just wondering!

vossler · Aug 23, 2006

theFijian said:
Well obviously you think we should all go by your interpretation, or are you going Roman Catholic on us again?

Obviously I'm must be going Roman Catholic again.

gluadys · Aug 23, 2006

vossler said:
True, but since even you can't claim how it was written, we're free to interpret as we see fit, right?

Not really. If we interpret as we see fit instead of as it was meant to be read, we go off course in our understanding.

That is why it is important to study the history of the composition of the various books and determine the historical, cultural and theological context. None of which is in the scripture itself.

One doesn't need to be a scholar to get the main message of scripture, but one does need to study if one wishes to understand it in more depth.

Melethiel · Aug 23, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
Similarly, most European languages are based on Latin... thanks to the Roman Empire.

Eh, not most...I would say a third perhaps.

vossler · Aug 23, 2006

gluadys said:
That is why it is important to study the history of the composition of the various books and determine the historical, cultural and theological context. None of which is in the scripture itself.

So people of earlier times who didn't have access to 'various books' couldn't determine the historical, cultural and theological content adequately, which explains their misunderstanding of Scripture, right? So for folks like me who do have access to the 'various books', we are simply ignorant because we have chosen not to acquire and/or read the 'various books' needed for discernment. Without said knowledge provided throught the 'books' our primitive means of interpreting the text in the plain and simple literal means has become passe and without merit.

Since this information isn't available anywhere except for those 'who are in the know' that's the reason most people flounder around in their walk with God. They don't have the secret decoder which unlocks the truths of God's Holy Word. They haven't been made aware of the 'books' which inform us of the decoder, hence their ignorance.

Interesting, so I suppose we (YECs) should be querying TEs, who've studied and understand the 'various books' and their teachings so that we too can have the ability to decode the Bible. Why wasn't I made aware of this earlier? Once again I'm not hanging with the right crowd and God didn't tell me who they were. Why didn't God tell me? Of course, because it's a secret and only the elect have access to the teachings of the 'books.'

For those who wish access, only a TE can provide it because God has enlightened them. Maybe the TEs are God's chosen, kind of like modern day Irealites? So how can I distinguish a genuine TE from an imposter? Do you have secret meetings where cards are issued identifying your credentials? Is there a mark on your hand or forehead that identifies you? How's a naive and ignorant YEC to know what's real or who's telling the truth?

Sorry for the sarcasm but this is whole thing is getting kind of hokey for me.

It's my way of venting and it keeps me from saying something I'll later regret.

Melethiel · Aug 23, 2006

I believe gluadys was referring to the various books that comprise Scripture, not to outside commentaries.

gluadys · Aug 23, 2006

Melethiel said:
I believe gluadys was referring to the various books that comprise Scripture, not to outside commentaries.

Right.

And I think it is fair to say that it is more difficult for moderns to understand scripture as it was meant to be understood than it was in the past. Obviously those who were contemporary with the writers would understand his mode of communication since they came from the same culture and shared the same assumptions, whether those were scientific or theological.

And those of later pre-scientific times still shared enough of those pre-suppositions to use the bible with evident skill.

But the modern mind-set is so deeply grounded in the discoveries of science and to a certain degree in scientism--and this is especially true of YEC--that one has to really stretch to grasp the concepts that prevailed before Copernicus, the concepts basic to the world-view of the biblical writers.

Jase · Aug 23, 2006

vossler said:
Ahh yes the age old TE argument. The Word of God isn't the Bible, how could I forget.

the Word of God isn't the Bible. To worship the Bible as though it is, is Bibliolatry.

Jase · Aug 23, 2006

Melethiel said:
Eh, not most...I would say a third perhaps.

English, French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Porteuguese, German right? Rest of the European languages are slavic.

Jase · Aug 23, 2006

vossler said:
Is there a mark on your hand or forehead that identifies you?

As though we can't figure out what this is referencing. Thanks for implying TE's are spawns of Satan.

Melethiel · Aug 23, 2006

Jase said:
English, French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Porteuguese, German right? Rest of the European languages are slavic.

German is not a spawn of Latin. Only the Romance languages are derived from Latin. (French, Spanish, Porteugese, Romanian, Italian). The others are the Germanic branches, the Scandinavian, the Slavic, and Greek. There are also Hungarian and Finnish, the odd men out that aren't even Indo-European.

English is a nasty conglomerate of Germanic origin but with much Latin influence, and later French influence.

vossler · Aug 23, 2006

Melethiel said:
I believe gluadys was referring to the various books that comprise Scripture, not to outside commentaries.

gluadys said:
Right

What about???

gluadys said:
None of which is in the scripture itself.

Jase · Aug 23, 2006

Melethiel said:
German is not a spawn of Latin. Only the Romance languages are derived from Latin. (French, Spanish, Porteugese, Romanian, Italian). The others are the Germanic branches, the Scandinavian, the Slavic, and Greek. There are also Hungarian and Finnish, the odd men out that aren't even Indo-European.

English is a nasty conglomerate of Germanic origin but with much Latin influence, and later French influence.

Yeah, I didn't think German was, but it uses the Latin alphabet instead of cyrillic, so wasn't sure. I was hesitant to put German down

Melethiel · Aug 23, 2006

Jase said:
Yeah, I didn't think German was, but it uses the Latin alphabet instead of cyrillic, so wasn't sure. I was hesitant to put German down

Alphabet doesn't mean anything. Many Slavic languages (Polish, Serbo-Croatian) also use the Latin alphabet. It has more to do with areas of influence of the Catholic vs. Orthodox churches, as the Church was the method of preserving and teaching literacy for a long time.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 24, 2006

here are also Hungarian and Finnish, the odd men out that aren't even Indo-European.

don't leave out Estonian, a lot like Finnish, and one of the world's true language isolates-euskara, or basque and then there is laplander, now called saami which is classified with finnish. there are still a few celtic languages as well.

but basque/euskara is the oddest of them all.

theFijian · Aug 24, 2006

vossler said:
Obviously I'm must be going Roman Catholic again.

Do you plan on bringing abything else to this discussion apart from vacuous responses?

vossler · Aug 24, 2006

theFijian said:
Do you plan on bringing abything else to this discussion apart from vacuous responses?

As long as you make vacuous assertions I'll be answering in kind.

theFijian · Aug 24, 2006

vossler said:
As long as you make vacuous assertions I'll be answering in kind.

Ok let me spell it out to you. Whose interpretation do I follow, yours? Mine? The church's? What reason should I follow any of these inerpretations?

As has been pointed out to you before but you seem to have forgotten (again), I can only be convicted when the holy Spirit applies the word to my heart, not your heart, I will not be convicted in some proxy manner by whatever you interpret the text to be. So what's it to be, should I accept your interpretation because you say so? Should we go with the church's interpretation like some kind of papal edict? Or should I allow the Holy spirit to convict me through reason and scripture?

vossler · Aug 24, 2006

theFijian said:
As has been pointed out to you before but you seem to have forgotten (again), I can only be convicted when the holy Spirit applies the word to my heart, not your heart, I will not be convicted in some proxy manner by whatever you interpret the text to be. So what's it to be, should I accept your interpretation because you say so? Should we go with the church's interpretation like some kind of papal edict? Or should I allow the Holy spirit to convict me through reason and scripture?

As I've pointed out to you also, I have no problem with you basic premise or point. Of course the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us individually. However, I don't think He speaks with a different voice and that is the point I was trying to make. Too many would love to say the the Holy Spirit has told me this or that while at the same time it is in direct conflict with the Word of God. God doesn't contradict Himself.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 24, 2006

vossler said:
As I've pointed out to you also, I have no problem with you basic premise or point. Of course the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us individually. However, I don't think He speaks with a different voice and that is the point I was trying to make. Too many would love to say the the Holy Spirit has told me this or that while at the same time it is in direct conflict with the Word of God. God doesn't contradict Himself.

If God created the heavens and the earth they why would their testimony to Him differ from the Scriptures then? perhaps it is because both need to be interpretated, creation via science and Scripture via hermeneutics, and it is these interpretations that err. If our interpretation of Scripture errs how do we know it and how do we correct it?

i'd propose that this is exactly what both church history and science do, tell us that we misunderstood the Scriptures. Prior to the civil war in the US very few Presbyterians were opposed to slavery, the GA had decided in 1812 not to discuss the issue so that the southerners would not be upset. history changed almost all modern Christians interpretation of the hametic verses from those who lived just a few hundred years ago.

look at temperance or sabbatarianism or millennialism.
all issues driven into Scripture from the world. and as a result the modern church differs greatly from the past church.

theFijian · Aug 24, 2006

vossler said:
Too many would love to say the the Holy Spirit has told me this or that while at the same time it is in direct conflict with the Word of God.

Just as well TE isn't in direct conflict with the Word of God then.

just wondering!

Senior Veteran

Legend

Miserere mei, Domine

Senior Veteran

Miserere mei, Domine

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Miserere mei, Domine

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Miserere mei, Domine

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency