Of course it does not. If you admitted that you are incapable of dealing with the texts on that basis, that would end it. Are you incapable of doing that ?
I dont know where you studied logic or how to analyze a text, but I m pretty sure even the simplest of minds would require us to keep 7:13 in the entire context of the chapter and book, which clearly includes God as its author and God as directing these affairs.
To this point in the debate you have REFUSED acknowledge the text from this standpoint. To make this point clear to all readers here I would ask you to provide the post or statement, where you have included God, either directly or indirectly as a part of the text. We on the other hand have considered and addressed most if not all of brians contentions and entertained them as possiblities to the solution.
Paul, are you going to admint that God is repleat in the text and assume atleast the possibility of his involvement? or are you going to use verbage to disregard that point, util the discussion becomes pointless
Now tell your audience again Paul who is disregarding the text.
That would depend on the work, and it's purpose would it not ? If it collects old stories it might take it's references from those stories. If it expresses the author's views it might be an expression of his faith. You could ask much the same question about texts outside of your religion, such as the Quran.
See here is what I mean, More side tracking verbage that refuses to take the take the text at face value
And I've not said anything to contradict that. Of course, relevance is not always obvious and sometimes has to be shown, and you have been rather poor on that.
relevance of the plain text needs to be demonstrated??????. First you cry that we are disregarding the plain text, then you isolate a single verse, which disregards the plain text, then you disregard the rest of the text which speaks of Gods involvement, then you disregard Pegs very insightful observation that it is the THRONE, not a person, that is under consideration, then AFTER ALL OF THIS ABSURDITY, you have the nerve to conclude that I am somehow not going by the plain text. reaaly Paul, do you think your readers are not seeing these simple points.
Your problem is that you are not ACTUALLY prepared to discuss the text, but have involved yourself in a vicious circle and problem from which you cannot extricate yourself
Again we have your confusion between understanding the text and believing the text. That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.
I know you have your pride Paul, but some people really should just say, I should not have involved in a discussion, where I had not considered all the logical ramifications beforehand.
Paul, if you and brian believe that most of the Old testament statements and stories are myth in the first place, then there is no rational way for you to make the following statement:
That is, the text credits God with originating the Nathan prophecy, but it can be read and understood without believing that to be true. And in this case it would not make the slightest difference.
given the fact that you and brian believe most of even the Old testament to be myth, this is without a doubt the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.
nathans prophecy is useless and pointless without a belief that it is actual and REAL in the first place. Since you will find nathans prophecy nowhere outside the book of Samuel, how in the world could it be understood or believed outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT, or for that matter INSIDE its context and ISOLATING on verse as you do
Your method of proceeding, is absurd at best. Please be my guest and explain how Nathans prophecy could be understood outside of its ENTIRE CONTEXT and without including his comments about God in the process
It's right there in Greek mythology and the Quran, too. But you don't believe those, do you ?
No. But, nor would i proceed in a discussion with a Mormon or muslim without the idea or consideration, that God does not exist or that it is not possible that he is or is not possible author of thier writings. I would assume that he exists and that he could have something to do with those writings. it would be pointless otherwise.
Im certainly not going to proceed in a discussion with a person that actually believes Hercules was actually involved with and direct by a pantheon of mythological Gods. i would pat them on the head, smile and say, you have a nice day now
Except for the fact that I am not attempting to do anything so broad. All I am attempting to do is establish whose kingdom it is, according to 2 Samuel 7:13. And the most important aspect would be the text of 2 Samuel 7:13. And yes it is absurd to try to exclude the clear meaning of it as Peg tried to do.
Peg writes:
Solomon was to be the builder temple, but another decendent would be the indefinitely lasting ruler of Davids throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAM writes:
Now watch this, his conclusions do not violate that text and more importantly they are supported by the rest of the Old and NT
PaulK writes:
Really ? Perhaps you can explain how the quote above can be read from 2 Samuel 7:13
i know your readers do Paul, but perhaps now you are starting to see the relevance of the entire text and God in the process.
Any person looking at your above statement would probably pat you on the head and say have a nice day.
Paul if God exists and is the author of the book of samuel and the rest of the Old and New testaments, its not hard to figure out how peg would get that out of a single text.
Paul there is no common ground here and we might as well be talking about hercules.
We have acknowledged brians aspects and only when you wish to be objective and consider the possibility that God was actually directing samuel, Nathan and these individuals, will the discussion have any common frame of reference.
if you start with the belief that God does not exist, not a part of the scriptures, the discussion is nonsensical. i dont know how to better make this point.
EAM
™ Version 4.2
(1)
