Timeline for What's the difference between a "lying tongue" and a "false witness" in Proverbs 6?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jul 11, 2014 at 12:06 | comment | added | Joseph | @ScottS - Thank you for your comment. The malicious witness can tell the truth, and in this technical sense he is a false (שֶׁ֫קֶר) witness. Since no one stepped forth as the accusing witness to cast the first stone at the adulterous woman (Deut 17:6-7), there was therefore no witness to accuse the woman as an adulteress. If someone cast the first stone, he would have indicted himself as malicious (false witness), who would receive the same punishment intended on his victim (Deut 19:19). The key point is that malicious people try to use the Law for purposes other than was intended by the Lord | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 1:46 | comment | added | ScottS | Christ's challenge of "without sin" reflected on the fact that if she was caught in the act as they said (v.4), then where was the man who was with her (who was also to be stoned per Lev 20:10 and Dt 22:22)? Somebody was lying, because either (1) she was not caught in the act, or (2) one of them was the guilty party with her and they all knew it, or (3) they intentionally disobeyed the law letting the man go and did not want to admit it. All involve a lie if they proceeded without the man. Anyway, this is not the place to debate, but I wanted you to know why I found the argument unconvincing. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 1:41 | comment | added | ScottS | I understand what you are stating your understanding is. I'm just not seeing how its supported by Dt 19:16-19, when it appears that one can be a malicious witness, yet not a false witness (and only if one is both does one incur the penalty themselves... i.e. speaking lies for malicious purposes). Jesus' challenge in Jn 8:7 was based on Dt 17:6-7 (the witnesses were to be the first to cast), it did not matter what Christ had to say (per their question v.5), because He could not condemn her without their testimony (v.9-11), not Himself being a witness nor a judge (at that time). Cont.... | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 0:26 | history | edited | Joseph | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2014 at 0:23 | comment | added | Joseph | @ScottS - Thank you for the comment. My understanding is that the witness is false not because he lies, but because his intent is malicious. For example, the woman caught in adultery. Jesus invoked the same principle. It was not that the woman was not guilty of adultery, but that the witnesses were malicious in their intent. When Jesus challenged anyone to cast the stone, they would have incurred the punishment of stoning upon themselves (Deut 19:19). That is, they accused the woman of adultery in the absence of her husband, who could have chosen to forgive and be reconciled with her instead. | |
| Jul 10, 2014 at 23:02 | comment | added | ScottS | Problem: The malicious (חָמָס) witness (Dt 19:16) is not automatically false simply for having testified on his own. As v.18-19 show, the judge must inquire to determine if the witness is false (שֶׁ֫קֶר) or not (so malicious does not equal false). Further, when you say "Liars tell lies ... All liars are false witnesses, but not all false witnesses tell lies," I disagree, because (1) liars do not always lie (and all people lie sometime), and opposite you (2) "Not all liars are false witnesses (not all lies are about another), but all false witnesses tell a lie (else they are not false)." | |
| Jul 10, 2014 at 21:16 | history | edited | Joseph | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 114 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2014 at 18:55 | history | answered | Joseph | CC BY-SA 3.0 |