Tommy Nelson Song of Solomon

[mabulphotoh]

South Africa prohibited this phrase for years & sourced it as sexual material

[StLukey7]

gee....does this mean i have to repeat everything....i was appealing to the intellectual element of our discussion!! Malice? LOL!! i am a polemist. i may not be what you are used to ... when someone says the bible says " " "...if i object...i object strong. I want my position to be strong. so again. you are saying that everyone before 1961 was wrong and in gay marriage/pro abortion/pornolozza/licencious­ America is right. i care to differ. You see how i am...there is an issue. My Points R strong.

[StLukey7]

look up how charles haddon spurgeon interpreted this text....lets follow a scholars view since tommy nelson quotes spurgeon so much!

[StLukey7]

Those interested in following this dialouge between literalists & I "New Guys on the Block" as i like to call them, checkout the incontravertable points I make then compare it to responses. no competition.

#1 Name a literalist between 1000 BC-1961 AD.No answer.

#2 In Judaism where is a 13 yr-old boy prevented from reading SOS? no answer.

#3 Only Joseph Smith & other heretics in history believed in Literal View. no answer.

For these 4 points there hasn't been, nor will there ever be answers.

[TheWoodsworth]

@StLukey7 Not that I'm arguing with you, but that is only 3 points.

[StLukey7]

@StLukey7 oh i took the other point off....hahahaha , i went over the limit of characters. the other point would have been that there are no Old Testament hebrew scholars who back up the points literalists make on the SOng of Songs. because in order to have a case the literealist have to change the word of God. they take a scissor and take an eraser and change the words around.

[StLukey7]

by the way....after a year posting this question.....is any one able to name one Christian that believed like tommy Nelson on his interpretation before 1961....you can search all day...you will only come up with heritics.

[StLukey7]

the catholic church also has taught this as allegory since the beginning, and the largest catholic countries in Europe are Spain Italy and France....those people dont know anything about romance. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[armsofundertow02]

anybody know what song that is at the intro? very good, reminds me of shawshank redemption!

[PeterJFoster]

I really appreciate this teaching. UK

[Samalrockss]

tommy nelson is my best friend he goes to bailey middle school.

[MrsAshDash]

Nowhere in the book is polygamy advocated. Yes, Solomon had 700 wives. Biblical kings were not to have multiple wives, so Solomon was not following God. Hoever, the nature of Biblical inspiration is not that the author is inspired - it's that God inspires the author. None of the writers of Scripture were perfect. However, their words are, because they were inspired by God.

It would behoove us all the study the Bible for ourselves before we criticize those who do.

[rkoutnik1337]

@MrsAshDash Solomon disobeyed God by marrying foreign wives, not multiples, and due to that, he started worshiping idols on a level with God.

[MrsAshDash]

For StLukey7 - if the book is meant to be allergorized, how do you explain the part of Ch.7 where he says, "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.'" Hebrew boys were not allowed to read this book until they were of a certain age.

[Jomammacita]

@MrsAshDash Thanks for pointing this out. While some might refer to allegory they rob scripture by denying the traditional understanding. I think the allegory is a wonderful, if somewhat skewed, view of how deeply God loves his children and Christ loves his Church. Too bad Xians won't hold with the simplist understanding of biblical interpretation for Song.

[StLukey7]

@MrsAshDash Hebrew boys were allowed....that idea is a lie. How do I explain? why ask me...ask God. The Lord says in Ezekiel 16 Israel...your hair is beatiful flowing down your back, your breasts are well formed and you are ready for love. What? Are you accusing God of ebing a pervert there too? that is allegorical. Anyone who knows the WHOLE Bible wouldnt have said what you did.

[MrsAshDash]

@StLukey7 Please do not misunderstand me - I never once said or implied that God is a pervert. He created sex and the human body; it is we flawed humans who have created something perverted by taking it out of its intended context. I personally do not believe that this book calls for allegorization, which is a conclusion I have come to based on my own personal study. If you disagree that is perfectly okay...

