Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What dos this have to do with the issue at hand?But YOUR choice of books is perfect - yeah right.
I don't think that is a valid witness to God at all, biblical or not. The God I believe in is a God of love and a God of enlightenment, not confusion and darkness.This is not that difficult. It's right there in the scriptures...and proven in the spirit (and in you):
Genesis 11:7
Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Isaiah 42:20
Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
Matthew 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither dothey understand.
"What your process theologians?" I think you need to rewrite this sentence, it makes no sense.What your process theologians?
The traditional/orthodox definition for eternity is timelessness in theology. Only God is eternal for He is the only being who exists outside of time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The historical chronologies of scripture are not parabolic, they were the matter of fact statements of the authors who were redacting or rewriting previous accounts. One can delineate spiritual prose from historical narratives.This is not that difficult. It's right there in the scriptures...and proven in the spirit (and in you):
Genesis 11:7
Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Isaiah 42:20
Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
Matthew 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither dothey understand.
My comment addresses your complete dismissal of the scriptures regarding this topic as nonsense - and you do so, not with any proof, but simply with different beliefs. You yourself make your own position and claims moot.What dos this have to do with the issue at hand?
You can put your fingers in your ears until you are deaf, and believe in a fabricated god all you want...but it doesn't change the truth.I don't think that is a valid witness to God at all, biblical or not. The God I believe in is a God of love and a God of enlightenment, not confusion and darkness.
My point was...you are simply choosing other books, only to be caught in your own snare.I choose faith in God. Book fetish as well as any other form of idolatry becomes a distraction to Living faith.
The point is...God is in control of what comes through as a result of human stumbling over issues of language: There can be no credible claim regarding any text, for or against, unless it is confirmed by the Spirit whom inspired it.The historical chronologies of scripture are not parabolic, they were the matter of fact statements of the authors who were redacting or rewriting previous accounts. One can delineate spiritual prose from historical narratives.
But by the same toakan, if God is a deceiver as you imply, maybe he's deceiving you in Gen 11:7 as there are languages and cultures all over the earth that predate the Hebrew priests flood narrative!?
Nonsense! We've discovered the medicine men, shamans and priest craft to be frauds.The point is...God is in control of what comes through as a result of human stumbling over issues of language: There can be no credible claim regarding any text, for or against, unless it is confirmed by the Spirit whom inspired it.
"What your process theologians?" I think you need to rewrite this sentence, it makes no sense.
I well understand that the classical model of God puts God wholly outside of time. However, I reject that model. Certainly in the Bible God is present within time and can and does undergo change, as stated in 100 passages. Timelessness is a nonsensical concept and not a biblical one, either.
Good summary. I heartedly agree.This is an interesting discussion. The traditional Protestant concept of perspicacity does say that Scripture can be understood with due means, but with the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus it’s not outlandish to claim that non-Christians by necessity aren’t going to understand some implications of it.
However at the point where you start claiming that God used misleading language which only the illuminated can understand, I think you’ve move too far in the direction of Gnosticism.
Normally people defending the Bible from the observation that it has contradictions come up with interpretations that resolve those contradictions. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else say that God has left contradictions to trip up non-believers, and you need special illumination to resolve them.
In the case of Goliath, the typical conservative answer is that we have an error in the transmission of the text, which can easily be corrected from 1 Chronicles. That works fine as long as you accept the obvious fact that errors occurred in the transmission of the text. Most Protestants do accept that. The commentaries I looked at note that 2 Samuel has more than it’s fair share of textual issues. Thus the text is more than usually uncertain there.
The argument against this is that this is such a problematical reading that it’s unlikely it could have occurred accidentally. Sure, one person could have made such a mistake, but it’s hard to believe it would be the established reading unless it’s the original one. Essentially this is the argument that the “difficult reading” is the most likely to be the correct one. This is a basic principle of textual criticism, which lies behind many judgements made throughout the Bible. I accept it.
It’s unlikely that any conservative will allow this principle to be used in this case. Since I’m not committed to inerrancy, I accept textual criticism even when it produces embarrassing results. This isn’t a difference we’re likely to resolve.
Your post makes no sense. I am well aware how classical theism viewed eternity, and I am simply offering an alternative.Because you reject something doesn't mean that it isn't defined what it is defined as. A definition is not based on whether you or anyone else rejects said definition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That has nothing to do with what God has done to insure His word does not return void.Nonsense! We've discovered the medicine men, shamans and priest craft to be frauds.
You are allowing emotion to rule over you contrary to the word of God.This is an interesting discussion. The traditional Protestant concept of perspicacity does say that Scripture can be understood with due means, but with the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus it’s not outlandish to claim that non-Christians by necessity aren’t going to understand some implications of it.
However at the point where you start claiming that God used misleading language which only the illuminated can understand, I think you’ve move too far in the direction of Gnosticism.
Normally people defending the Bible from the observation that it has contradictions come up with interpretations that resolve those contradictions. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else say that God has left contradictions to trip up non-believers, and you need special illumination to resolve them.
In the case of Goliath, the typical conservative answer is that we have an error in the transmission of the text, which can easily be corrected from 1 Chronicles. That works fine as long as you accept the obvious fact that errors occurred in the transmission of the text. Most Protestants do accept that. The commentaries I looked at note that 2 Samuel has more than it’s fair share of textual issues. Thus the text is more than usually uncertain there.
The argument against this is that this is such a problematical reading that it’s unlikely it could have occurred accidentally. Sure, one person could have made such a mistake, but it’s hard to believe it would be the established reading unless it’s the original one. Essentially this is the argument that the “difficult reading” is the most likely to be the correct one. This is a basic principle of textual criticism, which lies behind many judgements made throughout the Bible. I accept it.
It’s unlikely that any conservative will allow this principle to be used in this case. Since I’m not committed to inerrancy, I accept textual criticism even when it produces embarrassing results. This isn’t a difference we’re likely to resolve.
The traditional Protestant position on this matter, dating back to Calvin, is that Scripture speaks so plainly that even a stump can understand it, even the Devil understands and will witness to Scripture. That's why the reprobate are said to be without excuse. Also, there was the matter of the lux naturalis, the natural light. All creatures are born with a clear knowledge of God, not enough to save tem, but at least enough to damn them. So I don't know where you got this notion that God goes around confusing people.You are allowing emotion to rule over you contrary to the word of God.
It is a biblical fact that God has confused all language Genesis 11:7 and that He sends rain on the just and the unjust Matthew 5:45.
If I quote the scriptures that tell you - and you still don't see it - there is nothing more that can be said.So I don't know where you got this notion that God goes around confusing people.
Yes, but you still end up with the notion that God is a deceiver. So maybe God deceived us via the Genesis account of creation.The point is...God is in control of what comes through as a result of human stumbling over issues of language: There can be no credible claim regarding any text, for or against, unless it is confirmed by the Spirit whom inspired it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?