Who yokes with who?

[Pats]

In your example above, we really don't know so therefore we make a logical inference, whereas the evolution theory is anything but that. We can't and shouldn't always say "we don't know" when plausible explanations exist.

I wonder what we do and don't know. I mean, it's not a popular theology, but what about the theory of the two Adams? What if Adam wasn't the only one God created, and Cain married a woman from another family.

What is the logical inference and where does the twisting scripture begin and end?

 

[Mallon]

We can't and shouldn't always say "we don't know" when plausible explanations exist.

Do you not feel this is somewhat in conflict with Deut 4:2; Prov 30:5-6; and Rev 22:18-19? Adding any number of "plausible" stories to fit your interpretation?

 

[Willtor]

Consideringly, it sounds like we agree more than anything.

I feel that a TE could better explain to such a person, who cannot let go of their scientific theory of evolution/common descent, that not all Christians feel this way and you don't have to become a creationist to become a Christian.

Is this assuming the role of "convincer," or is it a way of further discussions already under way. Although I am a creationist, I am not closed to the idea of considering other theology. Although I don't accept other theology as truth at this time, to not even consider it would be rather tunnel visioned about the whole thing. And since I have/am considering it, how can I hold on to my theology to the point of not showing my friend, who is interested in learning about the Bible, that there is more than one way to interprate it?

I've heard from Vossler and Remus. Any other Creats got an opinion on this? (Not that I don't care about TE opinions, but I'm sure they're mostly affirmative.)

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, as I am just a humble student, but don't YECist do exactly this? Cain married who? It doesn't say... so, instead of saying, "we don't know," YECs say it was his sister. That's just one example. It seems to me most theologies presuppose information that is not spelled out clearly.

Well, I'm going to give my affirmative, but I'd like to clarify why I think affirmative is the appropriate response. If it is the gospel of grace and peace in Jesus Christ that is preached, then whatever the surrounding politics, Christ is preached. Really, if I have any concern for the people, and I am ill-equipped to deal with what they say, I'll send them to another Christian; even if I disagree with that Christian on this or that issue. If someone can't handle my low-Church tendencies, I'll send him to a Catholic.

Don't get me wrong, I think I'm right in what I think. I'm going to try to convince people. But don't let these things cloud the gospel, at its very core. If the Spirit brings someone to Christ through me, then that someone likely thinks something very similar to what I think. But if he comes to find some part of it that is inconsistent or weak, and he comes to different conclusions, then so be it. As long as he knows Christ, who am I to complain?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Do you eat pork, shellfish, drink milk with a ham and cheese sandwich?

Nope

the only absolute word for a Christian is what is in the Nicene Creed.

Ummm...don't think so

what about the Bible? the Torah...the Tanakh

tsk tsk...a writing of man over the inspired writings of G-d...

 

[The Lady Kate]

In your example above, we really don't know so therefore we make a logical inference, whereas the evolution theory is anything but that. We can't and shouldn't always say "we don't know" when plausible explanations exist.

But you still don't know. You've made an educated guess.

So your explanation is "We don't know, but here's a thought..."

 

[vossler]

I wonder what we do and don't know. I mean, it's not a popular theology, but what about the theory of the two Adams? What if Adam wasn't the only one God created, and Cain married a woman from another family.

What is the logical inference and where does the twisting scripture begin and end?

We know that Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman. After that the Bible is, at times vague but specific where it needs to be.

How important is it for us to know who Cain married?

 

[vossler]

Do you not feel this is somewhat in conflict with Deut 4:2; Prov 30:5-6; and Rev 22:18-19? Adding any number of "plausible" stories to fit your interpretation?

Good point! It very well could be except that this plausible explanation has no effect on God's Word. It in no way changes the meaning or understanding of any other Scripture and so therefore is, IMO, acceptable.

Now there are many other "stories" that do change the meaning or understanding of Scripture, and it is those that we need to actively address and rebuke.

