Science is great, but... How about we discuss some scripture?!

[busterdog]

Isn't this a case of you developing a complex symbolic meaning simply because you reject the implication of the surface text? Do you claim that there is some indisputable rule that shows the surface text to be inaccurate in this case or are you simply reinterpreting the passage because you 'know' the surface text which suggests resurrection must not be accurate?

More to the point (though I'd appreciate answers to the above question) how is your decision to interpret this passage apart from it's surface or literal meaning different from a TE interpretation of early Genesis as not historical as the surface text might suggest?

The Bible says its figurative on its face -- in terms of the what the coming of Elijah meant. IS that a rule? Its just what it says.

If you want one example where it doesn't work well, "This is my body" will do. That one example. As I said, I am content to wait for the picture to clear up.

Like Genesis 1, "This is my body" doesn't seem to have an interpretive aid in the narrative self, which is why the best reading seems to be the literal, surface reading.

Lets take "if your right hand offends you." The interpretive aid is the literal invocation of a hypothetical. And hands don't slap people, people slap people.

 

[pastorkevin73]

It is perfectly in line with the surface text to say John went out 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' because he was Elijah reincarnated. There is nothing in the surface text of Luke 1:17 that explains your 'confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation' for Matt 17:12.

As Nicodemus found, Jesus was in the business of getting people to look beyond the surface text.

I think you are mixing in some other religion in. As Christians we do not believe in reincarnation. There is no biblical foundation for such a belief in Christianity. Luke 1:17 says nothing of the sort to indicate reincarnation. It does say "in the spirit and power of Elijiah". Where did Elijah get his power? His power came from God and it was always used to the glory of God and for His purposes. The same was true of John; this is why John was considered to be an Elijah.

 

[roselady]

That sounds about right except do that in reverse to see how it ends.

 

[theFijian]

Such is modern Christiandom without Kabbalah, alchemy, or Gnosis.

No thanks, you can keep your heresies.

 

[busterdog]

I think you are mixing in some other religion in. As Christians we do not believe in reincarnation. There is no biblical foundation for such a belief in Christianity. Luke 1:17 says nothing of the sort to indicate reincarnation. It does say "in the spirit and power of Elijiah". Where did Elijah get his power? His power came from God and it was always used to the glory of God and for His purposes. The same was true of John; this is why John was considered to be an Elijah.

I think Assyrian is using the reincarnation argument to may a point about Biblical literalism, and perhaps inerrancy. I am not exactly sure.

But, we might as well say something about it nonetheless,

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

 

[busterdog]

No thanks, you can keep your heresies.

Gnosis of the good and evil? I read that was a problem somewhere.

 

[Assyrian]

I think Assyrian is using the reincarnation argument to may a point about Biblical literalism, and perhaps inerrancy. I am not exactly sure.

Just literalism.

But, we might as well say something about it nonetheless,

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Lazarus is an interesting case, not the one in the parable, the one Jesus raised from the dead. Did he die a second time? What about the widow' son? If they died twice then Hebrews is giving the normal procedure and tells us nothing about Elijah. Besides we don't even know that Elijah actually died, chariots of fire and all that. Which leaves us back with Jesus telling us John the baptist was Elijah.

I think you are mixing in some other religion in. As Christians we do not believe in reincarnation. There is no biblical foundation for such a belief in Christianity. Luke 1:17 says nothing of the sort to indicate reincarnation. It does say "in the spirit and power of Elijiah". Where did Elijah get his power? His power came from God and it was always used to the glory of God and for His purposes. The same was true of John; this is why John was considered to be an Elijah.

I think as Christians we should believe in whatever the bible teaches. Luke 1:17 doesn't tells us if the spirit of Elijah was the spirit he got from God, the Holy Spirit, or it really was Elijah's own spirit. If you believe the bible should be interpreted literally unless there are busterdog calls 'clue in the text', then you should take literally Jesus's statement that John the baptist was Elijah. There are no clues in the text. There is no simile like there is in 'a prophet like Moses'.

