Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite1010--by the way: what disqualifies truth from being spoken of in a poetic manner? Is it not possible to state the truth in a poetic fashion??
ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
Rolf Ernst
New member
The conclusion is based on the premise, and the scientific consistency of the premise is PROVEN, making the conclusion on that basis reliable.
"Granite1010--I know i am not the only one, but I don't know how many there are who agree with me."
But can you name one--that was the question. What Christian scholars or apologists agree with your hermeneutic?
"y the way: what disqualifies truth from being spoken of in a poetic manner?"
Nothing at all. The Bible also describes seven-headed beasts, a blood-drunken whore, a moon clothed with sackcloth, and the like. I don't think these passages would be used to defend the existence of hydras, advocate prostitution and blood drinking, or used to predict eclipses. There may be an element of truth there, yes (or, at least, the "truth" as meant or intended by the author). Are they to be taken literally? Absolutely not, and on this you and I would agree. (Probably.)
When Job says that the almighty directs lightning, what are we to think? That an ancient man such as Job believed that God directed the course of lightning? Of course. Is this some kind of scientific proof text for the Bible's veracity? No, it is not. It's a description of an event (a lightning bolt) that Job interpreted (as God's work). Unfortunately this is not a scientific proof of any kind. It is a description and nothing more.
Taking poetic lines from the Bible as scientific proofs is not strong, convincing, compelling, or consistent hermeneutics. You're forced to pick and choose the poetry you favor as "proof," and discard the rest as what it is: poetry.
But can you name one--that was the question. What Christian scholars or apologists agree with your hermeneutic?
"y the way: what disqualifies truth from being spoken of in a poetic manner?"
Nothing at all. The Bible also describes seven-headed beasts, a blood-drunken whore, a moon clothed with sackcloth, and the like. I don't think these passages would be used to defend the existence of hydras, advocate prostitution and blood drinking, or used to predict eclipses. There may be an element of truth there, yes (or, at least, the "truth" as meant or intended by the author). Are they to be taken literally? Absolutely not, and on this you and I would agree. (Probably.)
When Job says that the almighty directs lightning, what are we to think? That an ancient man such as Job believed that God directed the course of lightning? Of course. Is this some kind of scientific proof text for the Bible's veracity? No, it is not. It's a description of an event (a lightning bolt) that Job interpreted (as God's work). Unfortunately this is not a scientific proof of any kind. It is a description and nothing more.
Taking poetic lines from the Bible as scientific proofs is not strong, convincing, compelling, or consistent hermeneutics. You're forced to pick and choose the poetry you favor as "proof," and discard the rest as what it is: poetry.
Well, seeing as I've learned, just tonight, that Schulz taught Sunday school at a Methodist church where he lived [In CA], until he died...
Not to mention it was the pastor of a Church of God church in his hometown [in MN], while he was growing up, that praised his drawing and encouraged him to submit his work that eventually got him the gig, and the fact that he never forgot that man, and his family, and the fact that Schulz gave the original seed money that went into the building of the Fine Arts building on the Anderson Univeristy campus, and that he fought for the inclusion of scripture in the Charlie Brown Christmas special, and...
I'll leave it at that. Give you something to :think: about.
His love dictates that He will not override your selfishness. And your sin is nowhere near as powerful as His grace.
Oy! That explains a lot. It seems we are going to need to tear your beliefs down, and start from the ground up.
Now, I am not a Calvinist. So you need to stop arguing as if I am. This seems to be where a lot of our contentions derived from. You need to know that I do not believe what you think I believe. Then, maybe, we can get somewhere.
I apologize for some of the things I have said. If I had known earlier that you were a former Calvinist, I would have gone about this an entirely different way.
The majority of their proof texts for the doctrine of election are about Israel being the elect of God. That disproves Calvinistic basis, immediately. And the idea of Christ's atonement being limited to whoever God chooses to give it to? Ludicrous! The propitiation is for the whole world. And it is limited only in whether it is accepted or not.
I never said He was incapable. I just said He is not a child, and He wil not cater to childish arrogance such as yours. He's done all manner of things for you, and you still reject Him. You just want more, and that seems to be all you'll ever want. God will not be mocked, prodigal. And He won't cater to your selfishness. He has done everything that needs to be done to save your soul [I don't believe souls are eternal until they are in heaven: yes, this means that I believe souls in hell are eventually destroyed]. There is nothing left that He needs to do for your salvation. All that's left is whether or not you accept it.
Yes, I work around unbelievers, and believers. But I will not do anything to get fired from my job. But,when someone asks a question, I answer. And I have offended believers, as well as unbelievers. Just ask wantsdirection.