 

[Dannager]

Nope

Haha, why not? I hope you don't think you're following biblical dietary law, because you aren't. I'd be willing to bet that you break dietary law nearly every day of your life. If you've ever cooked so much as a strip of bacon on your stove, everything you've cooked on it since then is contaminated. If any utensil in your house has ever touched shellfish, ham or pork sausage that utensil is forever unclean as is anything it may touch at any point in the future. If you've ever eaten at a restaurant that has ever served any pig or shellfish product, you are guaranteed to have violated biblical dietary law just by using their forks and plates or having your food cooked on their grill. The Bible is extremely clear on this point. I hate to quote scripture to prove a point (and nearly least of all Leviticus), but here you go:

And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment [clothes], or skin, or sack [storage container], whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessel, whereunto any of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and you shall break it. Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water comes shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.

Why are you even trying to follow this particular bit of biblical law? The cleanliness it talks about is for ceremonial purposes and Paul makes it clear later that you are not required to adhere to it. Don't give up the wonders of pork and shrimp just because you're trying (and failing) to ascribe to an ancient code of ceremonial cleanliness that was long ago made obsolete by your own holy text.

 

[Pats]

We know that Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman. After that the Bible is, at times vague but specific where it needs to be.

How important is it for us to know who Cain married?

I guess it makes a difference if it was his sister or if others were created when Adam and Eve were created, since we have a bunch of Pastors and Theologens (sp?) going around preaching one way or another. We also have a good deal of non-Christians asking about it, so I'd say it may be important what your take on it is, yes.

Haha, why not?

Shame on you, Dannager. Laughing and ridiculing a fellow Christian for following their convictions? I may not follow Levitican law myself, but I don't scoff at the Jews and Messianic Jews who do. Romans 14:14 says if a person regards something as unclean, for them it is unclean.

Then you're going around refering to Paul there, I see. Paul also said we are free to eat unclean animals, but if in doing so it offends our brother, put it away and don't offend your brother/sister. Romans 14:21

Since you obviously have not heard of a Kosher resturant or Kosher foods and practices, perhaps you shouldn't speak so harshly to those who have. I think you're letting your youth show.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Haha, why not? I hope you don't think you're following biblical dietary law, because you aren't. I'd be willing to bet that you break dietary law nearly every day of your life. If you've ever cooked so much as a strip of bacon on your stove, everything you've cooked on it since then is contaminated. If any utensil in your house has ever touched shellfish, ham or pork sausage that utensil is forever unclean as is anything it may touch at any point in the future. If you've ever eaten at a restaurant that has ever served any pig or shellfish product, you are guaranteed to have violated biblical dietary law just by using their forks and plates or having your food cooked on their grill. The Bible is extremely clear on this point. I hate to quote scripture to prove a point (and nearly least of all Leviticus), but here you go:
[/color]
Why are you even trying to follow this particular bit of biblical law? The cleanliness it talks about is for ceremonial purposes and Paul makes it clear later that you are not required to adhere to it. Don't give up the wonders of pork and shrimp just because you're trying (and failing) to ascribe to an ancient code of ceremonial cleanliness that was long ago made obsolete by your own holy text.

Nice...

I really had come to expect better from you than this...

I guess leopards do run in packs afterall

 

[Dannager]

Shame on you, Dannager. Laughing and ridiculing a fellow Christian for following their convictions? I may not follow Levitican law myself, but I don't scoff at the Jews and Messianic Jews who do. Romans 14:14 says if a person regards something as unclean, for them it is unclean.

Sure, and I have no problem with that. I do think it's rather silly to believe that one is following biblical dietary laws when they are not, though. Unless Gwenyfur attends solely kosher dining establishments (and if she does I will apologize profusely) she's violating biblical dietary law. If she's doing it for her own reasons, power to her. If she's doing it because she thinks the Bible is telling her to, she's a little misinformed.

Then you're going around refering to Paul there, I see. Paul also said we are free to eat unclean animals, but if in doing so it offends our brother, put it away and don't offend your brother/sister. Romans 14:21

I'm not sure what relevance this has to what is being discussed. Could you expand on it?

Since you obviously have not heard of a Kosher resturant or Kosher foods and practices, perhaps you shouldn't speak so harshly to those who have. I think you're letting your youth show.

I'm quite familiar with kosher practices, thanks. If Gwenyfur adheres to them, that's wonderful. If she isn't, but thinks that she is, I feel that letting her know is the right thing to do. Again, if Gwenyfur does properly adhere to biblical dietary law I will apologize profusely for the accusation.

 

[Dannager]

Nice...

