Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 405 of 566 (598100)
12-28-2010 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 3:01 AM


Re: "line upon line"
[qs]so what's it about? false prophets thinking their lies will protect them from the coming exile. in assyria. the "precept upon precept" business is the mockery that these false prophets are making of the word of god. this is essentially the derision the priests were making at the bible, not isaiah's approved idea of divine inspiration. isaiah is condemning this view.
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.
This is however the method that God has chosen to teach people about himself and his plans.
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"
"God who at different times and different ways has spoken to us by the prophets, but hath in these last days spoken to us by his son, Jesus Christ"
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 3:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 414 by jar, posted 12-28-2010 10:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 426 of 566 (598197)
12-29-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 8:08 PM


Re: other scriptures
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.
really. Lets see if there is no interpretation going on on your part. You have not explained where you got the definition and explanation of "child", in that passage. you gave an interpretation, but that explanation is not in the text is it
Secondly, you and Ramoss clearly have a different explanation correct?
Here are your words to Ramoss
actually, i have a more interesting interpretation
Im sorry I though you said you did not interpret things. Hmmmmm?
Why would you need an interpretation of the child, if it is so plain in the text? Hmmmmm?
No interpretation? Better go back an check that again
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.
And herein lies the problem with not only your irrational approach, but your clear and OBVIOUS misrepresentation of Gods word. Without it, no prophecy makes even the slightest sense
Without it your claims that Matthew is misrepresenting it are pointless. Really arch, use you head
no, the argument is not that there can be no other. it's that it clearly is not referring to jesus.
I can only know this if another prophet makes it clear through inspiration, correct. You could only know that the prophecies could make sense if inspiration is real and a part of that context, correct?
first of all, matthew is not a prophet
Wrong, Christ in John 16:13, promised the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. All Lawgivers are prophets, not all prophets are lawgivers
They were made and became prophets by God himself
." 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.
Nail on the head, so to speak. And of course your going to be the one to decide this for us, correct? Write me out a list of the books and passages that YOU believe are inspired and the ones that are not, then tell me why. Then tell me what your exact criteria for having such special knowledge is. More mental fence walking. Son you have aquired some facts but it is clear you dont know how to apply them logically
Really Arch, use your head. Its all from God or its not, there is no middle of the road. So which side of the road are you on?
it is, however, the part that matthew quotes. and the context shows that that part could not have related to jesus. you are more than welcome to post anything else from isaiah you feel is about jesus, especially if its quoted by a NT author. but so far, all you've proven is that you don't know how to read.
Only inspiration could make known what God had in mind in either testament. Since you claim no inspiration and it is painfully clear you do not understand the nature and purpose of scripture, Ill take matthews claim, since you have not demonstrated even that simple point. The scriptures are about God and his plans
oh, but the title. yeah, don't get too hung up on those. titles are traditional, and many of the titles you're familiar with don't appear in the hebrew bible. for instance, genesis is called "in the beginning", exodus "names", leviticus "called", numbers "in the desert", and deuteronomy "word", all after the first or second word in the book... because the books do not actually have titles. all titles, and chapter numbers, and verse numbers were added later, and are traditional. calling a book that comprises the prophecy of isaiah "isaiah" only makes sense. it doesn't mean that the author is a liar because you think it had to have been written by isaiah personally. your notion of how the scriptures are written is just wrong. this is not isaiah's fault.
Does it make him a liar if he suggest or directly states that the things he is writing are inspired of God and they are not actually? Names arch, are not the only test of the validity of the book.. nice dodge though.
only insipration can or could make known Gods plans overall. hebrews one says, he did it in different ways at different times
to this point Arch all you have provided in the way of an argument, if it could be called that, is to claim matthew and others are quotemining and taking it out of context. Those are observations, not an argument agains the fact that the text demonstrates God involvement and God inspiration
They cannot take out of context, what you misunderstand in the form of Gods inspiration and involvement. God cannot misrepresent his own words through time and that my simple friend is what you are missing, like an african elephant standing right in front of you, but you cannot see him
But you have already demonstrated that you dont REALLY believe that, correct? or did I misrepresent your comment in post 78 of the other thread
sorry my simple friend, inspiration and Gods overall plans make al the difference
bertot writes:
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
arch writes
doesn't matter.
Well that clears everything up. My simple friend it makes all the difference in tthe world, if God is behind the authors words, every detail of inspiration and Gods overall plans need to be considered
All you have done to this point is insist that Matthew did not faithfully represent the text. Arch, God can and did do anything with the text he chooses
If God wishes that a prophecy of old refer to John the Baptist, that is his right. "one crying in the wilderness, make straight his path a highway for OUR GOD"
This the single greatest prophecy in biblical history
My simplistic and short sighted friend, its all ABOUT GOD
again, this is not about the validity of isaiah. it's nice that his words were more or less accurate, sure, and if they were written after the fact, that's probably bad. whatever.
the point is that matthew misrepresent the words of isaiah.
Not only is your above comment the most ignorant statement I have ever witnessed, it demonstrates beyond any doubt you understand neither inspiration, intervention or Gods wishes and plans overall. Arch, God cannot misrepresent his own words and only inspiration could reveal to matthew what Gods words and wishes meant
Hey, rocket scientist, its only and just about God through time, THATS ALL
When you adjust your meter to understand what the scriptures are about, it will all make sense
Bertot writes:
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
well, it's a good thing i haven't done that then. perhaps you should re-read my post. there's nothing about what i like or dislike, or believe to valid or invalid. it's simply an examination of what isaiah says versus what matthew says.
Arch, if its only about what Isa or Matthew said its of no real value. Its what GOD SAID in both time periods, God purpose and Gods plans. Not Isa, not Matthew, not yours and not mine
Its only about Gods purposes and now watch, the is why isnpiration and all its hundreds and hundreds of claims in scripture are SO VERY IMPORTANT
If you claim to understand scripture so much how in all the world can you miss that simple point. wake up and smell the coffee
your claims are meaningless and gibberish -- mutter after mutter -- because you do not have even the most basic foundation in logic. you seem to think that claim "p" and claim "not p" are indistinguishable, and so all your logic breaks down because then nothing can ever be refuted. we can never hope to follow a premise to a conclusion, because we can't even get past the premise.
so, your claims about logic are truly funny, dawn. please, keep it up.
No problem, not a single thing I have present could be understood to be illogical or irrational. You on the other hand song and dance around passages that imply inspiration and divine guidance. One moment your on board the next your not
Did I misrepresent you in post 78 of that other thread? I think not. In this thread you speak confidently about inspiration, there you dont.
Again this is why inspiration and divine guidance is of the UTMOST important. Without it, its just people rambling about this or that thing. Smell that coffee bruing Arch
"One crying in the wilderness, make straight his path a Highway for our God." It was only ever about God and God as Christ
Its woven through time and revelation. Gives you chills doesnt it. I know it does me. Again and again Arch, God cannot misrepresent his own words. So yes Arch, inpiration is very very very, relevant
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 8:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 12:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 429 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 12:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 433 of 566 (598329)
12-30-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by dwise1
12-30-2010 4:53 AM


Re: other scriptures
As I have explained before, while "creation science" is a pack of lies, that does not make all who regurgitate those lies liars. In order to be a liar, one must be aware that the falsehoods that one is disseminating are indeed false.
So let me get this straight, your supposed argument for deconversion is that creation science is not true? In three posts all I can see is this, in your intimations.
The others are :
I dont understand anything
People are leaving the church
Creation scientist are liars
AND YOUR AN ALCOHOLIC
Did I miss something?
Sorry son, creation is demonstratable in reality and in argument form from design
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 4:53 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 9:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 434 of 566 (598335)
12-30-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 12:00 AM


Re: other scriptures
i did not interpret the text in that post.
there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was,
Thats funny.
You werent looking straight into the camera and waving your finger, were you? You sound like Bill Clinton. "Listen to my words, I did not have sex with that women"
Like Bill you only partially interpreted it correct, which is as we all know is not Interpretation, correct?
Its going to take a little while to get back to this post its pretty extensive. Got some RW and New Years stuff going, but I will get to it as soon as possible
Thanks
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 428 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 12:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 438 of 566 (598561)
01-01-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 12:00 AM


Re: other scriptures
yes, it is. you just have to read it even you said you agreed.
bertot writes;[qs]Secondly, you and Ramoss clearly have a different explanation correct?
Here are your words to Ramoss
actually, i have a more interesting interpretation
Im sorry I thought you said you did not interpret things.
i did not interpret the text in that post. i simply explained the straightforward, literal reading, based in context. isaiah does not identify the child. but it does give a number of details in the text that can disqualify pretty much anyone born after 720 BC.
I know you dont want to believe you interpreted it, but you did. Even after your interpretations you are still not certaiin who the child is or is not. My simple friend that is intrepretation. Or should I call you Bill?
there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was, and all are based in parsing the grammar of the sentence: the woman is referred to with a definite article, and the "is pregnant" is present tense. she would have been known to both ahaz and isaiah, and would have been pregnant at the time. this means the child has to be:
isaiah's son, who is born in the very next chapter, as ramoss interprets
ahaz's son, probably king hezekiah who becomes very important later in the book and relates directly to the theme of the assyrian invasions
representative of all children born at that time, but i feel this betrays the specificity of the grammar
so, those are your options. a child born 700 years later, that has nothing to do with either ahaz, isaiah, or assyria is simply not an interpretation allowed by the text. ramoss and i can disagree about who the child is without making the whole debate "interpretative". we both agree about who the child is not.
Your kidding right, those are my only options, Ive only three vauge choices to choose from, certainly there are a few more. Besides this if any or all of these are my choices, what does it mean if you got it wrong and how would each distinctive choice change the meaning
really Arch, no interpretation, get real.
Those options have nothing to do with my position and they in no way rule out Christ as that fulfilment, if the bigger picture in Gods plan is taken into consideration. Your is an observation, not a valid argument for removing Christ as the fulfillment in a fuller sense.
no, dawn, the problem is that your misrepresentations don't make even the slightest lick of sense; whereas any sane, rational person reading isaiah 7 would come to precisely the same conclusion i have: it can't be aboue jesus.
One. my so-called misrepresentation can be nothing of the sort, when you are not even who or what the child represents. Your interpreting and speculating. Two. It most certainly can be about Jesus if God actually inspired Isa and matthew to write down his wishes and plans
the fact that my approach is simply reading the text, and seeing what it has to say, speaks volumes about your claims relating to rationality.
Not only do you not read the text, YOU DONT REALLY BELIEVE or accept the entire context, that has to with God or inspiration. You pretend at inspiration and use it when its conveient. My claims to rationality in this respect are of course more valid than yours. I atleast have the common sense to accept it all or reject it all.
You honestly believe you have the talent to decide which part is inspired and which part is not, yet you will not reveal the aspects of such a talent
further, you have misrepresented the bible at every turn, even in off-hand quotes. you have even spoken in favour of false prophets.
More false accusations by Arch. Your misunderstandings do not a misrepresentation make, on my part The false prophets were being sarcastic about a method of teaching that would have actually applied to them if they had stop to think for a moment. Thier arrogance got in the way, but such a thing was the very thing they needed
Hebrews put it like this. "For when for the time you SHOULD BE teachers, you have need that one teach you again, the first principles of the oracles of God"
dawn, this is as simple as comparing two texts, and what they say. use your head.
You know young fellow you may not get this now but eventually it will click down the road. Your not comparing two texts, your comparing and isolating parts of the text, forgetting what the entire text has to say concerning God and intervention and inspiration
Trying to make any text make sense without that clear and present principle in scripture is foolish and irresponsible
Bertot writes:
I can only know this if another prophet makes it clear through inspiration, correct. You could only know that the prophecies could make sense if inspiration is real and a part of that context, correct?