He is not absent. He does exist. He can be proven to exist. He is among us. He is with you.
God alone is immortal. Your soul is not. And I made no mistake. This is not about the fate of your soul. It's about you getting your jollies by having a genie god. God is not a genie in a lamp! He doesn't grant wishes! He does His will! And if you submit to that, then He will include you in His will.
It's not against my religion to study such things. And I have heard about Mithraic cults. I also know that the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism were not present at the time of early Christianity. The similarities came later, when Mithraism was reformed to include counterfeit ideologies of Christianity.
Once again, you are mistaken. I am both things.
If Paul borrowed from anyone it was the 12 apostles.
:kookoo:
Paul was writing of Christ, after his physical presence. Christ was no longer physical. He returned to heaven, and was spirit, as He had been for all eternity.
Could that be because they are written from four different points of view?:think::doh: And Luke never even met Jesus, in the flesh.
I am secure because I have met Christ. I know Him. And He lives in me.
:duh:
This is why you need to quit seeking answers from humans, and seek God out for Himself. If you're an agnostic, as you say you are, then seek Him, to find if He's there, instead of saying that He must not be, since no humans can prove it.
1] It's not a new catch phrase, and I came up with it myself.
2] As for your atheism/agnosticism, you really could have fooled me.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I "cop" another one of your lines? Are you going to cry now?
Acting like, being...what's the difference? If you truly think I'm the rudest person you've ever dealt with then why do you not think that I am what you said I was "acting like?"
1] I know very little Hebrew, and I wouldn't be able to read it at all.
2] I know more Greek than hebrew, and can read some of it. I can even pronounce the words I don't know.
3] However, that does not mean I have any corner on the truth. All I can do is lean on God, instead of my own understanding.
4] The only reason I said you needed to learn Greek and Hebrew is because some versions fo the Bible are not great translations. Even the KJV has mistakes.
5] If people would quit relying on themselves, and rely on God for the truth, then they would see that there are no contradictions, as you say there are. God would lead them to understanding, in light of context, and other scripture. But, if people pull out one verse from one place, and another verse from somewhere else, without reading what happened in between, then they will find contradictions.
I never mad a "your mom" joke. And I was never going to. That wasn't even what I was alluding to. But I'm going to be civilized and not explain myself, since it would be lewd. If you didn't get the joke, forget it.
You're not a preterist anymore, remember? Stop talking like one.
Rolf,
Your biblical references are not clear. They are clear to you, and they APPEAR to you, in your opinion to be references to an effect that is just now being measured.
Q: You have quoted, subjective, poetic and vague bible references to an effect (as YOUR PERSONAL OPINION dictates) that could not possibly have been measured in their day and age, and even if these references are what you say they are, you have not been able to provide a good reason for why these people were divinely inspired to know that which they could not measure and that which would serve them no purpose to know.
Why did they know it? To what purpose would knowledge of that which they could not measure or understand benefit them? And if they did understand it, and it is such an old finding, and if the language used to describe it is so clear, why has this frame dragging effect not become common knowledge and pursuit of it’s discovery become frequent until recently?
Is that a clear enough question?
According to your interpretation of the scripture references themselves.
Q: Taking into account the thousands of denominations, sects and doctrines that have spawned off of Christianity, wouldn’t you agree that there is room for debate as to the interpretation of your scriptural references?
Haven’t you admitted that you have interpreted these references according to your own opinion/agenda, and therefore the interpretation of the references is subjective?
See, I think this is the most damning thing you’ve said so far. You won’t jump on the bandwagon until it fits your interpretation of scripture? You’ve been very prophetic this time around, what if you’re wrong?
Recognized by who? Hang on a sec’…
You said this later to Granite.
Q: Who recognizes it? I’ve never heard any of this before, but of course new ideas stem from Christianity all of the time, people are always interpreting it according to their own personal beliefs, like that nut Sozo.
That’s Job 26:7-12. This is the new king james version which says nothing about a circle. So I guess your biblical references rely not only upon the agenda of those interpreting them, but they also rely upon which version of the bible you use.
I don’t think it takes a genius to see entropy (let me know if that’s the wrong word) at work. It doesn’t take the bible to point that out.
Scientific facts that have not been proven scientifically. Am I alone on this one, or is that kinda fruity?
The bible does not clearly state anything that you have used as reference. I’m not surprised that to you, with your agenda as a back drop, can see what you would like to see within these vague references.
So now it doesn’t matter what any one believes, accept for your own, subjective, opinion based belief that no other theologian, and no other Christian according to your own knowledge agrees with. Interesting.