[StLukey7]

@MrsAshDash ARE YOU SAYING THE INTENDED CONTEXT IS ONLY UNDERSTOOD IN OUR ERA? & Campbell, Zwingli, Scofield, Stowe, Luther, Wycliff, , Augustine, Whitefield, Finney, Edwards, Eusebius, Anslem, Molina, Francis Xavier, Loyola, Anthony of Padua, Wilberforce, Barth, Cooney, Irvine, Govan, Allis, Ramsey, Wilson, Bresee, Simpson, Tyndale, Wesley, Moody & Taylor WERE WRONG? & Counseling Major, who doesnt know Hebrew, Tommy Nelson is RIGHT?! God Bless him. he's agreat worker. He's not a Bible scholar.

[MrsAshDash]

@StLukey7 I have no objection to myself, you, or anyone else teaching God's Word to their kids. i think it's absolutely necessary. I am sad to say that your malice in your responses does not seem to indicate that you know the same God I do. As I said earlier, I am happy to hear a differing point of view, and if I am mistaken I am happy to admit it. However, if you are not capable of speaking the truth in love, I don't see how these repeated posts do much good. You are in my prayers.

[MrsAshDash]

@StLukey7 ... My personal study has also shown that due to the graphic phrasing of this book, Hebrew boys were not permitted to read this book until a certain age, not that they were not allowed to study it at all. (Would you want your seven-year-old to read this? It's not kid-friendly stuff.) Please do not make derogetory comments about how much you think I may or may not have studied. If you see an error, speak the truth in love and kindly point me to a resource with correct information.

[StLukey7]

@MrsAshDash "my personal study" thats the problem. Rabbi Michael Schobeck (look him up if you like) told me personally that they teach this to their children. All you have done is say, "I think!! I think!!" YOU ARE NOT CITING ANYTHING! & Yes id teach God's word this to my kids, 1 of the reason they kicked the bible out of school is because of u folks! If ur asked 'how do you know boys werent allowed to read this? would answer.."oh i heard it somewhere" -you like taking peoples word for it I see!

[StLukey7]

@MrsAshDash WHERE!!??? thats all im asking WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE! You stated, " My personal study has also shown that due to the graphic phrasing of this book, Hebrew boys were not permitted to read this book until a certain age" WHY IS THIS TRUE? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THESE WORDS? WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION ??? Please write back with "I beleive that Jewish boys were not allowed to read this book until a certain age because ___" Fill in the blank! Please dont respoond with "Tommy said..."

[StLukey7]

Tommy Nelson says at 0:53 the book has been cencsored by the church. In point of fact it is the literalist view that he teaches that is afraid to talk about this matter openly. No doubt about this.

Can anyone name a Christian anywhere that believed this book was a romanitc story as people teach it today? no, this literalview is made up and popularized by the mormons to justify polygamy and immoratliy...if that is not true, name 1 person who believed like tommy did prior to 1961

nobody

[ftrblkblt02]

@StLukey7 ummmm...actually the Mormons don't belief this book was inspired. So you're saying that the belief by a sinful human being makes it true? The Bible says, "Let God be true and every man a liar." Truth is truth despite what WE may think about it at the time. God changes not. Just like Martin Luther who read and understood the book of Romans for the first time in centuries where the "church" had taken over everything and blocked people from reading it in their own language.

[StLukey7]

@ftrblkblt02 the Mormons do not believe this book is inspired...read my point again....Joseph Smith (a mormon) used this book to justify poligamy and sexual immorality as David Koresh did. Koresh stated that he would relase some hostages if he could have time on teh radio. They gave his 5 segments. What was the 1st thing he said? He quoted Chpt 7 of the Song. he thought they were after him for having children with 14 year old girls. They didnt enforce that....but the stock pile they did enforce.

