Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 406 of 566 (598101)
12-28-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 3:07 AM


Re: example of previously fulfilled prophecy: isaiah 7:14
Silly Millie, you eternally clueless bitch (regardless of your actual gender, but since you perpetually present yourself with a female name. And for which I perpetually curse you, you male falsely presenting yourself as female).
Gee, Silly Millie, should we look at what you chose to leave out?
quote:
Message 390
Silly Millie writes:
And if neither were inspired, who cares anyway correct
Just what the frak is that supposed to mean? Is there an English translation pending? I would think not, since Silly Millie's goal is to generate confusion. That has always been the goal of creationists and IDists alike, to generate as much confusion as possible, so that the truth might never be able to come to light.
OK, you Silly Millie, just what the frak was your un-English supposed to mean? Does it represent your blazingly obvious inability to express anything in a logical manner? Of course it does!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 3:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 407 of 566 (598102)
12-28-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 2:56 AM


Re: other scriptures
Dawn Bertot writes:
hardly.
No place or person is even remotely verifiable.
we're pretty certain that joseph smith was a real person. granted, the bible has about a half-dozen more people that are independently verified from sources that don't just cite the bible. but that's not particularly a significant difference. in any case, the book of mormon contains a great many characters from the bible -- it's very fond of quoting isaiah.
Here is a simple illustration. Why does no on here on this site, discuss the details of that book?
don't be silly, dawn. i am. right now. this very instant. and you could be too, if you'd read some of it. i've actually been involved in several discussion on the topic, and would be interested in participating in a few more. but the fact is that this is a "creation v. evolution" board, and the most vocal and persistent creationists are all evangelical christians. we hear little from the other two of the big three, judaism and islam.
Because you know instinctively it is not to be trusted or believed.
indeed, instinctive knowledge is most definitively not the test for truth in inspiration. most of the OT prophets taught the truths that people didn't want to acknowledge, and little of it was touchy-feely stuff that we "know" in our hearts to be true. rather, it is the truth, cold and hard, and the word of god. however, if feeling is enough for, i challenge you to read the book of mormon, and take the test:
quote:
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moroni 10:4)
i promise you that every person that calls themselves a latter day saint thinks they have received this inspiration and confirmation from god. it's certainly enough for them.
Did you ever wonder why no one discuss its (BOM) content. There is a reason. There is nothing to discuss because one cannot even begin to verify anything to discuss
again, ask a mormon. they will give you the exact same speeches you have given me. that it's independently confirmed, that it expands the message of the bible and reveals the larger picture. that it's a question of faith, and whether you believe joseph smith was inspired. that you need a certain degree of inspiration yourself to read and understand it... everything you have claimed, i have heard from mormon missionaries. verbatim.
Why would someone translate or why would God give to a guy in the 1800s a king james language translation of a new revelation?
Immediately the problems start
agreed!
on to the next question. why would god give a divinely inspired matthew a 200 BC greek septuagint, complete with a copyist error and a translation fail?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by dwise1, posted 12-28-2010 4:00 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 416 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 12:04 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 408 of 566 (598103)
12-28-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 3:18 AM


Re: context: still everything.
you're on the one hand arguing that i can't see the forest for the trees, and on the other, arguing that this one particular leaf is the forest.this is where i am forced to again to question your reading comprehension. since my reading was that matthew horribly misrepresents the context of the prophecy.
I understand your point, but you are missing the point of inspiration guided writers. Matthew cannot misrepresent what you have clearly missed in both the Old and New testaments, regaurding Gods overall plans.
when you quit riding the fence about whether the scriptures are really and actually inspired and you include it as a clear part of any context, the scales will fall from your eyes
nobody is debating that there is messianic prophecy in the bible. certainly, there is. the problem is that much of the stuff the NT quotes as messianic isn't, and even if it is, can't have been about jesus. and you can tell, from the context.
Could you give me an example of a yet future messianic prophecy
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 409 of 566 (598104)
12-28-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 3:25 AM


false prophets... speak the truth?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Without acknowledging it, the false prophets are actually demonstrating exacally how they need to be taught, as a child, line upon line, precept upon precept.
well there's your problem! you seem to think that even false prophets speak the truth! that the things that bible calls lies and statements made by idiots and fools are also true.
to which i refer you to my context post above. surely this logic would mean that the bible genuinely claims that there is no god. the bible said it, so it must be true! who cares if it's a fool speaking, he's actually right!
This is however the method that God has chosen to teach people about himself and his plans.
if so, then he is also a false prophet that isaiah is condemning.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 3:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 410 of 566 (598105)
12-28-2010 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 3:37 AM


Re: context: still everything.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I understand your point, but you are missing the point of inspiration guided writers. Matthew cannot misrepresent what you have clearly missed in both the Old and New testaments, regaurding Gods overall plans.
on the contrary. because he does, we know he is not inspired.
when you quit riding the fence about whether the scriptures are really and actually inspired and you include it as a clear part of any context, the scales will fall from your eyes
i continue to marvel at why you think inspiration of one scripture must apply to all scriptures. it is not a clear part of any context. perhaps some, but that has never been the point.
Could you give me an example of a yet future messianic prophecy
off the top of my head, daniel 7 and perhaps zechariah 9, which reflect much more the kind of thing that is described in revelation, as opposed to in the gospels.
certainly, zechariah 9 fits some specific historic context, but remains largely unfulfilled thanks to the everlasting world peace that never happened.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 3:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 11:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 411 of 566 (598106)
12-28-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 3:35 AM


Re: other scriptures
most of the OT prophets taught the truths that people didn't want to acknowledge, and little of it was touchy-feely stuff that we "know" in our hearts to be true.
This was very much a part of my own "fellow-traveller" fundamentalist education. As taught by the original Chuck-Smith "Jesus-Freak" movement. One of the best tests of a true prophet was his popularity. The more popular a prophet was, the more likely he was false. Because a true prophet would tell the people what they didn't want to know.
What do the televangelists tell the people? What they want to know. Because they need to please as many people as they can to garner as much monetary income as they can.
So Silly Millie has aligned herself/himself with those who have told her/him what she/he wanted to "know". So that she/he would never need to have to actually think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 4:18 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 419 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 5:04 PM dwise1 has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 412 of 566 (598107)
12-28-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by dwise1
12-28-2010 2:55 AM


logic
hi dwise1,
Word! But more specifically, drawing from my own Greek classes, there were two very different verbs for speaking: lego and lalao (please pardon my not knowing the bbcodes for rendering foreign alphabets). Lalao was for making the noises of speech, like fundamentalists yelling "la la la la" while plugging their ears in order to block out what they don't want to hear. OTOH, lego is related to our English verb "to lay" (Anglo-Saxon "lagan", related to modern German "legen", "to lay"), which in reference to speech is to set words in a deliberate pattern so as to make sense, hence the extension of the root to "logic", the setting of thoughts in a structured manner.
okay, so i have a confession to make. and i'm surprised that people haven't picked up on this before.
sometimes, on throw-away points like that one, i'll come back with a one liner that isn't quite accurate, intentionally. i typically do this to give the other person an easy out, and see if they're paying attention. discussion's more interesting that way, and i like to read other points of view and challenge my own. i can't say i expected dawn to call me on it, because "word of god" is a pretty common phrase in modern christianity (and the gospel of john).
but since dawn seems to lack any logical debate mechanisms (even the ability to read), i found it somewhat peculiar that he was arguing for logic. i was also genuinely surprised that he use (and spelled) "exegesis" correctly in a sentence.
While Silly Millie (AKA "Dawn" -- if she/he feels free to frak with our names, then it's open season on hers)
speaking of which, and i don't mean to be rude here, you've misspelled mine.
Just what the frak is that supposed to mean?
so far, there's been exactly one instance where dawn posted something that i genuinely had no idea what he meant. i happen to be fluent in fool, have a lot of experience with fundamentalist churches (and rhetoric), and am prone to making many typing errors myself. i type in all lowercase here, so i try not to fault other peoples' poor posting habits. i frequently leave out negations (boy how a missing "not" can change a meaning), passive verbs, and endings on words, and this could mean that my posts sometimes become nonsense.
That has always been the goal of creationists and IDists alike, to generate as much confusion as possible, so that the truth might never be able to come to light.
personally, i think it's just that they wouldn't know what sense was if it bit them on ass. they're not just creating confusion, so much, they're also victims. see that dawn claims to agree with my exegesis of isaiah 7, yet can't grasp how that precludes it from having been about jesus in the way that matthew claims? you can't actually do both. we're really at a p=~p kind of logical point. if we assume that p=~p, all logic inherently breaks down.
dawn is making that kind of assumption. and that is his problem. he can't tell claims from their own inverses. see the bit about "line upon line", a view that isaiah condemns, where he states that the false prophets were actually revealing a truth in their mockery. this is a claim i frequently run into when discussing job. those friends that god says were wrong? well, they were actually right. you know, in a broader sense.
Edited by arachnophilia, : see, left out a passive verb again.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by dwise1, posted 12-28-2010 2:55 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 12:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 413 of 566 (598108)
12-28-2010 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by dwise1
12-28-2010 4:00 AM


Re: other scriptures
dwise1 writes:
This was very much a part of my own "fellow-traveller" fundamentalist education. As taught by the original Chuck-Smith "Jesus-Freak" movement. One of the best tests of a true prophet was his popularity. The more popular a prophet was, the more likely he was false. Because a true prophet would tell the people what they didn't want to know.
What do the televangelists tell the people? What they want to know. Because they need to please as many people as they can to garner as much monetary income as they can.
i'm not normally one to confirm the jesus-freaks. i've been there, and i've done that. but this statement happens to be accurate. jar phrased it earlier as "a godly dope-slap".
the thing is, the jesus-freaks were talking about stuff like "you're a sinner and you're going to hell!" not "your priests are liars and frauds" -- which is what isaiah 28, discussed above, is about. they were using it just as much as a control mechanism as the televangelists. they just more emphasis on the "breakdown of self" portion of the cult indoctrination.
So Silly Millie has aligned herself/himself with those who have told her/him what she/he wanted to "know". So that she/he would never need to have to actually think.
it's certainly easier. but it's not really what the bible is talking about.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by dwise1, posted 12-28-2010 4:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 414 of 566 (598120)
12-28-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 3:25 AM


Re: "line upon line"
And you once again misrepresent what is actually in the Bible.
When you say:
Dawn Bertot writes:
Example, Paul states that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ
"in the fullness of time God sent forth his son into the world"
you are just taking Galatians out of context.
quote:
Galatians 4
1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father. 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 3:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 415 of 566 (598125)
12-28-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 3:50 AM


Re: context: still everything.
on the contrary. because he does, we know he is not inspired.
Here is the most interesting point of all. You claim he is misrepresenting the passage and the interpretation you give the prophet concerning the Child and its meaning, comes from where
Is there another explanation in the context that clearly and absolutely sets out thae interpretation you are giving it? Or is this simply what you have been taught its meaning is
You havent even got started demonstrating from a inspiration standpoint that God does and did not have an expanded and greater meaning in these passages
To set aside the inspiration that is clearly a part of the ENTIRE context and isolate a single prophecy and its interpretation. Then decide, there can be no other by God is simply ignoring most of what the Bible teaches about how God operates
i continue to marvel at why you think inspiration of one scripture must apply to all scriptures. it is not a clear part of any context. perhaps some, but that has never been the point.
You dont make this statement because you dont see that point repleat in the scriptures. You make it because you walk the fence on inspiration
If you dont believe me pull up post 78 from that other thread and listen to your words concerning the composition of the scriptures
So your point here is that God May have inspired Isa but not another prophet?
Inspiration is either a part of the prophets or it is not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:50 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 7:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 416 of 566 (598129)
12-28-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 3:35 AM


