Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 Quote do you feel better now? you should feel great joy, i think -- and possibly sorrow for some who remain deaf and blind, if you have understood what i have told you. but i do not think you should feel like needlessly criticizing a servant of God, who seeks to bring Him glory, because of what i've said. Firstly, as I said earlier, I was not trying to cause offense. If you take offense in disagreement, that is something I cannot control. Quote weird, don't you think? makes me start wondering all kinds of things about how God hardens people's heart, for His own purpose to show His glory through them in some way, as those stiff necks are broken. yeah, weird. Secondly, this is a pretty bold statement. Claiming that folks' are having their heart hardened by God because they disagree with your view of scripture, particularly in a thread rooted in creationism, is not helpful and is bordering on an attack. I'm not even sure who specifically this is aimed at, but it is unwarranted. As far as the rest of your post. I simply disagree with the manner in which you interpret some of these scriptures. I'm not going to spend all day point by point (honestly, very few people will even read posts over 5 sentences and I usually only do so because I'm a mod - I generally view threads as conversations, not a series of speeches, but that is just my personal preference, though I even admit that this post is going to be much longer than I'd like). I'll address one that glaringly stands out at me, just because you clearly spent a bunch of time on your post and I respect that: Quote Romans 11:8, speaking of Israel, but only of Israel? heh, i think the same chastisement falls on many! Rom 11:8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." The same chastisement may indeed fall on many, but this particular scripture, in my mind, cannot be used to justify that assertion, insofar as it simply does not lend itself to that contextually. Paul is *clearly* speaking of Israel here. The preceding verse: Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, All we can know from this particular scripture is that it applies to Israel. You could go to Mark 4:12 and find very similar words to this spoken by Christ, and that is fair enough, and very worthy of study, but in its own context. I simply disagree with the sort of exegesis that lends itself to open interpretation outside of strict contextualization when at all possible. Getting away from raw contextual application is always a dangerous thing in my mind, and to be avoided at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted June 14, 2016 52 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: But what you cited specifically before is Isa. 40: 4 and you said that clearly the valleys were not exalted and hills were not made low. do you know about some major geological upheavals that i'm not aware of? thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted June 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, Steve_S said: contextually you ain't exactly taking what i said contextually are you? in the context that i referred to Romans 11:8, i was talking about Israel. then i made an "aside" - and tbh, i was thinking about a conversation witha catholic i've been having on another website when i made that side comment. oh Shiloh, do you think everything is about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 17 hours ago, shiloh357 said: That is an illegitimate way of linking Scripture together. Luke 1:17 is not claiming that Mal. 4:5 is fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist. It is not presented there as a fulfillment at all. It simply means that John the Baptist and Elijah have one aspect of their ministries that are similar. Taking Malachi 4:5 as written in its entirety defies any attempt to make John the Baptist's ministry a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5. It is legitimate. As it spoke of John's ministry when he came. Jesus confirmed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, post said: do you know about some major geological upheavals that i'm not aware of? thanks. If you recall my previous remarks earlier this morning, I was speaking of the major topological changes that are going to take place at the second coming and just prior during the millennium and will exist in the millennial reign of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, Joline said: It is legitimate. As it spoke of John's ministry when he came. Jesus confirmed it. Malachi 4:5 says nothing about John's ministry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, post said: you ain't exactly taking what i said contextually are you? in the context that i referred to Romans 11:8, i was talking about Israel. i made an "aside" __ and tbh, i was thinking about a conversation witha catholic i've been having on another website when i made that side comment. oh Shiloh, do you think everything is about you? No, but I can tell when you are speaking directly about me. And you know exactly what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, post said: you ain't exactly taking what i said contextually are you? in the context that i referred to Romans 11:8, i was talking about Israel. i made an "aside" __ and tbh, i was thinking about a conversation witha catholic i've been having on another website when i made that side comment. oh Shiloh, do you think everything is about you? It was an aside that was nonetheless relevant, because you included it in both your exegesis and in your original scripture list. The fact that you included it in your original scripture list is problematic, insofar as it is specifically referencing the nation of Israel and I don't see where that's relevant at all to what you were contending, certainly not relevant in the broader context of a thread on young earth creationism, in my opinion, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, Steve_S said: It was an aside that was nonetheless relevant, because you included it in both your exegesis and in your original scripture list. The fact that you included it in your original scripture list is problematic, insofar as it is specifically referencing the nation of Israel and I don't see where that's relevant at all to what you were contending, certainly not relevant in the broader context of a thread on young earth creationism, in my opinion, anyway. "problematic" ?? why don't you tell me what was supposed to go there? and insofar as relevancy, you mentioned you were "perusing" -- i find it odd that you missed the pretense scattered throughout this entire thread that one person or group or the other is somehow "blinded" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,045 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 615 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/09/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1976 Share Posted June 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, but I can tell when you are speaking directly about me. well in this case, you're wrong. how many other cases? i actually don't talk about you much at all, dude. you might find yourself exemplary of some things i say, but that doesn't mean you are their focus. if you'd comprehended what i've been saying from the beginning, you might have noticed that a central theme in what i meant to say here is to be avoiding vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts