgo a 9’ Goliath for 6’ from a Jewish scholar position, then why? If not, why not? I would assume that not one Catholic or Protestant Christian would accept the JW Bible version of John 1 to be correct, right? Do you accept incorrect versions because you “feel” good working with the Bible you were trained on? That would be a ludicrous argument because JW’s and Mormons do that. We must accept the Word of God on a better foundation than that.

Christ’s Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Greetings Steve, God bless you,

Fr. K was "Jerome" Kienzle...just remembered it. He had white hair last time I saw him in 1991 (was brown in Oki, '86).

Will reply more later...(gotta turn in, my "real" job has me plumb tuckered out)...ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
Rick

[Guest]

What I was asking is “how much are we as Christians willing to overlook Scripture versions (interpretation, interpolation, transliteration, translation, etc)”. If you are willing to forgo a 9’ Goliath for 6’ from a Jewish scholar position, then why? If not, why not? I would assume that not one Catholic or Protestant Christian would accept the JW Bible version of John 1 to be correct, right? Do you accept incorrect versions because you “feel” good working with the Bible you were trained on? That would be a ludicrous argument because JW’s and Mormons do that. We must accept the Word of God on a better foundation than that.

Okay. But one little fact puzzles me. Catholic Steve, why do you accept that Goliath was four cubits and a span, when your Catholic Douay translation reads six cubits and a span. Do you not trust the Douay translation?

[Guest]

Excellent. I will look into this, because I am learning new things everyday but your question/fact begs for an answer to a greater, all-encompassing question.... what do we as Christians accept as truth, the Word of God?

I will have an answer for you soon (gotta research my Catholic Christian sources), but your question to me (Catholic) is also pointing to the Protestant, the JW and the Mormon. All have scripture (what they believe is God's Word) but all must come under scrutiny for validity.

Can you not disprove the JW John 1 passage? I can. Can you discuss with some depth the problems with the Mormon's "other" scripture? I can. So if we believe they are wrong/incorrect scripture than why aren't we as picky about other scriptural inconsistencies? To my JW and Mormon friends...please don't ask me to explain for now. I have a specific interest in the differences in Protestant and Catholic scripture. Goliath is the provocative statement to get people thinking because Goliath's story may be God's Word (so we should have some definitive heights here) but he is hardly "scared". Many parts of Catholic/Protestant scripture are scared (dedicated to God, holy, invioiable) but also very different in many Bibles, ie, Protestant...isn't scared stuff pretty important?

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

"Scared stuff" is pretty scarey.

I'm sure you meant "sacred".

[Guest]

What I was asking is “how much are we as Christians willing to overlook Scripture versions (interpretation, interpolation, transliteration, translation, etc)”. If you are willing to forgo a 9’ Goliath for 6’ from a Jewish scholar position, then why? If not, why not? I would assume that not one Catholic or Protestant Christian would accept the JW Bible version of John 1 to be correct, right? Do you accept incorrect versions because you “feel” good working with the Bible you were trained on? That would be a ludicrous argument because JW’s and Mormons do that. We must accept the Word of God on a better foundation than that.

There is a world of difference between the question of whether Goliath was 6 feet or 9 feet tall and the question of whether Jesus is God incarnate, a lesser god or an angel (as one would get into when dialoguing with a JW or Mormon). The former is quibbling about peripheral historical details, whereas the latter is wrestling with foundational theological positions that effect the shape of whatever is built upon them.

It seems to me that when it comes down to the interpretation of scripture the easy (lazy) approach is to entrust the interpretation to a single authority, such as The Watchtower or one's local pastor. The more challenging but rewarding approach is to utilize multiple sources (preferably coming from multiple reference points within Christianity), including scholars, theologians, historians, books, reference materials, a knowledge (or access to those who have knowledge) of the original languages and culture, etc.

Of course, one must not forget the fact that Jesus is alive and has sent the Holy Spirit to be our teacher and guide, which means we also have the benefit of direct revelation/instruction from the Lord. We're all aware though of the necessity of being scripturally and theologically grounded so that we don't delude ourselves. This is where Russell and Smith went wrong.

Another issue is, what are our expectations of scripture? How do we define "biblical truth"? Do we expect inerrancy and infallibility and, if so, what do those terms mean to us? Does it require that we read the entire Bible as a literal account and try to reconcile any apparent discrepancy? Or do we attempt to understand the scriptures as the original hearers would have understood them? Did the original hearers (and authors) have the same expectations of inerrancy and infallibility? These questions, and questions like these, all play into how we interpret scripture.

On a different note, in a previous post CatholicSteve stated:

God must see a contrite heart to give forgiveness.

The Bishop and his priests forgive sin only when they see a contrite heart.

At the risk of diverting this thread, these statements make me wonder: Did Jesus see contrition in the hearts of the Roman soldiers and Jewish mockers when He said from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."?