Arch writes
no. you have a brain. use it. further, you have given no particular standard about how we determine whether or not inspiration is present in a text. you have simply and arbitrarily assumed it for the bible, nut denied it for other similar texts.
Because I have a brain Arch, I know it makes more logical sense to accept or reject it all, than to intimate here and there about Gods "possible" involvement. Heres a little test for you. Go through the Bible and see which there is more of, prophecies or "Thus saith the Lord", or something to that affect. See which one is more prevelant
Bertot writes
Wrong, Christ in John 16:13, promised the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. All Lawgivers are prophets, not all prophets are lawgivers
They were made and became prophets by God himself
Arch writes;
good. so were the leaders of the church of latter day saints. you might be interested to note, however, that matthew is not listed among the apostles in the gospel of john. in fact, his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. and even if it was, there's no particularly good reason to assume the book we have come to call matthew was written by that same matthew the apostle from the synoptic gospels. the titles of the books, as explained above, are traditional. the gospels were named much later, and do not actually claim authorship, except for perhaps luke/acts. you've never even been to sunday school, have you?
Try and stay focused son, your getting flustered. You are the one that said Matthew was not a prophet but a student. Which implies that you indirectly believe he existed and that may be the author. My repsonse was to your accusation of "no prophet", which was, that Christ made them prophets. Not whether he existed or was the author or it is that should be accepted as inspired. those are seperate issues
no, and as i keep saying, it is not relevant to this discussion. the question is, why do you blindly accept every book of the bible, simply because they are published together? you might be interested to know that the history of canonization is a long and complicated one, and even today, there is a lot of disagreement about what should be, and should not be in the bible. for instance, the catholics have about another half-dozen books in their bibles.
yes i am aware of all these facts and I am also aware of the fact that if God was in the process, as is indicated more than any other point in scripture, he is able to maintain and provide to his people what they need through the ages
"According as his divine power HAS GIVEN TO US all things pertaining to LIFE andd GODLINESS"
As in the first century and as illustrated by the dead sea scrolls, God is able to maintain through time the purity of his teaching. Yes there will always be, as in the first century and any century false teachings side by side with the truth.
Like the ones today and in the first century, the psuedo teachings (Gospel of Thomas), etc,were immediately recognized as false teaching and fell by the wayside
it should be obvious that only recent discoveries of such books makes it clear the people of that day did not regard them as reliable, trustworthy or accurate, so they were discarded in favor of the truth
the truth in the Old and New have stood the test of time and reason. Im sure the same God that created the entire universe could maintain the purity of the written word as is clearly indicated by the discovery of the dea sea scrolls
Yes there are many claims to inspiration outside the standard Bible. However it is my goal presently to demonstrate that not only do you disbelieve the BOM and the Koran claims, but even the one you are using presently, that is repleat with inspirational claims, including Isa
So arch, is Isa from God or man, in your view?
son, you wouldn't know what facts or logic even are. please feel free to critique me when you learn to read, and think.
Actually son, with you there is very little to critique, because as I earlier suspected, you really believe very little of what scripture has to say in fact, even if you are looking and reading Just the text
all of what? which canon are we talking about?
this is really the kind of thing that tells me that you haven't been exposed to much actual bible study. i have one bible, called a chumash, that is just the torah, with commentary and excerpts from the haftorot (in hebrew and english). i have another that is the entire tanakh (or "old testament"). i have another that is just the new (in koine greek and english). i have several more that are both and old and new testaments. i can easily find a septuagint online, which contains books not in your bible. which canon, and why?
the bible simple is not the monolith you think it is. it's a collection of texts, and different groups disagree on what should go in it.
This gets funner by the minute. Yes the Bible is the monolith I thinkl it is, but ironically it is not me that has decided that, it is time, test and reality. Which is now predominant Arch, the divisions and types of scripture you cite above, or that which is commoly recieved and accepted in the 66 books of old and 27 of the New. Of course its the latter.
this is not the only test but it is one that has stood the test of time
Now this could be by chance or it could be by divine guidance. Looking stricly at the text and its reading as you suggest, I see that God has promised this guidance, over and over and over again
would you feel better if i did claim inspiration? of course, matthew does not, but that is beside the point. you simply have no mechanism for telling the difference.