Q: Are we to be lead to believe that you of all people have discovered in your opinion based, subjective, agenda motivated biblical studies, mysteries of the universe written by men who lacked the means to measure the phenomenon you have described, simply to make vague reference to it in an exotic location of scripture so that you could stumble across it thousands of years later?
Is that what you have us believe?
I don’t think there is any reason to believe that your equally vague Job reference, which is dependant on a particular version to make your case, makes a very clear reference to that at all. In fact, of all your stretches, this one is almost the most absurd.
All right, I retract my last statement and I will now apply it here. Rolf, this stretch is worse than the last one. You have picked out an irrelevant piece of Solomon’s poetry and have twisted it to fit your own agenda.
Q: Please quote me chapter and verse where you got this reference, and also which version of the bible you used this time. Also if you could provide me with your original references and which version/s you used to come across them. I hate to make you play catch up, but seeing as how you’ll know where they are sooner than I, and you’ll know which versions right off the bat, it seems logical that you provide them just one more time together.
The versions and the scripture please.
That’s right, you wait until they agree with your subjective references, and THEN join them. Does anyone else see how ludicrous this? Does anyone see how obviously he is playing the fence?
And Rolf, what of other scientific discoveries? Will you find vague biblical references and use your own subjective form of reasoning to take claim for them as well? If anyone wanted to, they could take any poetic verse from the bible, they could take any reference at all and apply to anything external to the bible and say there is a correlation, just as long as you had the right version of the bible, that is.
Actually, I think this exhibits more a lack of confidence in yourself, Rolf.
This post is wicked long, so LH, Ima write one just for you.
Your biblical references are not clear. They are clear to you, and they APPEAR to you, in your opinion to be references to an effect that is just now being measured.
Q: You have quoted, subjective, poetic and vague bible references to an effect (as YOUR PERSONAL OPINION dictates) that could not possibly have been measured in their day and age, and even if these references are what you say they are, you have not been able to provide a good reason for why these people were divinely inspired to know that which they could not measure and that which would serve them no purpose to know.
Why did they know it? To what purpose would knowledge of that which they could not measure or understand benefit them? And if they did understand it, and it is such an old finding, and if the language used to describe it is so clear, why has this frame dragging effect not become common knowledge and pursuit of it’s discovery become frequent until recently?
Is that a clear enough question?
According to your interpretation of the scripture references themselves.
Q: Taking into account the thousands of denominations, sects and doctrines that have spawned off of Christianity, wouldn’t you agree that there is room for debate as to the interpretation of your scriptural references?
Haven’t you admitted that you have interpreted these references according to your own opinion/agenda, and therefore the interpretation of the references is subjective?
See, I think this is the most damning thing you’ve said so far. You won’t jump on the bandwagon until it fits your interpretation of scripture? You’ve been very prophetic this time around, what if you’re wrong?
Recognized by who? Hang on a sec’…
You said this later to Granite.
Q: Who recognizes it? I’ve never heard any of this before, but of course new ideas stem from Christianity all of the time, people are always interpreting it according to their own personal beliefs, like that nut Sozo.
That’s Job 26:7-12. This is the new king james version which says nothing about a circle. So I guess your biblical references rely not only upon the agenda of those interpreting them, but they also rely upon which version of the bible you use.
I don’t think it takes a genius to see entropy (let me know if that’s the wrong word) at work. It doesn’t take the bible to point that out.
Scientific facts that have not been proven scientifically. Am I alone on this one, or is that kinda fruity?
The bible does not clearly state anything that you have used as reference. I’m not surprised that to you, with your agenda as a back drop, can see what you would like to see within these vague references.
So now it doesn’t matter what any one believes, accept for your own, subjective, opinion based belief that no other theologian, and no other Christian according to your own knowledge agrees with. Interesting.
Q: Are we to be lead to believe that you of all people have discovered in your opinion based, subjective, agenda motivated biblical studies, mysteries of the universe written by men who lacked the means to measure the phenomenon you have described, simply to make vague reference to it in an exotic location of scripture so that you could stumble across it thousands of years later?
Is that what you have us believe?
I don’t think there is any reason to believe that your equally vague Job reference, which is dependant on a particular version to make your case, makes a very clear reference to that at all. In fact, of all your stretches, this one is almost the most absurd.
All right, I retract my last statement and I will now apply it here. Rolf, this stretch is worse than the last one. You have picked out an irrelevant piece of Solomon’s poetry and have twisted it to fit your own agenda.
Q: Please quote me chapter and verse where you got this reference, and also which version of the bible you used this time. Also if you could provide me with your original references and which version/s you used to come across them. I hate to make you play catch up, but seeing as how you’ll know where they are sooner than I, and you’ll know which versions right off the bat, it seems logical that you provide them just one more time together.
The versions and the scripture please.
That’s right, you wait until they agree with your subjective references, and THEN join them. Does anyone else see how ludicrous this? Does anyone see how obviously he is playing the fence?
And Rolf, what of other scientific discoveries? Will you find vague biblical references and use your own subjective form of reasoning to take claim for them as well? If anyone wanted to, they could take any poetic verse from the bible, they could take any reference at all and apply to anything external to the bible and say there is a correlation, just as long as you had the right version of the bible, that is.
Actually, I think this exhibits more a lack of confidence in yourself, Rolf.
That’s not what I asked. This I understand. How you made the jump from e=mc2 to ex nihilo is what I don’t understand. I don’t understand how your science is consistent.
This post is wicked long, so LH, Ima write one just for you.
"Schulz was for many years of his adult life a member of the United Methodist Church and remained part of that church to the day of his death, although in a short 1999 interview he described himself as having gradually turned to the philosophy of Secular Humanism. Because themes and dialogue in Peanuts were in harmony with certain basics of Christian theology, a paperback book, The Gospel According to Peanuts, was written by Robert L. Short. It was a bestseller for a time in the 1960s."
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Charles-Schultz
I guess he wasn't a "real" Christian after all. What a pity. The man who gave the world Linus, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy is now roasting comfortably in hell.
Lighthouse,
So he’d rather let me burn in hell than do something that is within his power to do to stop it? That’s not love, that’s not grace, that’s incompetence.
You have yet to show me otherwise.
I welcome you to.
I’ve said some things that I’m not entirely proud of myself, I apologize as well. But if you could speak to me as if we’re peers (a courtesy which I am more than willing to reciprocate) than that would be swell.
Yet a majority of their proof texts were written by paul, a man who went not just to jews but to gentiles as well. See Romans 9, unless Romans wasn’t written by paul, my bible could probably use a little brushing up…
Scripture and verse please?
First of all, what do you do? I’m actually incredibly interested in getting to know you a little bit better. And you have to admit that even with the redemption you have experienced, you’re still restrained by the rules of men. These rules have far more tangible effects in the real world than your faith will ever have.
And I think Wantsdirection is the most outstanding Christian I have run across at TOL so far.
I need some clarification, LH. Does this mean that until I submit to the will of god, I’m outside of his will? I am outside of his plan? And if that is the case, than you would more than likely say that my life is purposeless apart from submission to his will, right?
Chapter and verse please.
But Paul makes no reference to a physical jesus in the epistles. He includes no biographical references to the life of jesus. When he does refer to the death and resurrection of Christ it is always in a sense of something to be taken on faith. He never refers to the death and resurrection as fact, just something that must be believed. But he also warns in the end of Corinthians 15 that if he is wrong, than he, and you, are both liars. According to the epistles, it’s faith based, not fact based.
See the difference? There’s no reference outside of the gospels to the life and death of jesus in the physical sense. Looking at the epistles without the gospels makes Paul sound like he is talking of myths, nothing more, nothing less.
But LH, they’re so completely different from one another! Luke and Matthew have been said to have based their gospels on the Mark account, Mark being the oldest. Yet the discrepancies between Luke and Matthew are profound to say the least. And if Luke borrowed from Mark, and never even knew jesus, than where did he get his material that Mark lacked? And what of John’s account? John’s account of story is so different from the other three, it’s nearly impossible not to notice the difference.
Four different accounts explains the contradictions but adds no credence.
I wish we were talking in person, than you could comprehend my sarcasm. I don’t care if you cop my words, it’s not that big of a deal. When I complain about it it’s mere sarcasm, but it’s not easy to pick that up through written words. I don’t blame you for not getting it.
Shrug. Benefit of the doubt, maybe?
True…
Okay…
You never made a joke, you weren’t going to, you weren’t alluding to anything, but explaining what you were thinking about would be lude?
Interesting.
All right, I’ve said enough for right now.
Yours truly,
Prodigal
So he’d rather let me burn in hell than do something that is within his power to do to stop it? That’s not love, that’s not grace, that’s incompetence.
You have yet to show me otherwise.
I welcome you to.
I’ve said some things that I’m not entirely proud of myself, I apologize as well. But if you could speak to me as if we’re peers (a courtesy which I am more than willing to reciprocate) than that would be swell.
Yet a majority of their proof texts were written by paul, a man who went not just to jews but to gentiles as well. See Romans 9, unless Romans wasn’t written by paul, my bible could probably use a little brushing up…
Scripture and verse please?
First of all, what do you do? I’m actually incredibly interested in getting to know you a little bit better. And you have to admit that even with the redemption you have experienced, you’re still restrained by the rules of men. These rules have far more tangible effects in the real world than your faith will ever have.
And I think Wantsdirection is the most outstanding Christian I have run across at TOL so far.
I need some clarification, LH. Does this mean that until I submit to the will of god, I’m outside of his will? I am outside of his plan? And if that is the case, than you would more than likely say that my life is purposeless apart from submission to his will, right?
Chapter and verse please.
But Paul makes no reference to a physical jesus in the epistles. He includes no biographical references to the life of jesus. When he does refer to the death and resurrection of Christ it is always in a sense of something to be taken on faith. He never refers to the death and resurrection as fact, just something that must be believed. But he also warns in the end of Corinthians 15 that if he is wrong, than he, and you, are both liars. According to the epistles, it’s faith based, not fact based.
See the difference? There’s no reference outside of the gospels to the life and death of jesus in the physical sense. Looking at the epistles without the gospels makes Paul sound like he is talking of myths, nothing more, nothing less.
But LH, they’re so completely different from one another! Luke and Matthew have been said to have based their gospels on the Mark account, Mark being the oldest. Yet the discrepancies between Luke and Matthew are profound to say the least. And if Luke borrowed from Mark, and never even knew jesus, than where did he get his material that Mark lacked? And what of John’s account? John’s account of story is so different from the other three, it’s nearly impossible not to notice the difference.
Four different accounts explains the contradictions but adds no credence.
I wish we were talking in person, than you could comprehend my sarcasm. I don’t care if you cop my words, it’s not that big of a deal. When I complain about it it’s mere sarcasm, but it’s not easy to pick that up through written words. I don’t blame you for not getting it.
Shrug. Benefit of the doubt, maybe?
True…
Okay…
You never made a joke, you weren’t going to, you weren’t alluding to anything, but explaining what you were thinking about would be lude?
Interesting.
All right, I’ve said enough for right now.
Yours truly,
Prodigal
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--I spend my time stating my understanding of scripture rather than concentrating on attacking other's positions, except when they use their position to attack mine--then it is not an attrack against them as much as it is a defense of what I have stated.
You are exercised because I study scripture and form my own conviction of what it says? Well, Prodigal--le te da! Don't yopu claim the same right? Mr. Prodigal, you refer to my AGENDA, but I have none other than a determination to defend scripture; and you speak of my "agenda" as if it were an evil thing. Is a defense of Scripture evil? Does it corrupt the truth? What if I believe the Bible is God's word and am ready to defend it as such--is that some "horrid" agenda? If I believe the Bible is true (and I do), don't you realize that such a belief places me in a position of no other agenda than defending the truth of the Bible without any further personal end in sight? Why? Because if the Bible is true, the only way I can defend it is to properly interpret it to the best of my ability in regard to every text, because to MISinterpret it would place me in opposition to the truth; and that would bite me as soon as I came to a text which was contrary to my MISinterpretation. So my only agenda and secure footing is to state scripture as I sincerely believe it to be intended.
You state that you disagree with some of my interpretations--fine! show you reasons and state what you believe to be a more accurate interpretation and why it is more accurate. You have made too many claims without offering a basis--MY! what a lordly position you assign for yourself; but I reject your defenseless objections to my statements.
As for your reference to the KJV translation of Job 26:10--Your objection to my use of the NKJV, NASB,ESV and other translations which in essence say, "He enscribed a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary of night and day..."
Tell me something, Mr. bible expert: how does the KJV use the word "compass?" Before criticising my preference for "He enscribed a circle upon..." did you bother to check to see the way the KJV used the word "compass?" Why don't you, rather than being anxious to find some reason to disagree with my post, do a little research to see which translation better opens up Bible's text for the people of today?
One thing is certain regardless of whatever translation of the Bible you are studying--you are under an obligation to understand words according to the way the Bible ITSELF uses those words-- NOT according to the way the modern secular world understands words.
