Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discerning Which Definition to Use
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 91 of 106 (559346)
05-08-2010 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by purpledawn
05-08-2010 8:05 AM


Re: Figurative or Not Figurative
purpledawn writes:
If you still disagree, please use the link provided and show me the figurative style being used in 2 Peter 3:10 concerning the word ge.
its fairly simple really
"The HEAVENS and the earth that are now, are stored up for fire"
if Peter is not speaking figuratively but literally, why would he include the 'heavens' in what is to be burned with fire? Will a fire have any affect on the sun or any other star in the heavens? And in what way would a fire on any distant star in the universe have any affect on the people on earth? This statement is a form of figurative speech you did not mention...its called hyperbole.
from your link
HYPERBOLE: the trope of exaggeration or overstatement.
TROPE :Tropes are figures of speech with an unexpected twist in the meaning of words, as opposed to schemes, which only deal with patterns of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by purpledawn, posted 05-08-2010 8:05 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 05-08-2010 9:09 PM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 92 of 106 (559364)
05-08-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Peg
05-08-2010 6:39 PM


Hyperbole
quote:
"The HEAVENS and the earth that are now, are stored up for fire"
Which was then (100-160 CE), not today.
quote:
if Peter is not speaking figuratively but literally, why would he include the 'heavens' in what is to be burned with fire? Will a fire have any affect on the sun or any other star in the heavens? And in what way would a fire on any distant star in the universe have any affect on the people on earth? This statement is a form of figurative speech you did not mention...its called hyperbole.
You are using current knowledge. What did heavens (ouranos) mean to them in 100-160 CE? Remember their "world" was a lot smaller than ours.
These are examples of hyperbole.
* These books weigh a ton. (These books are heavy.)
* The path went on forever. (The path was very long.)
* I'm doing a million things right now. (I'm busy.)
* I waited centuries for you. (I waited a long time for you.)
* She ran faster than a bullet. (She ran fast.)
* I'm so hungry I could "eat a horse". (I am very Hungry.)
* "Today", please! (hurry up)
Notice that even in exaggerations the common meaning of the words are understood. Putting them together is what gives us the understood meaning. The understood meaning doesn't change the meaning of any of the words in the sentence.
As I've said before, there is meaning of the word, meaning of the sentence, meaning of the paragraph, and meaning of the story. Don't confuse the meaning of the word with the meaning of the sentence.
Show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 6:39 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 10:59 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 93 of 106 (559379)
05-08-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by purpledawn
05-08-2010 9:09 PM


Re: Hyperbole
puprledawn writes:
Show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying.
burning up the heavens is not an exageration?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 05-08-2010 9:09 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 05-09-2010 3:08 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 94 of 106 (559404)
05-09-2010 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Peg
05-08-2010 10:59 PM


Re: Hyperbole
quote:
burning up the heavens is not an exageration?
I didn't say ask me, I said show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying. Just like the examples I gave you. I'm not going to guess about what's going through your mind.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 10:59 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:59 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 95 of 106 (559467)
05-09-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by purpledawn
05-09-2010 3:08 AM


Re: Hyperbole
purpledawn writes:
I didn't say ask me, I said show me the exaggerations in 2 Peter 3:10 and then what the author is really saying. Just like the examples I gave you. I'm not going to guess about what's going through your mind.
In a plain reading of the text, which is what you like to do, dont you think that burning up the heavens is an exageration???
I certainly do. The heavens is so big that its mostly space, so how could it possibly be literal?
If you dont mind me jumping over to another verse, i'd be happy to show you what the 'heavens' are in such a context. But you dont like that so just think about it.... can the space above our heads be burnded up with fire? (you dont have to answer that btw, but if you want to know what the figurative 'heavens' are, i'm happy to provide you the explanation according to other NT writers)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 05-09-2010 3:08 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2010 6:56 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 96 of 106 (559543)
05-10-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:59 PM


Re: Hyperbole
quote:
In a plain reading of the text, which is what you like to do, dont you think that burning up the heavens is an exageration???
I certainly do. The heavens is so big that its mostly space, so how could it possibly be literal?
Excuses, excuses, excuses. You said that 2 Peter 3:10 contains hyperbole. I haven't agreed or disagreed with you yet. I'm waiting for you to show the exaggerations and the meaning(s) as in the examples provided in Message 92.
Example: These books weigh a ton. (These books are heavy.) The exaggeration is the weight of the books. The person is saying the books are heavy.
So far, all you've mentioned is heaven (even though we were discussing the word earth), but no meaning.
In 2 Peter 3:10 the author writes: The heavens will disappear with a great noise.
So if this is a hyperbole, disappear with a great noise is the exaggeration. So what does that mean? What will the heavens actually do?
Now if heavens and earth symbolize (which is not the definition of the word) something else, then please provide outside scholarly support for that symbolism. As I said in Message 51, symbolism and idioms are cultural and unless explained within the writing can't be determined without knowing the cultural basis.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:59 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 8:21 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 97 of 106 (559627)
05-10-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by purpledawn
05-10-2010 6:56 AM