Isa Arch, from God or man?
the mechanism you request my simplistic friend is actually YOUR OWN TEST, its the rules you set up in our discussion here. What are they? "What does the text say" and "what does the text mean". well, I see God, intervention, promises of guidance, prophecy and inspiration, repleat throughout scripture
My mechanism is both the scriptures themself and the simple rules you have provided me. So immediately a simple comparison and understanding of the entire text, more That is unless you now have some additional rules you would now like to introduce.
But this is not the problem or the issue is it Arch.? the real issue and the one you keep avoiding is three-fold. 1. You dont really believe Isa or whoever wrote Isa was inspired to begin with. 2. Because of this lack of belief, it does not let you follow the the very rules you established to evaluate scripture, "what does the simple text say" and "what is written in the text", because you eliminate either deliberatley or in argument form the ENTIRE TEXT to force a conclusion about God overall purposes
3. And more importantly of them all, it does not qualify you to make the assertion that matthew is misrepresenting or misquoting Isa's words, because you choose only partsof his or others writers words to make the
Remember Arch, we are at this point just going by your rules and you dont even seem to want to adhere to your own rules. I know this for a fact because you keep repeating that inspiration is irrelevant, when the scriptures make it so very important
i have never claimed that isaiah wasn't divinely inspired. just that matthew's interpretation is not founded in what isaiah wrote -- thus, dishonest.
If Isa was inspired then it should be clear these are Gods words, wishes and plans and not Isa's
Really arch, lets see about you indirect claim to inspiration. Do you recall the time the teachers of the law challenged Jesus concerning his authority to teach and practice signs. "By what authority do you do these things", they said and he said Ill answer your question if you will answer mine. "Johns teaching, was it from God or man"? Now in truth Jesus had already answered thier question many times before, but he knew there was a DEEPER PROBLEM. they didnt really believe in him at all to begin with, much less whether he had the proper authority
So they knew they could not answer the question directly with any honesty.
latter on it says at a certain point, no man asked or tested him concerning anything.
So lets test your resolve. You say you have never denied it. Ok, so I ask you directly. Isa's teachings and words Arch, were they from man or God? Or which parts of the book are inspired and which are not?
lets see if like the teachers of the law, you will avoid answering the question directly. Because as i supect there is a deeper issue and God, intervention and inspiration do matter
do, the bible cannot make god's plans known? ok. i'll follow you for a second here. so, the inspired matthew reveals isaiah's true meaning. but... who reveals matthew's true meaning? ...and who reveal's that person's meaning?
Paul and the rest of the NT epistles. God though these writers make it known that it is "It is once for all delivered to the saints"
Jesus fulfilled IT by sealing the deal, "It is finished" he fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses.
"But if any man desires to DO THE LAW he is a debitor to keep the WHOLE LAW"
Jesus completed this by the perfection of the his life, death and ressurection, thus a sacrafice once for all
The father sent the Spirit to guide the church into "All truth"
No more explanation is required for any spiritual question. If you think so then present it
the argument, dawn, is so simple it barely needs stating. but since you can't understand obvious implications -- or even direct statements that i've spelled out before -- i'll spell it out again for you.
you have two options, either:
god is honest, and matthew is not divinely inspired, or
god is a liar, and all bets are off
if god is a liar, why should we believe any of the bible?
Or God is honest and those are actually his words in Isa.
agreed! why, then, does matthew misrepresent isaiah?
when you are willing to accept your own rules by including the entire text, the you will see these are Gods words not Isa's, therefore matthew cannot and is not misrepresenting anyone, especially God. Its only and always about God
that post was a concession that the validity of isaiah's prophecy is subjective, depending on when you think the book was actually written. personally, i think it's largely irrelevant, because the power of prophecy is not in prediction. prophets are not fortune-tellers. they are the mouthpieces of god. note that leviticus 20 commands the deaths of people who presume to tell the future.
okay, so, try and follow me here.
god inspired isaiah
god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
matthew misrepresent isaiah
As Ive already stated to many times to mention. it is not Gods intention to supplant Isa's (Gods) words, but give an expanded or greater meaning to his over all plan and intention in the passage. But only God could do this if he is actually the author in each instance correct?
