On Interpretation of Scripture

[rebbell]

 

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves

 

No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects.

When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart.

you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do.

God Bless

[Guest Butero]

 

 

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves

 

 

No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects.

When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart.

you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do.

God Bless

 

It is like we are being asked to find problems with scripture that don't exist.  There is absolutely nothing hard to believe about the Genesis account of creation.  It all makes sense.  It all fits, until you try to bring the belief of others into the equation, based on things other than scripture.  Those things don't come close to proving Genesis wrong, but they are intended to cause us to question it.  There is nothing to dig through, because no proof has been given that Genesis is untrue.  I have no reason to change my beliefs. 

[enoob57]

Again, going on tangents instead of answering some very direct and easily answerable questions makes me think you are just reading what you want into Scripture. If you feel your position is strong and feel that I need to accept it as well, I'd suggest answering questions when they are asked. Not answering them is just giving me the impression that you have made your doctrine and then read it into Scripture irrespective of whether I also accept these doctrines or not.

The Spirit is satisfied in my Heart with what has been given you... and you will not see it!

It is not me that will answer for what you reject of what God Says; oh wait you don't know if it's

God's Word even if has said so by speaking it, writing it, or even using it. Love, Steven

[rebbell]

 

Again, going on tangents instead of answering some very direct and easily answerable questions makes me think you are just reading what you want into Scripture. If you feel your position is strong and feel that I need to accept it as well, I'd suggest answering questions when they are asked. Not answering them is just giving me the impression that you have made your doctrine and then read it into Scripture irrespective of whether I also accept these doctrines or not.

The Spirit is satisfied in my Heart with what has been given you... and you will not see it!

It is not me that will answer for what you reject of what God Says; oh wait you don't know if it's

God's Word even if has said so by speaking it, writing it, or even using it. Love, Steven

What a godly (little g) thing to say to a fellow believer and brother in Christ.

Sounds like you both go on tangets if your way is not seen as the only right way for doing something.

Self agendas will not get us there.

Every man is a liar, let God be true.

You stand on the Word of God, just HIS already established Word. God gives revelation knowledge, not you (self). Everyone is on different journeys but focused on the same God. God the Creator of all things. God knows what each of us are ready to recieve. The thing is, the vessel HE uses, don't even realize we were used when it happens but the one who recieved hears the Holy Spirit talking to our heart.

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

God Bless

[HumbleThinker]

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves

 

No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects.

When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart.

you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do.

God Bless

So you do think that God directly reveals the correct interpretation of Scripture to us, thereby making hermeneutics pointless in arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture? Because you seemed to be disagreeing with this earlier.

Again, going on tangents instead of answering some very direct and easily answerable questions makes me think you are just reading what you want into Scripture. If you feel your position is strong and feel that I need to accept it as well, I'd suggest answering questions when they are asked. Not answering them is just giving me the impression that you have made your doctrine and then read it into Scripture irrespective of whether I also accept these doctrines or not.

The Spirit is satisfied in my Heart with what has been given you... and you will not see it!

It is not me that will answer for what you reject of what God Says; oh wait you don't know if it's

God's Word even if has said so by speaking it, writing it, or even using it. Love, Steven

You presume I do not see what you are saying because I point out you are not answering my questions and that I am not agreeing with you. You gave Scriptures you claimed showed the Bible is the Word of God, I pointed out that they did not say what you claimed and asked for clarification, then you started talking about things that neither answered my questions nor were furthering your point that the Bible claims the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible does not say this, then there is no reason to claim it. The Bible does not need you to do this to make it look better. But if you believe it despite the lack of rationale from the Bible, then just say so. The actual wrong would be misrepresenting Scripture, not believing in a doctrine that is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture. Avoidance does not make you right and myself wrong.

[HumbleThinker]

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves

 

No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects.

When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart.

you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do.

God Bless

I think you may have mistook a response to another poster as a response to you. Or you quoted the wrong post, so I'm not sure how to address your post.

[HumbleThinker]

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical.

As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people.  1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following:

 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. 