Re: Hyperbole
purpledawn writes:
Now if heavens and earth symbolize (which is not the definition of the word) something else, then please provide outside scholarly support for that symbolism. As I said in Message 51, symbolism and idioms are cultural and unless explained within the writing can't be determined without knowing the cultural basis.
im not really interested in a scholars opinion on this verse...the writer wasnt a scholar so its not as if only a scholar can understand it.
There are instances in the OT where the heavens refers to ruling governmental powers.
One example is in Isaiah 14:9-14 describes the fall of Nebudcadnezza as one who falls from heaven...the place where he ruled.
"all the goatlike leaders of the earth. It has made all the kings of the nations get up from their thrones....
12O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations! 13As for you, you have said in your heart, ‘To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. 14I shall go up above the high places of the clouds; I shall make myself resemble the Most High
In the NT Paul makes a statment about being situated in 'heavenly places'. It wasnt a vision of the future, it wasnt a prophecy...it was simply a statement where he used a figurative use of the word 'heavens' and applied it to those in union with Christ.
Eph 2:6and he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus,
Paul, and the other christians he was speaking to, were still very much on earth when he said this. They had not ascended into heaven, yet he says that God had seated them in heavenly places. These are both examples of how the 'heavens' are figuratively used for positions of authority. In a worldly sense, its the ruling governments, in the christian context, its the authority to teach the word of God.
So back to 2 Peter3:10....the 'heavens' will be burned up because God will remove the 'governmental aurthorities' and take over the rulership of mankind. He has done so in the past when he has defeated ruling powers such as Egypt and he will do so again in order to bring about a 'new heavens' (rulership) and a 'new earth' (society of people)
Fire is also symbolic of cleansing & refining in the bible.... so its fitting to say that the 'heavens and earth that are now are stored up for fire' because they are going to be 'cleansed' and 'refined'
Malachi speaks of the priesthood (levites) being cleansed by fire at
Malachi 3:1-3 Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me....
2But who will be putting up with the day of his coming, and who will be the one standing when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen. 3And he must sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver and must cleanse the sons of Le′vi
purpledawn writes:
In 2 Peter 3:10 the author writes: The heavens will disappear with a great noise.
So if this is a hyperbole, disappear with a great noise is the exaggeration. So what does that mean? What will the heavens actually do?
because the heavens (like earth) is figurative, and i've shown that it is figurative for governments and authorities, then the noise they make will likely be their opposition to being removed from their posts. The national rulers will not give up without a fight and they will make a big noise doing so. Revelation 16:14 tells us that the kings of the earth are being gathered together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.
The only way we can understand these figurative uses of such words is to take other bible passages into consideration. To undertsand a verse on its own is not going to get us very far at all. And while agree that in some cases, scholars can help in our understanding, they do not necessarily provide us with an indepth knowledge of Gods word because undertsanding comes from God alone. jesus proved that when he denounced the scholars of his own time for not understanding the basics of the mosaic laws....Jesus understood better then them becuase God gave him understanding....he didnt need to learn from a scholar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2010 6:56 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2010 4:31 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 98 of 106 (559687)
05-11-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Peg
05-10-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Hyperbole
quote:
im not really interested in a scholars opinion on this verse...the writer wasnt a scholar so its not as if only a scholar can understand it.
But to know what symbols were used thousands of years ago requires someone who has studied history. The average person is not going to know symbols or idioms of the past. Today they would use the internet and find the information available from someone who has studied ancient cultures, languages, etc. My guess is, that's where you glean your information that is beyond average knowledge, just as I do. If you had known this symbolism already, you would have made a clearer case sooner. You also would have understood that the discussion we were having concerning yom and multiple meaning words, does not apply to 2 Peter 3:10 if you had understood the symbolism earlier.
I made it clear in Message 51 and Message 96: When it comes to symbols and idioms, the scholars have done the research to enable us to understand these types of phrases. There is no way to discern these types of things from the text unless the writer explains it at some point like the writer did for Matthew 16:5-6.
This thread is about words with multiple meanings in the definition. When we look at the definition of heaven, we don't see a meaning of government. So 2 Peter 3:10 is also not an example of discerning which definition of a multiple definition word is to be used.
Now concerning the hyperbole in 2 Peter 3:10. Since you mentioned hyperbole, I've done my homework also.
Heavens and earth are not the hyperbolic part of the verse as I showed in Message 96. So the correct figurative use would be symbolism, not hyperbole when it comes to how the word earth is used.
Given this new information (not from you), if heavens and earth symbolize government and nation, I agree that the word earth is being used figuratively in 2 Peter 3:10. I disagree that the word earth simply refers to people. In the future, when the word is a symbol for something else, say that it is a symbol for something else. Personally, I don't think you really knew earlier, just like I didn't.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
So destruction of the nation will come when they least expect it.
The political powers won't go down without a fight.
There will be chaos.
The social order of the nation will be destroyed.
I say that the word earth doesn't just symbolize people because of the verses concerning "new earth". As I said before, I don't think he's talking about new people. With this symbolism he would be referring to a new social order or nation.
So, if the writer was using symbolism, then the word earth is being used figuratively to refer to the nation.
Unfortunately, even though it took us a long time to get here, this is not a case of a word with multiple meanings available in the lexicon like the word yom.
Do you understand the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 8:21 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 5:04 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 99 of 106 (559692)
05-11-2010 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by purpledawn
05-11-2010 4:31 AM


Re: Hyperbole
purpledawn writes:
I say that the word earth doesn't just symbolize people because of the verses concerning "new earth". As I said before, I don't think he's talking about new people. With this symbolism he would be referring to a new social order or nation.
a new social order or nation is exactly what he's talking about
the people who make up the 'earth' today will also make up that new nation or social order.
Just as the new 'heavens' will be a new authority/rulership for the people who make up that new nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2010 4:31 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2010 8:00 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 100 of 106 (559708)
05-11-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Peg
05-11-2010 5:04 AM


Understanding the Difference
quote:
the people who make up the 'earth' today will also make up that new nation or social order.
Now you're back to fiction. The author of 2 Peter would have been referring to one nation, not many. I didn't find that the symbolism referred to more than one nation. The author would have been referring to one area. If we carry the statement forward, that means anything outside of that original area today is not included.
Back to the Topic
So do you understand the difference in what this thread is about and what you brought forth in 2 Peter 3:10 or do I have to ask several times before I get a straight answer?

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 5:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:08 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 101 of 106 (559844)
05-11-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by purpledawn
05-11-2010 8:00 AM


Re: Understanding the Difference
purpledawn writes:
Now you're back to fiction. The author of 2 Peter would have been referring to one nation, not many. I didn't find that the symbolism referred to more than one nation. The author would have been referring to one area. If we carry the statement forward, that means anything outside of that original area today is not included.
which nation and which area?
you are reverting back to literal talk again. Christianity was designed for people from ALL nations to come together to worship God. So Peter is NOT speaking about one nation and one area.... he is saying that the current world society, the sociiety of people who were/are divided culturally and religiously, will become one nation under the new heavenly government
christians are not the only ones who will be brought into that new nation....all the nations from all around the world will become one nation. Then all the 'earth' (people) will become one.
Its the theme of the entire bible right from genesis thru the prophets and into the NT...if you dont read it all and take it all into account, you wont understand what is being said....Look:
Gen 22:16-18"And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.
Isaiah 65:17For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart"
Acts 3:25 "YOU are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted with YOUR forefathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed.’
Acts 10:34 "At this Peter opened his mouth and said: For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him"
Reve 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them
The christians didnt teach anything that the OT writers had not already said... they were simply repeating Gods teaching as they found it in the OT and therefore Peter is speaking about these same things.
But you wouldnt know that if you didnt first know that the OT spoke about....the only way to read the NT is to read the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2010 8:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2010 8:10 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 102 of 106 (559955)
05-12-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peg
05-11-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Understanding the Difference
Apparently you don't understand the difference and aren't going to answer the question dealing with the topic.
So now you've veered off into symbolism and apocalyptic language, which isn't the topic of this thread, since symbolism isn't usually part of the definition of a word.
quote:
you are reverting back to literal talk again.
Give an inch and you take a mile.
Heavens: Religious or political authorities.
Earth: The place or nation involved in the prophesy.
So in your mind since earth symbolizes a specific nation and nations contain people, then earth symbolizes people. Not how it works.
Again, you appear to be altering the usage to fit your beliefs. I'm sure you ran into the same information I did on the internet, so you know that the use of heavens and earth in the OT, referred to variations of the nation of Israel.
Christ Coming in Vengeance
The heavens and earth are simply the Jewish religious/political authorities and the lands of Palestine and the people who lived there. They were the ungodly men — ungodly because they had rejected and killed the Christ, and still rejected him — who were being kept (by the gracious mercy of God who wanted all to repent and come to him) unto the day of judgment and destruction. This phrasing tells us that this is another day of the Lord just like the ones we see exampled in the Old Testament.
Don't change the meaning of their symbol. The word earth in apocalyptic language doesn't symbolize people in general, it symbolizes a nation; which is a specific group of people.
quote:
The christians didnt teach anything that the OT writers had not already said... they were simply repeating Gods teaching as they found it in the OT and therefore Peter is speaking about these same things.
But you wouldnt know that if you didnt first know that the OT spoke about....the only way to read the NT is to read the OT.
Yes, if you don't know what the OT is speaking about, you won't understand the NT. That's why you persist in changing the OT and now the NT.
Yes, the author in Peter is speaking of the same things. The Hebrew or Jewish nation.
It still goes to how a word is used in a sentence.
The verses you provided, as usual, do not support your position. Even with symbolism, the word earth is referring to a limited area or group of people of the time. You can't just say the word earth as used by the author now refers to all people on the planet when it didn't back then.
Understand what the word meant at the time it was used.
Comparing Symbols from Old and New Testament Prophecies
Edited by purpledawn, : Final Thought
Edited by purpledawn, : Added Link