The writer of the passage, "Through thy seed shall all the nationsof the earth be blessed", could not understand its meaning without Gods intentions and guidance through time.
The same would be true for anyother prophecy through time. Only God could explain what his meaning is either in the specific passage or its greater meaning
I see no other (real) contenders for that challenge. Where is the body of writings that supposedly steps up and claims to have fulfillmentof those prophecies and verses, in sucha detailed manner, like the life of Christ and the NT
So, if this is just a challenge by yourself about claims to fulfilled prophecy and inspiration, my bet is that there are no other real challengers to the throne. None that can boast the evidence fo the Gospels and the NT, correct
your conclusion: "matthew must not have misrepresented isaiah". the proper logical conclusion, given those three premises, is that god didn't inspire matthew. not that one of the premises is wrong. to do that, you'd have to add another premise -- that god did inspire matthew. but this is simply an assumption that you are drawing from nowhere.
Now isnt that just plain silly. How do we know just from a simple explanation of the text that Matthew misrepresented Isa, when you dont even know the proper explanation or interpretation. Youve given me so many, whats to say the rest of yours is not simply interprative, or that it has somehow missed ITS MARK
To know of course that Matthew did not faithfully represent God in that passage, it wolud require you to disregard that God has been involved in the process from the begininng to the end
There can be no misrepresentation when in the first place it is not Matthew trying to speak about Isa, it is God speaking about Gods words, to the purpose and fulfillment of a greater plan. Which is clearly and faithfully represented in the NT. Unless you can provide another body of writings that makes even a small attempt to represent the Olds claims
in fact, as i keep mentioning, the inspiration of isaiah isn't actually relevant. it works just as well like this:
god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
matthew misrepresent isaiah
conclusion, god didn't inspired matthew.
This is wrong for two reasons. You dont even know what the interpretation is to begin with as I have demonstrated, or should I say as YOU have demonstrated. 2. Only God can give Gods meaning
which continues to confirm my belief that you really haven't read the bible at all. or if you have, you haven't understood much. after all, to you the text is simply "precept upon precept, line upon line", like it is to the drunkards, and false prophets isaiah was condemning.
You have missed the big picture that is staring you intheface
the problem is that it has to be about what the bible says first, otherwise we might as well just make shit up. the only way to we have to know what god said to isaiah and perhaps matthew is what is recorded in the bible. and if one of them is lying about what the other said, well, it sort of throws credibility out the window.
What the Bible says first in the very beginning is that God is in charge of everything, even prophcies and thier fulfillment
fine. but claims to not always equal reality. clearly, the book of mormon and the quran both claim inspiration from god, and they're both about god's purposes. why do you reject those claims? they're clearly pretty important too.
From a logical standpoint this is ture. From a physical and overall evidenced based position it is not. These books make little or no claims to the specifics of the prophecies as do the Gospels and the NT. In fact those books at times make the same claims as the NT, they derive there information from those events and that source
Secondly, for reasons I have already staed to many times to mention, they fall short as being believed in areal sense
the issue, as i keep explaining, is that you have a mush of the text. you do not differentiate one text from another. to you, it's all gibberish, precept upon precept. you do not see that isaiah is one book, with a point, and matthew is another book, with another point. perhaps there is some symbolic relationship between those points, sure. isaiah is primarily about god and his kingly servant protecting jerusalem through the assyrian onslaught of ~720 BC. matthew is about the salvation of the world through god's son. clearly, one is invoking the other for a reason. but this does not mean that those points are indistinguishable, or that matthew's invocation of isaiah is accurate in its specifics. jesus does not fulfill those prophecies, because those prophecies were never about jesus and were all fulfilled well before he was born.
i know you don't see the difference. but your vision is dim and clouded.
