Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[Mallon]

There is human knowledge and there is scriptural knowledge and the twain shall never meet.

I think this whole discussion is going to come down to how you distinguish between "scriptural knowledge" and "human knowledge". How do you tell the two apart? What constitutes "scriptural knowledge" and what constitutes "human knowledge" according to you, Hypo? Let's be as unambiguous as possible.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Not sure what TE stands for

Theistic Evolution. A lot of TE's don't necessarily enjoy the term, but for the sake of this forum we accept Theistic Evolution to describe our beliefs.

For all its pride filled search for truth human knowledge is incapable of finding that truth for, as the scriptures teach: On the other hand, only those that are in Christ can ever come to the true truth that is only found in spiritual truth as the scriptures, also, teach: Anything man's knowledge is capable of producing is of benefit only in this life and has no real merit as far as the spiritual things of God are concerned and which should be our only concern. I believe that states my position quite succinctly.

Could you classify your views as against anything that does not attempt to gain any form of truth that is not spiritual truth, i.e. Geology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc.? (These not having spiritual truth being your view, not mine).

 

[HypoTypoSis]

I think this whole discussion is going to come down to how you distinguish between "scriptural knowledge" and "human knowledge". How do you tell the two apart? What constitutes "scriptural knowledge" and what constitutes "human knowledge" according to you, Hypo? Let's be as unambiguous as possible.

Please read my most recent post as the answers to your questions are all succinctly--and unambiguously--therein.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Please read my most recent post as the answers to your questions are all succinctly--and unambiguously--therein.

Uhh... not this question.

Could you classify your views as against anything that does not attempt to gain any form of truth that is not spiritual truth, i.e. Geology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc.? (These not having spiritual truth being your view, not mine).

 

[Mallon]

Please read my most recent post as the answers to your questions are all succinctly--and unambiguously--therein.

I did. But your post does not distinguish between "scriptural knowledge" and "human knowledge". You use the two terms without ever defining them.
I want to know how you are using these terms so I can ask you questions like: If finding a cure for cancer is an example of acquiring human, rather than scriptural, knowledge, do you still feel that it is "of no real merit"?

Certainly, an understanding of Scripture is of utter importance and should be priority #1. But I hardly think you've made the case against acquiring peripheral knowledge to help us through this life. The (cited) Bible quotes gluadys provided earlier certainly contradicts such a position.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

I did. But your post does not distinguish between "scriptural knowledge" and "human knowledge".

I'll let the scriptures define that distinction; please re-read my post, it's all in there; if it is not clear to you then I'll not be able to do any better.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

real merit

Please, search the scriptures (re-read my post as the appropriate biblical response is therein, also) for what constitues "real" merit.

 

[Mallon]

Being asked a question relating to your interpretation of the Scriptures and then saying "I'll just let the Scriptures speak for me" doesn't constitute a coherent argument, Hypo.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Being asked a question relating to your interpretation of the Scriptures and then saying "I'll just let the Scriptures speak for me" doesn't constitute a coherent argument, Hypo.

You want to ARGUE scripture?
Are you aware The Holy Spirit never contradicts itself?
That should tell you something.

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart
​

 

[Scotishfury09]

You want to ARGUE scripture?
Are you aware The Holy Spirit never contradicts itself?
That should tell you something.

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart
​

Step over to the Eschatology forum and see how much contradicting Holy Spirit there is over there...

Answer this:

Yes or No, Is calculus heretical knowledge?

 

[Mallon]

You want to ARGUE scripture?
Are you aware The Holy Spirit never contradicts itself?
That should tell you something.

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart​

I give up. I honestly tried to understand your position, Hypo, and all I get in response to genuine questioning is circular references to previous posts and out-of-context Bible quotes. No concrete answers; just more smoke and mirrors.

I tried, busterdog.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Unfortunately, my friend, what you fail to understand is I've stated my position and that, quite simply, is it.

 

[Mallon]

Unfortunately, my friend, what you fail to understand is I've stated my position and that, quite simply, is it.

I'm asking you to elaborate and clarify the statement you made earlier. Simply referring me back to that statement you made doesn't answer my question.
Does cancer research fall within what you define as "human knowledge"? If so, do you still see it as a worthwhile cause, being apart from "scriptural knowledge"?

 

[busterdog]

Let's get back to this then, shall we?

As gluadys already brought up, what about the parables? Are they false?

Please. Is that really necessary? We all understand the difference.

 

[busterdog]

Not sure what TE stands for but at the risk of quoting out of context, "in the beginning it was not so" in that it was not God's desire man should know the difference between the knowledge of good and evil.

However, since man screwed that up, as the saying goes, times changed.

There is human knowledge and there is scriptural knowledge and the twain shall never meet.

Shall never meet in what sense? I would agree that human knowledge will not reach the same level or ever be "as true." Is there something the Holy Spirit can do to duplicate that outside of scripture? I guess we will have to wait and see.

For all its pride filled search for truth human knowledge is incapable of finding that truth for, as the scriptures teach:

1. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
3. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You are speaking of salvation of people, families, nations, the planet. What we do is not profitable for those things, except in a very temporary and flawed sense. But of course, God said the ground was cursed, but didn't say down use it to feed yourself and your family (as I would imagine you agree).

On the other hand, only those that are in Christ can ever come to the true truth that is only found in spiritual truth as the scriptures, also, teach:

1. even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
2. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
3. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Salvation. But, what about the gifts of prophecy, "gifts of knowledge", healing, etc.? Secular people would argue that human means are as helpful. But, has the full measure of the gifts ever been in evidence except in Jesus?

Anything man's knowledge is capable of producing is of benefit only in this life

1. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
2. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun

and has no real merit

Understood. As for the latter point 2, I am sure you dispute that there is not some profit in the labor of men, though have been accused of rejecting it totally.

• For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

as far as the spiritual things of God are concerned

1. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
   1. which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

and which should be our only concern.

1. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

I believe that states my position quite succinctly.

Do people really believe that this knowledge has any real application? I think most people believe we are better off relying all but exclusively on human knowledge.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Please. Is that really necessary? We all understand the difference.

Actually, busterdog, I think it is necessary. I'm sorry Hypo is misrepresenting your beliefs, but I realize that he doesn't speak for you. I think he thinks fiction = false. I'm going to believe that until he says otherwise.

Hypo, I'd love to talk with you but you keep ignoring me

 

[HypoTypoSis]

I think most people believe we are better off relying all but exclusively on human knowledge.

This is all too true, sadly; for it is the greater numbers of humanity that refuse the simplistic way offered by Jesus Christ and pridefully desire instead to say, "I did it my way", and that will not in any way open the gate of life everlasting life for them.

 

[shernren]

Had you merely argued against my point, then we could all understand your position and intentions more clearly. And, I still presume, quite justifiably, that good arguments take an understanding of their opposition, properly demonstrated, as a beginning point.

Oh, I have certainly argued against your point. I pointed out in #260 that a Christian must believe that the God who was trustworthy when He wrote the Bible must be equally trustworthy as He created and maintains the world:

There can be nothing bad to discover in discovering what a good God has done. Even the Fall and its curse (assuming those are historical, scientifically significant events) flow intrinsically from God's goodness; even if the Fall was caused by man, its terms were not created by man, but by a good God. So science must be good. The God who wrote nature is the same God who wrote the Bible, and searching out mysteries in one must go hand in hand with searching out mysteries in the other.

And I am not sure if you understood what I was saying (simple as it is), but it is clear that in four days and seven posts you have not made a single salient point in response to this. Indeed, your first response seems to have been to

Remember to be content in my own reading and not worry about the critics.

One wonders what made your intellectual pacifism snap. As it is, you certainly can't expect me to stand by while you first leave your terms ill-defined (like "human knowledge", as is obvious) and then laugh at the other side for using ill-defined terms.

Until I am engaged, I am happy to sit and wait. I added a comment here for the benefit of Hypo. His comments on the "knowledge" issue were sensible to me.

I think Hypo should probably scale back his own rhetoric. He comes close to commenting on salvation of others, though it might be read to make it clear that the presumption of original sin has not been rebutted by those who mock him here. Hypo's possible inferences on salvation are arguable, as they are for just about all of us when viewed from the outside on a message board. The "unequally yoked" comment is better left aside than argued further. I understand his generalized concern, but a message board is poor place to invest one's passion on such matters in that form. Suffice it to say, there is no Mt 18:19 agreement, which the Lord blesses. Rather, that is lots of non-blessing.

'Tis fun watching you frantically cleaning up after your friend.

 

[busterdog]

I think he thinks fiction = false. I'm going to believe that until he says otherwise.

Without even addressing whether Hypo did a good job or a bad job in stating his position, no one believes this. You are better off with that as your working hypothesis. Seem to be hammering the way he says things, but the above "fiction = false" is not required by his argument.

 

[busterdog]

Oh, I have certainly argued against your point. I pointed out in #260 that a Christian must believe that the God who was trustworthy when He wrote the Bible must be equally trustworthy as He created and maintains the world:

Yes, I am aware of the basic dispute.

And I am not sure if you understood what I was saying (simple as it is), but it is clear that in four days and seven posts you have not made a single salient point in response to this. Indeed, your first response seems to have been to

Try looking again then. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You must be missing something.

One wonders what made your intellectual pacifism snap. As it is, you certainly can't expect me to stand by while you first leave your terms ill-defined (like "human knowledge", as is obvious) and then laugh at the other side for using ill-defined terms.

You needn't wonder, I told you very plainly. Hypo is being pilloried for no good reason. As for "ill-defined" terms, this almost sounds like you saying, "would you clarify for me?" Well, close but no cigar. Actually, its only close because I choose to read it as such for you benefit. Hint Hint.

'Tis fun watching you frantically cleaning up after your friend.

Enjoy.