Re: other scriptures
but the fact is that this is a "creation v. evolution" board, and the most vocal and persistent creationists are all evangelical christians. we hear little from the other two of the big three, judaism and islam.
Hardly,, Judism is regulary represented here. I wonder why we hear little from the others. There is a reason
i promise you that every person that calls themselves a latter day saint thinks they have received this inspiration and confirmation from god. it's certainly enough for them.
It may be valid a method for them, but it isnot what Paul taught. "Prove all things, test all things"
again, ask a mormon. they will give you the exact same speeches you have given me. that it's independently confirmed, that it expands the message of the bible and reveals the larger picture. that it's a question of faith, and whether you believe joseph smith was inspired. that you need a certain degree of inspiration yourself to read and understand it... everything you have claimed, i have heard from mormon missionaries. verbatim.
The difference is that the NT has things that can actually be tested and confirmed. The book of mormon does not
on to the next question. why would god give a divinely inspired matthew a 200 BC greek septuagint, complete with a copyist error and a translation fail?
God did not reveal the contents of the Septuagint to Matthew, he gave it to an Old Testament prpophet, long before the compilation by the seventy elders
The dead sea scrolls confirm the accuracy and attention that was given to the transmission.
Nothing Matthew has to say misrepresents God wishes or plans
Actually we are not even to that point in the discussion.
If as you have stated at times the writer of Isa was not Isa, that makes the composer a liar or a at best imaginative
If the writer of Isa says Isa saw visions and was inspired of God and he was not actually, then he was a liar or at best unreliable about the claims to begin with
At any rate it would make the probablity that those thing that were predicted actually written after the fact
Here is where a belief in inspiration based on the available evidence is critical and here is why
If you think there is not enough, (on either side) then trying to argue the validity of an claimed OT prophet, to refute the New testament is the height of silliness and absurdity
Trying to argue for context without actually taking all of the context is the worst form of contradiction
Picking and choosing out of them what you like and dislike, believe to be valid or invalid, to demonstrate another source as invalid is also the height of silliness
This leaves you misunderstanding Gods overall intentions and plans, not to mention that that approach makes no logical sense
Your always at square one and cant even get out of the starting gate to pass judgement on Matthew, muchless anyone else
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 7:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 417 of 566 (598132)
12-28-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 4:11 AM


Re: logic
personally, i think it's just that they wouldn't know what sense was if it bit them on ass. they're not just creating confusion, so much, they're also victims. see that dawn claims to agree with my exegesis of isaiah 7, yet can't grasp how that precludes it from having been about jesus in the way that matthew claims?
No I agreed with your possible interpretation and meaning by God. Isa 7 is not all of Isa, now is it Arch? Your approach to scripture, God, inspiration and Gods intervention, is the height of absurdity in establish things claimed in the Old and NT, from a logical proposition
In other words, youve made no commitment to the scriptures or critical thinking. You dont know whether you are coming or going, yet you want to tell Matthew he is wrong
Post 78 from that other thread
sure, it'd just look silly coming so late. really, most of biblical prophecy fits this description because the books were last altered, or compiled, well after the subject matter they dealt with. it's possible that this has the affect of adding fictionalization to the accounts -- we really can't tell if isaiah, who lived before the assyrian exile, said what he's supposed to have said when he was supposed to have said it. the prophets themselves don't seem to have written the book, rather, their later disciples. sort of like with christ.
but it's an easy mistake to think that the power of prophecy is in prediction. it's not.
I hope you dont mind me including this from the other thread. Now does this sound like a man that trusts the OT prophets as actual and accurate, muchless thier meanings
What you are attempting in this thread is the height of absurity and stupidity
I guarentee you I would never reference the Koran or the BOM to try and discredit the NT. To do so would be ignorant beyond belief
Yet you are doing that very thing
WoW
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 4:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 8:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9371
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 418 of 566 (598135)
12-28-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 2:56 AM