Both passages have two different types of internal direction toward a "spiritual" interpretation. That I use two witnesses rather than one, is consistent with the biblical model for the use of two witnesses. I don't see the problem. I would have written Mt. differently as I said, but we are not lacking the cues for interpretation that we need in the text. I think the methods are pretty clear and consistent on this particular verse.

I completely agree with using two witnesses. Use them all. But when you claim we aren't lacking clues for interpretation, you should tell us what they are. All I see is you abandoning the surface text without any reason other than to fit in with tradition. Sure you can interpret both text spiritually. You can interpret them literally too. You claim we should stick with the surface text unless there is really clear not to.

The fact that we are digging to clarify the point gives some discomfort. For example, why is "a prophet like unto moses" or a "coming in the spirit and power of elias" not like "Adam" as a mere "figure". There is a superficial appeal in lumping them together for purposes of hermeneutics. However, if you use this method, the Abraham is also literary device that never drew breath, which reveals that the superficial appeal cannot suffice. The text tells you. Elias is revealed as a type in Luke 1. Moses is a explicitly part of a simile.

Being used as a figure doesn't make someone figurative. I have always said that. You need to look for times they are used literally as well. Matt 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

I don't like piecing this together by inference. I would prefer a neat and direct thesis. However, sometimes the most obvious arguments are the most difficult to explain. I just don't see that the text contemplates the need for disputing whether the OP is correct. We are the ones that make it hard.

You certainly make it hard by claiming to be shocking when Christians abandon the surface text. But apparently you do it yourself quite regularly with even less basis. You are right to. The bible teaches us the true meaning is often found beyond the letter. 2Cor 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Apparently the letter not only kills it can reincarnates too

 

[busterdog]

Just literalism.


Lazarus is an interesting case, not the one in the parable, the one Jesus raised from the dead. Did he die a second time? What about the widow' son? If they died twice then Hebrews is giving the normal procedure and tells us nothing about Elijah. Besides we don't even know that Elijah actually died, chariots of fire and all that. Which leaves us back with Jesus telling us John the baptist was Elijah.

I think we literalists are stuck with the idea that "once to die" is a generalization. I understand where that argument goes, since a metaphorical take on Gen. 1-2 is very close in spirit to a generalization. Should Paul have noted there were exceptions? Most of us literalists I think just take a common sense approach to the "whole counsel". We could nit pick about "appointed". Paul does not say "everyone dies once, but that they are "appointed." Somewhere in there is a license to generalize without spiritualizing everything, but admittedly the boundaries are muddy.

I think as Christians we should believe in whatever the bible teaches. Luke 1:17 doesn't tells us if the spirit of Elijah was the spirit he got from God, the Holy Spirit, or it really was Elijah's own spirit. If you believe the bible should be interpreted literally unless there are busterdog calls 'clue in the text', then you should take literally Jesus's statement that John the baptist was Elijah. There are no clues in the text. There is no simile like there is in 'a prophet like Moses'.

Pneuma has lots of different means. It could mean, "with the same type of Holy Spirit influence."

I completely agree with using two witnesses. Use them all. But when you claim we aren't lacking clues for interpretation, you should tell us what they are. All I see is you abandoning the surface text without any reason other than to fit in with tradition. Sure you can interpret both text spiritually. You can interpret them literally too. You claim we should stick with the surface text unless there is really clear not to.

But, if that is so, can't you force literalism onto every other passage, simple because lots of scripture is clearly intended as literal narrative? I am happy with the rules the YECs are using, but there are indeed ragged edges.

He said to them, [/SIZE][/COLOR]"Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.[/COLOR]

This happens to be sure. Being right is over-rated. Having the right heart is always preferable.

You certainly make it hard by claiming to be shocking when Christians abandon the surface text.

What is most shocking again, is when the text is overlooked without a question. If the questions are there by the TEs, they are not often voiced. If the questions were there, would some of the YEC positions be as roundly dismissed? I am sure the deliberation and worry is happening, but let's have the benefit of that doubt.