[ftrblkblt02]

@StLukey7 Again, I reiterate what I said...Any misuse of Scripture whether it be by man or the devil doesn't make it wrong or bad. Check out Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and then skip over to 1 Kings 10:14-11:13. This, as you probably know, is the degeneration of Solomon. One after the other he broke what Deut said to do. We know God wouldn't tell us or support our decision to live in sin, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume this isn't a song to his first wife. bear w/ me

[ftrblkblt02]

@StLukey7 In Ecclesiastes 9:9 Solomon says to live joyfully with THE wife of your youth, something he penned later in life yet reflects something he wrote much earlier in his life: the Song of Songs. Proverbs says the same thing. Solomon knew he screwed up, and in Ecclesiastes he reflects on his past decisions and the theme of Ecc is "all is vanity", but there are some things he suggests you do, and that is one of them. The topographics in S.o.S. the progression of his speech through the book

[ftrblkblt02]

@StLukey7 towards his wife, the progression of their relationship physically and spiritually, the hobbies Solomon enjoyed that he mentioned in Ecc, ect ect don't seem to point anywhere else except for a real, wholesome relationship he had before he fell into sin. 2 Peter claims we have everything we need from God for life and Godliness. If we throw out a literal view of this, then where does God talk about sex and intimacy with your spouse? We, by nature, are fallen and need God's guidance.

[StLukey7]

It leaves us from 1000 BC-1961 AD suddenly we're the right ones. Tom Nelson likes to quote Spurgeon alot. Good! Spurgeon beleives like me. So did everyone between 1000 bc - 1961 AD it wasn't until recently did people start making this up. Thats where it leaves us & since 1961 have marriages been making progress in America?? Again you say without the book we cant learn about itimacy? Catholics are allegorists, largest Cathlic coutries are Italy Spain & France Those people know nothing about love?

[ftrblkblt02]

If the believing Jews waited for this book to be read to the Jewish boys until 18, then perhaps they know something alot of other people didn't know because they weren't studying the book for what it said? No way! People not studying the Bible in context!? lol dude I honestly don't know how anyone sees this book in any other way except for...well what it says! Polygamy was not acceptable by God, neither was immorality. You can study Solomon's degeneration and see what God says.

[StLukey7]

@ftrblkblt02 This silly comment is why i want to debate Literalists in public. This about 13 yr olds (not 18) is a lie, ask any orthodox Jew if they teach this to their kids. Theyll say yes & that it wasn't was made up by people who misinterpret the book. Orthodoxy reads this as allegorical (since you like quoting the Ancients let me refer you to them) #2 the song actually appears in homilys during calender months for reading and even in songs sung in. get with it Literalism is brand new(1940).

[StLukey7]

@StLukey7 i meant 1961....Unger doesnt count (ungers bible handbook....he was an advocate of the New American Translation....talk about new!!! wow!

[ftrblkblt02]

@StLukey7 I've found arguments for both, but the only ones I seem to find for being 13 was that that was the youngest they could be. Seems as though more often than not, they were usually older by the time they were allowed to study it. And I never said anything about Orthodox Jews, I said believing Jews, that is, those whose heart were in the right place, and not stuck in impossibly obeying all the law. Paul has plenty to say on that issue, they didn't just pop up overnight after Jesus.

[ftrblkblt02]

@ftrblkblt02 i'll rephrase that "heart in the right place" part. Their hearts may have been in the right place, but they didn't have the understanding of what the law was for. The old 18 inches of separation argument.

[StLukey7]

@ftrblkblt02 ill tell you what. Im hearing "i think, i think, i think" tell me who you tlaked to....i dont have to provide who. my question is asked to every rabbi i know and i know alot of them I work with them. gee,,,,how do you know that the "proof shows" gimme a break there is none. Orthodox Jews are what count since they are teaching the bible correctly do as they say not as they do.... Jesus even mentioned it in MAtthew. And Messianic Jews also tote that line. not a disputed fact.

[ftrblkblt02]

Orthodox also happens to cling strictly onto all the Torah as well as oral tradition. Now I won't judge you and guess where you stand on that issue, but I sure don't hold to the views of how the Old Testament law is to be followed, I'm a Gentile. What some theologian or orthodoxy says about the Bible means nothing to me but another p.o.v. I can guaranty you there were people out there who held to literalism, they just weren't popular...again, man's culture doesn't define truth, only God does.

[NickjonasKutie]

I love him!! He is so funny!!!

[queenofsheba1000]

um.. whats the song in the beginning

[amari1992]

lol