Re: other scriptures
has ever been verified by an INDEPENDANT source
Kinda like Jesus?
Do you know how to spell? Ever heard of a spellchecker?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 419 of 566 (598148)
12-28-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by dwise1
12-28-2010 4:00 AM


Re: other scriptures
What do the televangelists tell the people? What they want to know. Because they need to please as many people as they can to garner as much monetary income as they can.
So Silly Millie has aligned herself/himself with those who have told her/him what she/he wanted to "know". So that she/he would never need to have to actually think.
Still afraid to actually participate in the current topic I see, Dewise. thats ok, your inability to offer anything of topic related subjects reinforces my belief that while you learned some grammar along the way, you had no foundation in the scriptures to begin with
A slight wind could have blown and you would have deconverted. You know, no root system to your "knowledge"
Thats ok, stick around and you might learn something
perhaps you would like to make an attempt at explaining some of the contradictions I have made known to Arch, that he has involved himself in
my guess is that you wont because you dont really know how and that you will stick around to be just an irritant. My guess is that this is also the way you conduct yourself in life, not just this board
you really should make an attempt at an argument or responding to an existing one. Its starting to look like you actually have no talents in this area and that you have no knowledge of the topic/s
It seems you are limited to bad mouthing creationists, calling them liars and generally doing nothing else
as far as the topic and the subject at hand, do I need to put a mirror under your nose to see if you are actually alive?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by dwise1, posted 12-28-2010 4:00 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 8:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 430 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 4:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 431 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 4:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 432 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 4:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 420 of 566 (598154)
12-28-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2010 11:12 AM


Re: context: still everything.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here is the most interesting point of all. You claim he is misrepresenting the passage and the interpretation you give the prophet concerning the Child and its meaning, comes from where
Is there another explanation in the context that clearly and absolutely sets out thae interpretation you are giving it? Or is this simply what you have been taught its meaning is
it's called "reading", dawn. i suggest you try it. go back, and read isaiah 7 again. read my post again. there is no "interpretation" going on. it's basic reading comprehension. isaiah says one thing, pretty clearly, and i'm just explaining what he said. even you said you agreed with that explanation.
You havent even got started demonstrating from a inspiration standpoint that God does and did not have an expanded and greater meaning in these passages
inspiration is irrelevant. "it was inspired by gawd!" is not the magic argument that makes everything go away. inspiration does not mean that there is a larger message (and, by "larger" i mean a small portion ripped out of context), or that that larger message is about jesus. neither of those arguments follow, like you seem to think that they do.
To set aside the inspiration that is clearly a part of the ENTIRE context and isolate a single prophecy and its interpretation. Then decide, there can be no other by God is simply ignoring most of what the Bible teaches about how God operates
says the man who quotes drunken false prophets condemned by the bible, as an example of how god operates. like those drunkards and fools that isaiah rails against, you make a mockery of god.
no, the argument is not that there can be no other. it's that it clearly is not referring to jesus.
You dont make this statement because you dont see that point repleat in the scriptures. You make it because you walk the fence on inspiration
perhaps i have a different, expanded view of inspiration that you haven't considered? in any case, it's not that i'm on the fence about it, its that it's irrelevant to this discussion.
So your point here is that God May have inspired Isa but not another prophet?
Inspiration is either a part of the prophets or it is not
first of all, matthew is not a prophet. you may or may not have noticed that i've been using the term author for matthew. this is because he is simply a student, a follower of christ, who wrote down a hagiography of christ. he is not, and never claims "inspiration" in the way that prophets actively speak for god. there is precisely one prophetic book in the NT, and that's revelation. all of the other prophecy is told about by authors such as matthew.
second, you are making the fatal mistake of assuming that all scripture is "precept after precept, line upon line, here a little there a little." the bible a large collection of books that happens to quite beautiful in its diversity. most is religious, but some is secular. some is poetry/song, some is history, some is prophetic, some is traditional, some is law.
there is no particularly good reason why inspiration in one place should mean inspiration in all places.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2010 11:12 AM Dawn Bertot 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