Prodigal, I am going to have to mark your paper for today's lesson with a big red F because you spoke not on the basis of the trewxt youy were to examine, but on the basis of your own understanding. How, Prodigal, do you EVER expect to advance in your level of understanding of a text if you are unwilling to understand the language usage IN that text. Soooo--today, it is more study hall time for you. Yes, after school; after everybody else has gone home to eat
popcorn, candied apples and drink hot chocolate on this winter day. And you are to use the time --all of it--to examine all the verses in the Bible which contain the word "compass." That is just for today. During the remainder of the week, you are required to write out each of those verses and state your understanding of what the Bible means in each of those verses when it says, "compass." I expect you to use all time needed to complete this assignment before the end of the week. After handing in your paper, you are to then begin an essay wherein you state why you think the translators of the NKJV, and other later versions chose to use the word "circle" rather than "compass" as did the KJV. Having done that, I will give you two more days to write another essay on how languages and the words used in those languages alter over time. Close the essay with a statement concerning whether or not you believe writers should use current language usages as a guide in communicating to current readers the author's intent in his word choices.
You are exercised because I study scripture and form my own conviction of what it says? Well, Prodigal--le te da! Don't yopu claim the same right? Mr. Prodigal, you refer to my AGENDA, but I have none other than a determination to defend scripture; and you speak of my "agenda" as if it were an evil thing. Is a defense of Scripture evil? Does it corrupt the truth? What if I believe the Bible is God's word and am ready to defend it as such--is that some "horrid" agenda? If I believe the Bible is true (and I do), don't you realize that such a belief places me in a position of no other agenda than defending the truth of the Bible without any further personal end in sight? Why? Because if the Bible is true, the only way I can defend it is to properly interpret it to the best of my ability in regard to every text, because to MISinterpret it would place me in opposition to the truth; and that would bite me as soon as I came to a text which was contrary to my MISinterpretation. So my only agenda and secure footing is to state scripture as I sincerely believe it to be intended.
You state that you disagree with some of my interpretations--fine! show you reasons and state what you believe to be a more accurate interpretation and why it is more accurate. You have made too many claims without offering a basis--MY! what a lordly position you assign for yourself; but I reject your defenseless objections to my statements.
As for your reference to the KJV translation of Job 26:10--Your objection to my use of the NKJV, NASB,ESV and other translations which in essence say, "He enscribed a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary of night and day..."
Tell me something, Mr. bible expert: how does the KJV use the word "compass?" Before criticising my preference for "He enscribed a circle upon..." did you bother to check to see the way the KJV used the word "compass?" Why don't you, rather than being anxious to find some reason to disagree with my post, do a little research to see which translation better opens up Bible's text for the people of today?
One thing is certain regardless of whatever translation of the Bible you are studying--you are under an obligation to understand words according to the way the Bible ITSELF uses those words-- NOT according to the way the modern secular world understands words.
Prodigal, I am going to have to mark your paper for today's lesson with a big red F because you spoke not on the basis of the trewxt youy were to examine, but on the basis of your own understanding. How, Prodigal, do you EVER expect to advance in your level of understanding of a text if you are unwilling to understand the language usage IN that text. Soooo--today, it is more study hall time for you. Yes, after school; after everybody else has gone home to eat
popcorn, candied apples and drink hot chocolate on this winter day. And you are to use the time --all of it--to examine all the verses in the Bible which contain the word "compass." That is just for today. During the remainder of the week, you are required to write out each of those verses and state your understanding of what the Bible means in each of those verses when it says, "compass." I expect you to use all time needed to complete this assignment before the end of the week. After handing in your paper, you are to then begin an essay wherein you state why you think the translators of the NKJV, and other later versions chose to use the word "circle" rather than "compass" as did the KJV. Having done that, I will give you two more days to write another essay on how languages and the words used in those languages alter over time. Close the essay with a statement concerning whether or not you believe writers should use current language usages as a guide in communicating to current readers the author's intent in his word choices.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite1010--When you say hermeneutic, I assume you mean the MANNER of my interpretation rather than any particular interpretation.
The reformed people generally use a style of hermeneutic like mine. Right now I can't think of anyone who has personally committed himself to the interpretation I expressed, but I am certain that I surely cannot be alone. The words of scripture are too plain for them to be misinterpreted, unless someone just wants to interpret them contrarily because they have no PERSONAL knowledge of such a thing.
As for whether or not anyone agrees with me--that is not as important as what I personally see in the words of scripture. I do not follow a cult leader, and to follow someone on the basis of who they are independent of scripture is to have the mind of a cult follower. Even the apostle Paul commended the people of Berea for examining his teachings according to the words of scripture.
The reformed people generally use a style of hermeneutic like mine. Right now I can't think of anyone who has personally committed himself to the interpretation I expressed, but I am certain that I surely cannot be alone. The words of scripture are too plain for them to be misinterpreted, unless someone just wants to interpret them contrarily because they have no PERSONAL knowledge of such a thing.
