The Audacity of Incredible Hypocrisy.

[Bare_Truth]

I stumbled across this at: http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=020 The scripture is Isa 20:2

Verse 2
"At that time Jehovah spake by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go, and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put thy shoe from off thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot."

"Sackcloth was regarded as the appropriate dress for prophets; it was made of the coarse hair of the goat."[5] As for the instruction here to walk naked and barefoot, it is a mistake to think that Isaiah was totally nude. Hailey's quotation from Delitzsch has this: "What Isaiah was directed to do was simply opposed to common custom, not to moral decency."[6] No doubt, he actually wore a loin cloth or some other very abbreviated garment. This instead of the prophet's customary dress was sensational enough. It is amazing that very respected commentators will flatly contradict the Word of God on a matter of this kind. Barnes pointed out that men consider it beneath the dignity of the royal prophet to have gone so long without his clothes. Lowth suggested that he walked naked and barefoot only for three days, which stood for three years![7] "Rosemuller supposed this to mean `only at intervals' for three years."[8] To all such objections and suggestions, there remains the solid answer of the text: "And he did so, walking naked and barefoot."

Is it possible that the writer of this can not see his rank hypocrisy. In the text I have made red. He is saying that the Bible cannot mean what it is obviously saying! And without any intervening text he launches into a harsh criticism in the text, (I have made blue), against those who say that maybe 3 years was not really what the bible meant, perhaps it was less time than that.

I am appalled ! What an incredible hypocrite, who condemns others for imputing their own interpretation on the scripture, and he has done in practically the same breath the same thing.

Did he not read the further context of verse 4?

Isa 20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

How can he possibly think that Isaiah in underware is supposed to be predictive of the captives being bare of butt. Does he not know that the custom of conquerors is to humiliate and degrade their captives by enforced nudity in unsuitable conditions and to make sure that men and boys are not hiding among the women???

I cannot fathom the dishonesty and ignorance of such who would purport a" pure honesty and expertise" in propounding the word of God in taking such blatant liberties while criticizing other for doing the same. It boarders on being laughable for a thing to be so sad!

[natman]

I would probably point to the fact that "underwear" was not even invented nor used at that time, except for women who were in the midst of their menstrual cycle. Even today, for many coming from Eastern and Middle-Eastern countries, "underwear" is a foreign concept which they consider to be uncomfortable and unsanitary, much like our western sit-down toilets.

[Bare_Truth]

What is so incredible to me is that the guy has nothing scriptural to point to for his statement than he says,

No doubt, he actually wore a loin cloth.....

and then he turns around an criticizes the second guy who thought Isaiah was not really "naked" for 3 years when he says

Lowth suggested that he walked naked and barefoot only for three days, which stood for three years!

At least this Lowth guy can point to the commonly cited Year for a Day principle in the fulfillment of some prophecies. But the author of this piece merely says "No doubt ...." !!! Surely Revelation 22: 18 & 19 were meant to warn such as these who would so carelessly treat the scripture. He does not even make a lame argument. He just asserts his opinion and then turns to attack other commentators who question the 3 full years issue with at least one having some credible shred of scriptural precedent that might not have been stated in this case. He dismisses them by citing verse 3 which merely says Isaiah did as he was told and says nothing relevant to how the 3 years issue is to be understood either literally or figuratively or intermittantly for that period.

I looked him up on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burton_Coffman and saw nothing earthshaking. One ought not to" judge another mans servant" even though Coffman has done this! But after such a hypocritical gaffe as this, I can hardly expect him to be the sharpest knife in the Biblical Exegesis drawer.

[jochanaan]

Matthew 7:2-4 definitely applies.

[Petros]

Like so what is new?

Since the beginning [Genesis 3:1 is close enough] interpreters have been saying the text does not mean what the unenlightened might THINK it means, because that would be unthinkable, stupid, wrong; God would NOT say that.

Well, I am guilty myself, I will spare you the list, nor will I list the times a student or friend or relative has said, petros surely does not mean THAT.

What are we to do with Exekiel 4, if three years = three days [never mind that the USUAL correction is the prophecy SAYS days and MEANS years], how do we handle 390 days?

And are we to assume that cow's dung [commuted from man's dung] REALLY meand self-lighting charcoal?

Well, on the one hand I have no patience with them, on the other hand I am restrained by the Desert Father admonition to remember I too am human ergo a sinner.

[jasenj1]

It reminds me of Matthew Neal's squeamish translation series. We can hold cultural biases so deeply or be so distant from the culture where the text was written that we can't accept the plain words of the text.

Squeamish translation is far more dangerous and destructive than poor commentary. When the actual words of Scripture are bent to conform to our culture we are flirting with heresy.

- Jasen.

[bn2bnude]

It reminds me of Matthew Neal's squeamish translation series. We can hold cultural biases so deeply or be so distant from the culture where the text was written that we can't accept the plain words of the text.

Squeamish translation is far more dangerous and destructive than poor commentary. When the actual words of Scripture are bent to conform to our culture we are flirting with heresy.

- Jasen.

Agreed. I point to the controversy over Junia/Junius in Romans 16:7. The King James translated the name Junia which is a woman's name. The translators of the 1984 NIV translated it Junius, a male name, presumably because their theology couldn't reconcile a woman "being among the apostles".

[Bare_Truth]

I suppose that I am well accustomed to seeing people asserting that A really means B. What struck me as incredible is that someone would juxtapose their own action with the condemnation and dismissal of someone else's same action with naught but a period at the end of a sentence between them. Never have I seen such hypocrisy or blindness, whichever it be.

[Petros]

Alls I gotta say, you done luck out.

I have seen / heard not only at he U thgough it is a good hunting ground quite enough folks condemning what thedy are doing even as they speak.