I see the difference, but what you are missing and have since we started, is that God is in charge of these matters and only he can make known the meanings, (Not You)
I know you dont see this point, but your vision is dim and clouded
Thinking that any NT writer somehow misrepresented the prophets of old is misguided, because it misrepresents the nature and purpose of God overall in the Bible
It is therefore no reason for deconversion
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 428 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 12:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2011 2:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 444 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 439 of 566 (598565)
01-01-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by dwise1
12-30-2010 9:58 PM


Re: other scriptures
What is the subject of this topic we're in? Is it for you to quibble over Isaiah? No, it's about the reason(s) for deconversion. That's a subject that you yourself brought up and yet you have been working very hard to avoid it. Rather odd behavior.
Dewise, when I say reasons for deconversion, I dont mean vauge examples and illustrations of the fact that people are leaving. Im mean a well set out argument from perhaps a Biblical perspective, or a philosophical argument to that affect
Arch's contention is that the NT misrepresents the Old, it does not. To demonstrate this it is necessary to point out that he is missing the overall picture of scripture
Stay with us and we will help you through this, grammarian Gus
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 9:58 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 452 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 10:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 440 of 566 (598566)
01-01-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 7:04 PM


Re: other scriptures
stick around a bit, dawn. that's more or less the topic of the rest of this board. what dwise1 says is true: when kids raised as creationists go off to college and are confronted with real science, the lies their parents told them are extremely damaging do their christian faith.
The only lie is not including design and therefore a designer, in the explanationof the sources of things in existence. To know that creation is not ture, one would need to know that design did not take place. A completely impossible task
this is the foundation for ID and creationism, not the Bible. they therefore could not have been lied to
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:04 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by bluescat48, posted 01-01-2011 3:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 445 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 447 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 8:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 448 of 566 (598689)
01-01-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Iblis
01-01-2011 2:55 PM


Re: other scriptures
The canon accepted by most protestants consists of 39 books of the Old Testament (the same 24 as the Hebrew, but with four split in two and one split into twelve) and the 27 of the New, for a total of 66 for the whole book.
Why am I telling you this? Why can't you even bother with being accurate about your own material? Where can I score whatever you are on, Dusty?
Sorry I was moving throught that post rather quickly, thanks for that technical correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2011 2:55 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Iblis, posted 01-02-2011 8:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 449 of 566 (598692)
01-01-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by dwise1
01-01-2011 8:26 PM


Re: other scriptures
Nobody has been talking about creation not being true, least of all me. It's "creation science" that is not true. There's a huge difference. Creation is a religious belief, whereas "creation science" is a systematic deception created specifically for the purpose of
Ok, I see what your saying, its simply that you and i are using the words Creation science differently. creation in my view is a design based science, due to its logical approach in the absense of that which is provable, yet demonstratable from a physical reality and logical proposition
if someone else is describing what you are rebutting as science, i cannot argue that point. I can say however that design is science because it bases itself in observation of clear design in reality reality, using a logical and sound proposition for its conclusion, the conclusion of which is irrefutable and irresistible
this removes creation concept and or design far from any religious idea
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 8:26 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 9:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 451 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 9:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 453 of 566 (598701)
01-01-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by dwise1
01-01-2011 8:26 PM


Re: other scriptures
They have been better at hiding their religious motives and are better at writing pseudo-scientific bullshit than creationists have been. While they are not married to young-earth creationism, even though they are more than happy to cater to that crowd, their theology appears to be little more than "God of the Gaps", as demonstrated by an essay by Phillip Johnson in which he voiced his major objection to evolution: it leaves God with nothing to do
No No, this proposition has been around since reality and reason itself. people on both sides want to complicate this very simple and obvious reality and proposition
sorry to disappoint or make your very lengthy posts on creation, simple, but that is just the reality of that topic
Any topic dealing with the nature of things is a logical proposition and can or cannot be demonstrated in the reality of things.
design is one that can be demonstrated. Its was around long before man was here to contemplate it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 8:26 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2011 10:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 457 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 11:02 PM 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