But apparently you do it yourself quite regularly with even less basis.

I think we have gone through it pretty carefully and established sound groundrules. What can I say.

You are right to. The bible teaches us the true meaning is often found beyond the letter. 2Cor 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Apparently the letter not only kills it can reincarnates too

But, the Word also gives life. The question is when the particular beta waves in my brain line up with the Word and when they don't. If the Word was just "pleasant to hear" as opposed to "giving life" we would worry less about it.

 

[theFijian]

Gnosis of the good and evil? I read that was a problem somewhere.

He's talking about the Gnostics. I read that was a problem somewhere.

 

[Assyrian]

Busterdog is punning in Greek about a tree in the garden γνωστον καλου και πονηρου Gen 2:9 LXX

 

[Scotishfury09]

The only thing you showed was that their probability calculation was inaccurate (and I totally agree).

I looked over the article again. At the bottom of the chart it says that the possibility of the age at the birth of the first born, age from first born until death, and age at death could only end in those 5 numbers is 1 in a billion, which is correct. I was assuming only age of death. So the calculation is correct.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I would like to inform everyone that I think I'll be changing my Origins View from YEC to... nothing. Not because I find TE to be better than YEC, but because I've come to the realization that I don't know enough about either position to fully declare myself one way or the other. I hope this doesn't offend anyone and I'll try my hardest to play both sides of the field until I figure enough out about both. Now I just need to know if I am able to post in either of the sub-forums or neither?

 

[Deamiter]

I looked over the article again. At the bottom of the chart it says that the possibility of the age at the birth of the first born, age from first born until death, and age at death could only end in those 5 numbers is 1 in a billion, which is correct. I was assuming only age of death. So the calculation is correct.

Reps for the gutsy move of admitting you were wrong! I wouldn't mention it (as it might seem egotistical) but after trying to make those numbers fit for over an hour I'd come to the same wrong conclusion as you and I'm not the one who figured out why I was wrong! Anyway, thanks for pointing it out as that rather elementary 'error' was really bugging me.

 

[busterdog]

Now I just need to know if I am able to post in either of the sub-forums or neither?

Sounds like you can post in purgatory until you purge away your error!

(You are welcome in Creationism if I have anything to say about it.)


Is this your position on the science or the scirpture or both?

"Nothing" is a position that has some commendable aspects. It is like coals on the lips.

Eze 37:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.

Job 42:3
Who [is] he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Job 42:5
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Job 42:6
Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes.

 

[shernren]

I would like to inform everyone that I think I'll be changing my Origins View from YEC to... nothing. Not because I find TE to be better than YEC, but because I've come to the realization that I don't know enough about either position to fully declare myself one way or the other. I hope this doesn't offend anyone and I'll try my hardest to play both sides of the field until I figure enough out about both. Now I just need to know if I am able to post in either of the sub-forums or neither?

I don't think it will offend anyone. I myself had my "origins position" as "searching and looking" or something such listed on my profile for quite a while, even when I became more convinced of the TE position. What matters is not which side you join, what matters is that you are confident of having the truth. Seek hard and remember that God is in control.

 

[Jase]

I would like to inform everyone that I think I'll be changing my Origins View from YEC to... nothing. Not because I find TE to be better than YEC, but because I've come to the realization that I don't know enough about either position to fully declare myself one way or the other. I hope this doesn't offend anyone and I'll try my hardest to play both sides of the field until I figure enough out about both. Now I just need to know if I am able to post in either of the sub-forums or neither?

Well, since TE's have unanimously voted to remove the protocol on the TE sub-forum, you should have no problem posting there once Letalis makes it official. We are a very open subforum. Creationism forum might be another issue though

 

[Assyrian]

I was origins agnostic for a long time too so I appreciate the position. It is a nice place of simple faith and trust in the Lord, saying "I don't know how God created the world but he does".

I would say your profile has both YEC and TE written in it so you should be welcome in both subforums. You are certainly welcome in TE and of course the kafeteria is always open.

Reps to busterdog for a really grace filled post.