As for whether or not anyone agrees with me--that is not as important as what I personally see in the words of scripture. I do not follow a cult leader, and to follow someone on the basis of who they are independent of scripture is to have the mind of a cult follower. Even the apostle Paul commended the people of Berea for examining his teachings according to the words of scripture.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--notice how much time I had to spend to answer your little baseless comment about the difference betwqeen the use of "compass" in translation and the use of "circle." It sure didn't take you many words to raise a stink--an unjustufied stink--about the difference. Then you think I am going to give all the time it would take to respond to ypour many attacks? Be aware that your attacks are just about ALL you are contributing to this discussion, and I am not under any servitude to you to deal with all your errors.
"When you say hermeneutic, I assume you mean the MANNER of my interpretation rather than any particular interpretation."
I think I can live with that.
"The reformed people generally use a style of hermeneutic like mine."
How exactly would you define your system of interpretation?
"Right now I can't think of anyone who has personally committed himself to the interpretation I expressed..."
Finally. This is what I thought. Glad you at least admitted this.
"...but I am certain that I surely cannot be alone."
Reeeeeally. Rolf, deal with the possibility that you're on your own here. Out on a limb as it were. Reaching. Reading into the text. Call it what you will, the fact that you can't even think of any Christian apologist or scholar who agrees with you should tell you something. Maybe a time out or reality check is in order. Or, you should just do more research.
"The words of scripture are too plain for them to be misinterpreted..."
Oh? Then what say you vis a vis the thousands of denominations and sects who consistently disagree? Christians cannot agree on the functional or hierarchial duties of the trinity, the nature of the afterlife, the nature of salvation, the timing or nature of the second coming, the application of biblical law, the role of spouses, the role of the church, the role of government, tithing, the proper duty of ministers, and a host of other issues. A wire is crossed somewhere.
I think I can live with that.
"The reformed people generally use a style of hermeneutic like mine."
How exactly would you define your system of interpretation?
"Right now I can't think of anyone who has personally committed himself to the interpretation I expressed..."
Finally. This is what I thought. Glad you at least admitted this.
"...but I am certain that I surely cannot be alone."
Reeeeeally. Rolf, deal with the possibility that you're on your own here. Out on a limb as it were. Reaching. Reading into the text. Call it what you will, the fact that you can't even think of any Christian apologist or scholar who agrees with you should tell you something. Maybe a time out or reality check is in order. Or, you should just do more research.
"The words of scripture are too plain for them to be misinterpreted..."
Oh? Then what say you vis a vis the thousands of denominations and sects who consistently disagree? Christians cannot agree on the functional or hierarchial duties of the trinity, the nature of the afterlife, the nature of salvation, the timing or nature of the second coming, the application of biblical law, the role of spouses, the role of the church, the role of government, tithing, the proper duty of ministers, and a host of other issues. A wire is crossed somewhere.
Rolf,
You asked me to specify my questions if I wanted you to answer them. I went out of my way to specifically post my particular questions and you have avoided answering one of them. This thread was started as a means of an unbeliever asking questions of a believer in the hopes that the believer would be able to supply satisfactory answers to those questions.
You have failed to answer my specified questions, even after asking that my questions be specified. You have insulted my intelligence, you have placed words in my mouth, you have belittled me and are in a perpetual state of talking down to me. Your little speech at the end of your last major post was just an insult, and did not answer any of the specified questions I placed. Why ask me to specify my questions if instead of answering them you serve me only heaping mounds of condescension?
Is not your understanding of scripture subjective and at multiple times at odds with the understanding of scripture of thousands of those who would also call themselves Christians and equally (if not more so) enlightened by your god?
That was a question. That question is based upon the premise that whatever understanding of the bible you think you have is subjective and without authority due to the fragmentation and myriad of interpretations and claims to biblical understanding in the Christian world.
There are thousands of Christians attempting to defend the bible, but there are also a thousand different arguments doing that. Christianity is killing itself from the inside. Whatever defense of the scripture you offer is negated by the multitude of defenses placed by your brothers in the faith that contradict yours.
Do you deny the fragmentation of the Christian church?
That question above, that was a question as well.
I don’t waste my time on the bible any more. Your bible references are vague, your conclusions are stretches. My point is that despite how well grounded you believe your interpretations to be, whatever weight you believe they may carry is negated by the existence of the ability to interpret them according to the agenda of the interpreter.
Do you understand that point?
That was a question as well.
