[Nate]

Originally Posted by Mr. Role Modlin

As Sean has already pointed out...I didn't say it was irrelevant.

I know. See my reply to Sean. I was attempting to say, in a roundabout way, that I was interested in hearing your dissent with my hermeneutics precisely because what Scripture does (as I claimed) or does not (as you believe, in the case of the two passages I quoted) have to say about the subject is, in fact, so important to a proper analysis of the situation.

I don't share your hermeneutical appraoch to appplying OT Law to modern situations. I fully believe that the Bible speaks to the subject at hand.

Ah. I can understand that position, I suppose, but I totally disagree with it, so there's not much room for us to discuss the specific interpretation of the passages I quoted if we disagree on their applicability to begin with.

[tlj009]

Like it or not, there it is in the Bible, in black and white. Whether it refers to rape or consentual sex, the concept is pretty clear: If you sleep with an unbetrothed virgin, you're supposed to marry her unless her father refuses her to you.

Notice that the father can refuse her to you. The father was responsible for the wellfare of his daughter. Today, the daughter tends to be responsible for herself (right or wrong) and so I guess they should be married as long as both the man and woman agree to it.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Nate

I know. See my reply to Sean. I was attempting to say, in a roundabout way, that I was interested in hearing your dissent with my hermeneutics precisely because what Scripture does (as I claimed) or does not (as you believe, in the case of the two passages I quoted) have to say about the subject is, in fact, so important to a proper analysis of the situation.



Ah. I can understand that position, I suppose, but I totally disagree with it, so there's not much room for us to discuss the specific interpretation of the passages I quoted if we disagree on their applicability to begin with.

I believe you mentioned (in your initial post) something about the division of OT law into various categories (not your wording) including moral law. This is fairly common and even I used to look at all OT law as falling into three categories: moral, civic and ceremonial. I (and MANY others) believed that all laws fit into one of those groups and we just had to figure out which one. I may be wrong, but I believe that is the approach you were using.

I now believe that we need to look at the OT in its narrative AND convenantal contexts. The law is part of a narrative giving the history of God's chosen people. The Books of Law fit into that narrative and should be interpreted accordingly. They also fall under the old covenant and should be viewed under the terms of that covenant. I do believe that there are underlying principles that can be gleaned from study of the law but we have to first look at how they applied in their original context and then we have to look at them in light of the NT application of them. Christ is the ultimate interpreter of the law and we need to consider all of these things before we start applying various OT passages to modern situations.

[Nate]

Perhaps a lengthy discussion on my views of OT Law would not be beneficial to the thread. That would definitely not be useful to the topic at hand.

I do not exactly believe that there are "categories" of OT Law. This is analagous to my predicament that I am not exactly a modalist, for example.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Nate

Perhaps a lengthy discussion on my views of OT Law would not be beneficial to the thread. That would definitely not be useful to the topic at hand.

I do not exactly believe that there are "categories" of OT Law. This is analagous to my predicament that I am not exactly a modalist, for example.

You can PM me...I'd love to hear them.