I really had come to expect better from you than this...

I guess leopards do run in packs afterall

I'm not trying to demonize you, Gwenyfur. My intent wasn't even to offend. You mentioned that you do not eat pork, shellfish or (by inference) any beast cooked in its mother's milk. Am I mistaken in assuming that you refrain from such things in an attempt to adhere to biblical dietary law as outlined in Leviticus? If I am mistaken, I apologize profusely. Am I mistaken in assuming that you do not eat solely at kosher dining establishments? If I am mistaken, I apologize profusely. Am I mistaken in assuming that, should your belongings ever come into contact with that which is unclean, you do not destroy those belongings (or wash those that Levitican law says can be washed)? If I am mistaken, I apologize profusely.

I'm not trying to put you on trial, Gwenyfur. I'm trying to show something - that there are portions of the Bible which do not need to be interpreted as written in order to be a Christian. Levitican law's cleanliness refers to ceremonial cleanliness, not literal cleanliness.

Again, if anything I have said offends, I apologize. It was not my intention to do so.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I adhere completely to Torah...
I've said time and again in this forum and others that I am Torah observant that would include the dietary laws

I am Jewish by blood and by law and that includes G-d's as well as Israel's

Anything else you'd like to point out?

 

[Pats]

Sure, and I have no problem with that. I do think it's rather silly to believe that one is following biblical dietary laws when they are not, though. Unless Gwenyfur attends solely kosher dining establishments (and if she does I will apologize profusely) she's violating biblical dietary law. If she's doing it for her own reasons, power to her. If she's doing it because she thinks the Bible is telling her to, she's a little misinformed.

It seems you should ask first before making assumptions and ridiculing someone on their religious practices, especially another Christian. I'm not a Messianic Jew myself, though I looked into becoming one at one time.

I respect them.

Then you're going around refering to Paul there, I see. Paul also said we are free to eat unclean animals, but if in doing so it offends our brother, put it away and don't offend your brother/sister. Romans 14:21

I'm not sure what relevance this has to what is being discussed. Could you expand on it?

(EDIT: I've tried fixing the quote thing... it won't work!)

You have to forgive the way I put things. I work nights and don't get a lot of sleep sometimes.

Not that this post has anything to do with the OP, or the last few posts, I was responding to your statement:

Why are you even trying to follow this particular bit of biblical law? The cleanliness it talks about is for ceremonial purposes and Paul makes it clear later that you are not required to adhere to it. Don't give up the wonders of pork and shrimp just because you're trying (and failing) to ascribe to an ancient code of ceremonial cleanliness that was long ago made obsolete by your own holy text.

In this quote, you mention that Paul said we are not required to adhere to Levitican law. But at the same time, you are belittling Gwenyfur for stating that she abstains from unclean animals in her diet.

I pointed out in an earlier quote that Rom 14:14 says although we are no longer under Levitican law, if a person regards a thing as unclean, it is unclean for them. I am also pionting out here in Rom. 14:21 that it says not to offend our your brother by eating unclean things, if it offends him. Obviously, you are not eating pork in front of Gwenyfur. However, you are scoffing at her for saying she abstains from unclean things, and then using Paul as a means to back your position.

I am trying to tell you that in speaking to Gwenyfur the way you did, you went against Paul's teachings about not offending our brother's and sister's who follow Levitican law.

I'm quite familiar with kosher practices, thanks. If Gwenyfur adheres to them, that's wonderful. If she isn't, but thinks that she is, I feel that letting her know is the right thing to do. Again, if Gwenyfur does properly adhere to biblical dietary law I will apologize profusely for the accusation.

It would've been more appropriate to ask Gwenyfur about her practices before you started in with accusations and scoffing, than to have to appologize in hindsight if you made an error, don't you think?

It's ok, we were all young once, but I still think your youth is showing.

 

[Dannager]

I adhere completely to Torah...
I've said time and again in this forum and others that I am Torah observant that would include the dietary laws

I am Jewish by blood and by law and that includes G-d's as well as Israel's

Anything else you'd like to point out?

Nope, and in that case I'd like to say that I'm sorry for bringing the issue up. I was mistaken and took a gamble on something that I probably shouldn't have, and I ended up looking a little foolish for it. I hope you can forgive me my indiscretion.