Gratify yourself somewhere else, Rolf. This is equivocation. You asked me to specify my questions so as not to waste your time, so I did. Now you’re not answering the questions you have asked for and are wasting my time with your ego-stroking expositions.
Either answer the questions you asked for, or don’t say anything, especially when it is a weak attempt at both comedy and to avoid that which you cannot adequately answer.
I did notice that, but you failed to answer any of the other questions I raised.
Yup. You asked for the specification of questions. It’s not my fault that you can’t handle the volume of my questions.
Answers would complete my questions. The only reason you feel something is missing is because you asked me to specify my questions and failed to realize that it takes two to tango. If there’s something missing, it’s answers. I agree, I have contributed a lot of attacks, but this was a venue for you to fend off the attacks, and when you don’t do that, than yes, I agree, something is missing.
You asked me to specify my questions if I wanted you to answer them. I went out of my way to specifically post my particular questions and you have avoided answering one of them. This thread was started as a means of an unbeliever asking questions of a believer in the hopes that the believer would be able to supply satisfactory answers to those questions.
You have failed to answer my specified questions, even after asking that my questions be specified. You have insulted my intelligence, you have placed words in my mouth, you have belittled me and are in a perpetual state of talking down to me. Your little speech at the end of your last major post was just an insult, and did not answer any of the specified questions I placed. Why ask me to specify my questions if instead of answering them you serve me only heaping mounds of condescension?
Is not your understanding of scripture subjective and at multiple times at odds with the understanding of scripture of thousands of those who would also call themselves Christians and equally (if not more so) enlightened by your god?
That was a question. That question is based upon the premise that whatever understanding of the bible you think you have is subjective and without authority due to the fragmentation and myriad of interpretations and claims to biblical understanding in the Christian world.
There are thousands of Christians attempting to defend the bible, but there are also a thousand different arguments doing that. Christianity is killing itself from the inside. Whatever defense of the scripture you offer is negated by the multitude of defenses placed by your brothers in the faith that contradict yours.
Do you deny the fragmentation of the Christian church?
That question above, that was a question as well.
I don’t waste my time on the bible any more. Your bible references are vague, your conclusions are stretches. My point is that despite how well grounded you believe your interpretations to be, whatever weight you believe they may carry is negated by the existence of the ability to interpret them according to the agenda of the interpreter.
Do you understand that point?
That was a question as well.
Gratify yourself somewhere else, Rolf. This is equivocation. You asked me to specify my questions so as not to waste your time, so I did. Now you’re not answering the questions you have asked for and are wasting my time with your ego-stroking expositions.
Either answer the questions you asked for, or don’t say anything, especially when it is a weak attempt at both comedy and to avoid that which you cannot adequately answer.
I did notice that, but you failed to answer any of the other questions I raised.
Yup. You asked for the specification of questions. It’s not my fault that you can’t handle the volume of my questions.
Answers would complete my questions. The only reason you feel something is missing is because you asked me to specify my questions and failed to realize that it takes two to tango. If there’s something missing, it’s answers. I agree, I have contributed a lot of attacks, but this was a venue for you to fend off the attacks, and when you don’t do that, than yes, I agree, something is missing.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite and prodigal--concerning the varying interpretations of scripture by many churchmen and laypeople: you are right. There is an unjustified amount of disagreement between Christian people concerning some doctrines. I believe that the reason for it is largely a failure of people to devote themselves to the Word as they should; BUT there is one thing you are BOTH overlooking,
WHICH IS: the fact that on the issues which are the essentials of the Christian faith, we are in agreement. If the fact that we disagree on many minor doctrinal points is worthy of your concern, you should be even MORE concerned that on the points upon which the eternity of men's souls turn, we are in agreement; because those are really the points that are important.
WHICH IS: the fact that on the issues which are the essentials of the Christian faith, we are in agreement. If the fact that we disagree on many minor doctrinal points is worthy of your concern, you should be even MORE concerned that on the points upon which the eternity of men's souls turn, we are in agreement; because those are really the points that are important.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite1010--I spend much more time in the scripture than I do reading other men's comments concerning it, so I could not immediastely point out someone else's comments being in accord with my belief; but to satisfy your dissatisfaction, I will check some commentaries and I expect that I will be able to find quotes in them that go back as far as the 1700s expressing the SAME CONVICTIONS WHICH I HAVE EXPRESSED. I will not only list the source, but I will give you book, chapter, and verse and give you some verbatim quotes. How about THAT? Nevertheless, the scripture stands by its authority on its on. Even if 500 commentators expressed the same convictions, it would not make the Scripture on any point more true than it was even when NOBODY believed what it said.