 

I have brought this up before.  This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true.  Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved?  Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe.  You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me.  You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof.

This verse only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical figures or if he is using a common psuedo-historical reference within his culture to make a point about the role of women. And even if he took it as historical, us taking it or not taking it as historical does not change the point he is making. In the same manner, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree teaches us to tell the truth no matter what whether the event actually happened or not, which it didn't. Now barring any knowledge about God's Creation, the most likely understanding to be taken away is likely that Adam and Eve were historical figures. But with the knowledge we have of God's Creation, which cannot simply be ignored just because it challenges our beliefs, the historiocity of Adam and Eve can be put in doubt though not altogether excluded. Thus I take the skeptical position of not siding with either position definitively.

And our beliefs are not based on absolute proof, so it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to demand that absolute proof be given to disprove them. Besides, if it is a choice between my beliefs and what an act of God is clearly showing me, I'll take the thing that has God as it's author and not my own mind. So I hope you can equally see why I demand such a high degree of certainty, to the point of requiring necessity or near necessity, for a Biblical interpretation that explicitly or implicitly makes natural claims about Creation when it goes against a clear understanding of God's Creation.

[rebbell]

If we believe in certain aspects of scripture to be individual spiritual journeys with HIM, why is it so quiet out there?

We will be held accountable for what we know.

The Holy Spirit teachs us, clothes us with HIS garments, and sets us on a path that is to follow HIM.

God Bless

[enoob57]

You presume I do not see what you are saying because I point out you are not answering my questions and that I am not agreeing with you. You gave Scriptures you claimed showed the Bible is the Word of God, I pointed out that they did not say what you claimed and asked for clarification, then you started talking about things that neither answered my questions nor were furthering your point that the Bible claims the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible does not say this, then there is no reason to claim it. The Bible does not need you to do this to make it look better. But if you believe it despite the lack of rationale from the Bible, then just say so. The actual wrong would be misrepresenting Scripture, not believing in a doctrine that is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture. Avoidance does not make you right and myself wrong.

I gave you a complete answer in the Job account- the hearing from God and God had it written down in

His Law and Jesus using it to overcome the wiles of satan... I believe by your response you flushed that

God's Word is just that 'HIS' to lead us to His Son. That pretty much concluded the begin, middle, and end of His

Word as to what is His Word demonstrated by The Word... The fact that it is demonstrated in

one place in God's Word then it is true in all places of His Word! Thanks for your replies. Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical.

As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

 

I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people.  1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following:

 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. 

 

I have brought this up before.  This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true.  Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved?  Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe.  You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me.  You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof.

 

This verse only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical figures or if he is using a common psuedo-historical reference within his culture to make a point about the role of women. And even if he took it as historical, us taking it or not taking it as historical does not change the point he is making. In the same manner, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree teaches us to tell the truth no matter what whether the event actually happened or not, which it didn't. Now barring any knowledge about God's Creation, the most likely understanding to be taken away is likely that Adam and Eve were historical figures. But with the knowledge we have of God's Creation, which cannot simply be ignored just because it challenges our beliefs, the historiocity of Adam and Eve can be put in doubt though not altogether excluded. Thus I take the skeptical position of not siding with either position definitively.

And our beliefs are not based on absolute proof, so it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to demand that absolute proof be given to disprove them. Besides, if it is a choice between my beliefs and what an act of God is clearly showing me, I'll take the thing that has God as it's author and not my own mind. So I hope you can equally see why I demand such a high degree of certainty, to the point of requiring necessity or near necessity, for a Biblical interpretation that explicitly or implicitly makes natural claims about Creation when it goes against a clear understanding of God's Creation.

 

But it doesn't go against a clear understanding of God's creation.  The evolutionists haven't come close to giving us that kind of evidence.  There is nothing hypocrtical in demanding proof before I will change my point of view.  I would expect it would be just as hard to convince you evolution is wrong and the Genesis account of creation is correct?  I would expect that you would require close to absolute proof to change your mind because you have all but made up your mind, so why should I be any different?