 

[Dannager]

It seems you should ask first before making assumptions and ridiculing someone on their religious practices, especially another Christian. I'm not a Messianic Jew myself, though I looked into becoming one at one time.

I respect them.

As do I. For the record, it wasn't my intent to ridicule her for the practice itself. I have nothing against adherence to dietary laws. I was (falsely) assuming that Gwenyfur thought she was adhering to them but was actually not doing so. I was wrong about that, apparently. My intention was to show her, if she wasn't aware, that the dietary laws are a lot more harsh than many people realize.

You have to forgive the way I put things. I work nights and don't get a lot of sleep sometimes.

Not a problem. You're talking to the guy who just falsely accused someone of not properly following biblical dietary laws.

In this quote, you mention that Paul said we are not required to adhere to Levitican law. But at the same time, you are belittling Gwenyfur for stating that she abstains from unclean animals in her diet.

Not quite. I have no problem with those who follow the dietary laws. But I feel that those who believe they are following them and are, in actuality, not successfully doing so deserve to know that. I made the mistake of assuming Gwenyfur was part of that group.

I pointed out in an earlier quote that Rom 14:14 says although we are no longer under Levitican law, if a person regards a thing as unclean, it is unclean for them. I am also pionting out here in Rom. 14:21 that it says not to offend our your brother by eating unclean things, if it offends him. Obviously, you are not eating pork in front of Gwenyfur. However, you are scoffing at her for saying she abstains from unclean things, and then using Paul as a means to back your position.

If she were doing it for her own reasons, that's one matter. If she were doing it because she is following an improper understanding of dietary laws that's another thing entirely. It turns out neither of these was correct.

I am trying to tell you that in speaking to Gwenyfur the way you did, you went against Paul's teachings about not offending our brother's and sister's who follow Levitican law.

I am sorry for any offense that I may have caused. It was my intention to correct, not belittle.

It would've been more appropriate to ask Gwenyfur about her practices before you started in with accusations and scoffing, than to have to appologize in hindsight if you made an error, don't you think?

You are quite correct, I did go off half-cocked. In my past experience with Christians adhering to biblical dietary laws the vast majority do not have a proper understanding of them. As I made the mistake of operating under my assumption alone, I have apologized. It was not a very Christian thing for me to do.

It's ok, we were all young once, but I still think your youth is showing.

Perhaps, but in this case it's a problem of too many past experiences influencing my actions, not too few. Then again, perhaps it was immature of me to let those past experiences alone decide my action in the first place.

 

[shernren]

On the lighter side, I just realized that I have a big question about the Messianic Banquet ... is pork going to be on the menu? Because if it isn't, the Chinese will be very disappointed!!

(just joking around. )

 

[Pats]

I am sorry for any offense that I may have caused. It was my intention to correct, not belittle.

That's good. I hope she comes back to read your appology.

You are quite correct, I did go off half-cocked. In my past experience with Christians adhering to biblical dietary laws the vast majority do not have a proper understanding of them. As I made the mistake of operating under my assumption alone, I have apologized. It was not a very Christian thing for me to do.

It reminded me of the way I was treated during the years I chose not to celebrate Christmas (but that has nothing to do with this thread or origins for that matter )

Perhaps, but in this case it's a problem of too many past experiences influencing my actions, not too few. Then again, perhaps it was immature of me to let those past experiences alone decide my action in the first place.

I thought begining a sentance with "Haha" was kinda immature, but as you have appologized now, I'm ready to drop the whole thing.

Now, were we talking about who's yolked with who or something like that?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

On the lighter side, I just realized that I have a big question about the Messianic Banquet ... is pork going to be on the menu? Because if it isn't, the Chinese will be very disappointed!!

(just joking around. )

i remember that chinese language class.
first we got the meat marker

then you add it to the animal to make the meat.
a lot easier than in english where the animal's names are from anglo saxon and the meat from french.

then when you get to pork. you just leave off the pig. because in chinese if it is "unmarked" meat it is pig....



another cute trick.
thanks for the reminder.

 

[shernren]

I've never heard anyone put it that way before, meat "marker" lol ... *mentally pictures butcher holding big felt-tip pen* it's a full-fledged word. give it the respect it deserves!