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 8:52 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 103 of 106 (560226)
05-13-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by purpledawn
05-12-2010 8:10 AM


Re: Understanding the Difference
purpledawn writes:
Don't change the meaning of their symbol. The word earth in apocalyptic language doesn't symbolize people in general, it symbolizes a nation; which is a specific group of people.
right, so God will only be dealing with one specific nation of people. Ok well so much for Jesus direction to spread christianity around the whole earth to people of all nations and so much for Gods promise that people of ALL nations will benefit from Abrahams seed.
You just cant change the theme of the bible to suit your idea of how you want to read the text and what rules of grammar you want to apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2010 8:10 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2010 4:57 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 104 of 106 (560284)
05-14-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Peg
05-13-2010 8:52 PM


Re: Understanding the Difference
You're still throwing out chaff and haven't answered my question.
Do you understand the difference between discerning which definition to use of a word with multiple meanings and understanding a symbolic or idiomatic use of the word?
The former is determined by the use of the word in the sentence and the latter needs historical background to understand plus the use of the word in the sentence.
quote:
right, so God will only be dealing with one specific nation of people. Ok well so much for Jesus direction to spread christianity around the whole earth to people of all nations and so much for Gods promise that people of ALL nations will benefit from Abrahams seed.
I told you not to flip on me. Message 90
Peg writes:
Message 89
Remember that 'ge' means 'land/earth/soil' It doesnt mean planet as you keep repeating. I agree with that.
I knew you would flip when it suited your purpose. The words translated as world and earth do not imply planet wide or all humanity. Even the symbolism we discovered does not imply planet wide or all humanity.
Genesis 18:18
For Abraham will certainly become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him.
Erets does not encompass the planet. All the nations of the earth refers to all the nations of the land. It is a limited scope.
Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
Same with kosmos. It doesn't encompass the planet. It usually refers to the Roman Empire.
If you disagree with that, you need to go to the appropriate thread. Not The Planet
quote:
You just cant change the theme of the bible to suit your idea of how you want to read the text and what rules of grammar you want to apply.
I haven't changed the theme of the writings in the Bible. It says what it says. Looking at what the writers were really saying may conflict with doctrinal themes, but there isn't much I can do about that.
If you can't be trusted to follow standard rules of grammar and language, how can anyone trust the message you present?
Luke 16:10-12
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?"

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 8:52 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Peg, posted 05-14-2010 6:16 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 105 of 106 (560288)
05-14-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by purpledawn
05-14-2010 4:57 AM


Re: Understanding the Difference
purpledawn writes:
Do you understand the difference between discerning which definition to use of a word with multiple meanings and understanding a symbolic or idiomatic use of the word?
yes i do, but you dont.
the entire bible must be looked at to understand what someone is saying...you cant ignore everyone else in favor of semantics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2010 4:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 05-14-2010 7:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024