Young Earth/Old Earth

[Steve_S]

4 minutes ago, post said:

"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" 


 

You may find that odd Indeed. When I say problematic, I'm speaking to the fact that, in pure context, it only relates to Israel and nothing else. I cannot tell you what was supposed to go there, only that it would belong there if this were a discussion on the disposition of Israel.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 minutes ago, post said:

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. 

Oh please... I am sorry, but that is not true:

"but someone decided to criticize it anyway, though it was nothing but scripture, and accuse me of all kinds of bad hermeneutic and false theology. even though i didn't actually say anything: i just posted scripture. i didn't interpret anything: i just posted scripture. i didn't expound on anything ((until now, when you asked)): i just posted scripture. 
this person still found fault with a lot of things i never even said or did."
 

That was a direct reference to my previous critique of your string of Scriptures.  and in the same breath, I am accused of being hardened by God.   It was a veiled personal attack  against me on your part.

[post]

26 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

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. 

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
    make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled,
    and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall become straight,
    and the rough places shall become level ways,
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”
(Luke 3:1-6)


clearly, the Holy Spirit speaking through Luke thinks that this is fulfilled through the ministry of John and the salvation of God that came to all flesh through Jesus Christ, of whom John testifies. 
do you oppose Him? 

and even if you think that the hills will be leveled at a later date, then what i said is true: the earth was not smoothed out. 
so you agree with me totally on this point. 

i can only conclude then, that you are being argumentative purely for the sake of contention, since you do not actually disagree, or that you stand opposed to the scripture, or that you simply do not know what you are talking about and don't comprehend what i'm talking about either.  

if there is another conclusion that may be reached, it is beyond my small understanding. 

[post]

21 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

You may find that odd Indeed. When I say problematic, I'm speaking to the fact that, in pure context, it only relates to Israel and nothing else. I cannot tell you what was supposed to go there, only that it would belong there if this were a discussion on the disposition of Israel.

but Steve, you said that the inclusion in the 'original scripture list' was problematic -- not the relevant comparison i drew to this thread topic and the progression of the discussion. 
and in the 'original scripture list' and in the limited explanation i gave you, it was directly in context about Israel - broader application notwithstanding, it was not out of context.

so you haven't explained what it is you find "problematic" - unless you're just looking for a problem and haven't found one yet? 
and you haven't explained why you think i needed to be reminded to consider "context" when you first commented on this -- particularly since what i originally posted had no interpretation or explanation ((which is: "exegesis" by definition)). 

how about first things first, since i went out of my way to carefully explain to you that the context of these verses are Messianic prophesies and the fulfillment of them in the mystery of Christ's redemption and the grace of God given to the Gentiles through faith, to be shown again to Israel -- and how that they all fit neatly together in a chain of reason and spiritual understanding, and even further how a relevancy to this thread can be drawn from that, and how that they are praising God and His great salvation, perhaps you would be good enough to set aside your further criticism and explain why you first criticized me without justification? 

thanks. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, post said:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
    make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled,
    and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall become straight,
    and the rough places shall become level ways,
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”
(Luke 3:1-6)


clearly, the Holy Spirit speaking through Luke thinks that this is fulfilled through the ministry of John and the salvation of God that came to all flesh through Jesus Christ, of whom John testifies. 
do you oppose Him? 

and even if you think that the hills will be leveled at a later date, then what i said is true: the earth was not leveled. 
so you agree with me totally on this point. 

i can only conclude then, that you are being argumentative purely for the sake of contention, since you do not actually disagree, or that you stand opposed to the scripture, or that you simply do not know what you are talking about and don't comprehend what i'm talking about either.  

if there is another conclusion that may be reached, it is beyond my small understanding. 

1.  You are omitting an important fact.  You presented Isaiah 40: 4 in connection with Luke 3: 5-6 to counter my point about taking God's words literally in the case of Genesis 1. You have been trying present various passages that you think can't be taken literally as written.  Your initial argument was that this verses was fulfilled in Luke 3: 5-6 and the hills were not made low and valleys were not made full, etc.   My point is that Isa. 40: 4 was not saying that during the ministry of John the Baptist that these things would happen to the earth.  Rather, it was fulfilled that John would say these things.   However, there is the near and far aspect of prophecy like what we see in Isa. 40 where this will actually happen, and it is related to the second coming of Jesus.

2.  I am not being argumentative.  Nor am I opposed to Scripture.  I am opposed to the reckless handling of it.  My more expanded point is that you ignore context and that you ignore the differences in literary genre.  It's why I said that you are not using good exegesis.   Genesis 1 is a historical narrative.   Isaiah 40 is a prophetic text.  You cannot treat these texts the same way across the board.   Both can be taken literally, but both follow different rules of literary analysis.   We have to adjust how we view a text in the light of the kind or genre of text are using.

We do that on a regular basis.  We don't read the newspaper the same way we read a fictional novel or a biography.  We don't read Shakespeare the same way we read an instruction manual.  We naturally adjust our understanding to accommodate the author and the text that we have in front of us.  It's the same with narratives and prophecies. 

Add to that the fact that you have shown that you don't really understand what "literal" means from a literary vantage point and it only makes this discussion more difficult.

[Steve_S]

1 minute ago, post said:

but Steve, you said that the inclusion in the 'original scripture list' was problematic -- not the relevant comparison i drew to this thread topic and the progression of the discussion. 
and in the 'original scripture list' and in the limited explanation i gave you, it was directly in context about Israel - broader application notwithstanding, it was not out of context.

so you haven't explained what is "problematic" 
and you haven't explained why you think i needed to be reminded to consider "context" when you first commented on this -- particularly since what i originally posted had no interpretation or explanation ((which is: "exegesis" by definition)). 

how about first things first, since i went out of my way to carefully explain to you that the context of these verses are Messianic prophesies and the fulfillment of them in the mystery of Christ's redemption and the grace of God given to the Gentiles, to be shown again to Israel -- and how that they all fit neatly together in a chain of reason and spiritual understanding, perhaps you would be good enough to set aside your further criticism and explain why you first criticized me without justification? 

thanks. 

I disagree that it was in context. I disagree with the premise that I was openly criticizing you when I simply asked you to look more deeply at the context. I did explain what I found problematic. I'm not going to further expound upon that, insofar as I don't think it's necessary.

[post]

44 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

I disagree that it was in context.

well, i'm quite sure you're wrong -- so listen to the Spirit, and let me help you. please to spend less focus on disagreeing, and more on actually reading the context, as you ((quite rightly)) encouraged me to do: 

Isaiah 29

 

11 And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” 
12 And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.”

13 And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
14 therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”

15 Ah, you who hide deep from the LORD your counsel,
whose deeds are in the dark,
and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?”
16 You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
“He did not make me”;
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
“He has no understanding”?

17 Is it not yet a very little while
until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field,
and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest?
18 In that day the deaf shall hear
the words of a book,
and out of their gloom and darkness
the eyes of the blind shall see.
19 The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD,
and the poor among mankind shall exult in the Holy One of Israel.
20 For the ruthless shall come to nothing
and the scoffer cease,
and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off,
21 who by a word make a man out to be an offender,
and lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate,
and with an empty plea turn aside him who is in the right.

22 Therefore thus says the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob:

“Jacob shall no more be ashamed,
no more shall his face grow pale.
23 For when he sees his children,
the work of my hands, in his midst,
they will sanctify my name;
they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
24 And those who go astray in spirit will come to understanding,
and those who murmur will accept instruction.”

__________________________________________________________________________________

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.”
(Romans 11:8)

__________________________________________________________________________________

there is your contextual linkage: Israel shall be blind & deaf, as it is written in the ministry of the same prophet Isaiah, and by contrast another people will have their eyes opened. the wisdom and discernment of the wise and discerning men of Israel will be brought to nothing, while the salvation of God is shown to a people 'of stammering lips' who did not seek Him, but among whom He will be found. this is the relation to the verse i put from Ephesians, and from the words of our Lord - the salvation of God shown to us through Christ; it is the glory of God! 

the words of this prophecy are to Israel, and verse 11 makes it clear that to Israel, they are a sealed book: they are as deaf and dumb. but in that day when His salvation was revealed, in the Holy One of Israel, it became so that the meek and the poor among mankind, who were the 'deaf' living in gloom and darkness, were as though able to read, and 'a great light shone on the people living in darkness' -- redemption came to mankind. 

do you see these things?

the passages that i put in the first instance, were linked together spiritually both in direct context by positive correlation, and by revealed knowledge and contrast. 
if you "disagree that Romans 11:8 is in context" then you must be in a position to comprehend the context, and the context is the gospel, written plainly in scripture but not able to be comprehended by those who were made deaf and blind, so that they would be provoked to jealousy. the great salvation of God gone out to all flesh - plainly this is written, but the scribes, zealous for God, were zealous without knowledge, because the Lord had determined that they should be made deaf, and made as though they could not read, even though they could read. what was written in an open book was like a sealed book to them. 
this also is how Christ taught: in parable, so that those to whom it was not given to understand, would not comprehend, and those to whom it was given to understand, would gain. 


so this is the context: Israel, who was blinded, made deaf, given a spirit of stupor, made as though illiterate, though they could read, and hear, and see, and though they had a spirit that was zealous for God - yes, for God - it was to establish a righteousness, rather than submit to one.
Israel, who through the grace shown to the Gentiles, will receive grace - and will see her own children who were formed not by her, but by the Lord.  
Israel, whose scoffing will cease, whose lying in wait for blood will be cut off, who falls into the very pit she lays for another. 

our redemption, the gospel we received, cannot be separated from her - it is not 'out of context' from her - because salvation comes from the Jews, and will return to the Jews. we see, because she was blinded - and we hear, because she is deaf. we can read, because she cannot. enemies for the sake of the gospel, but beloved for the sake of election. 

if you want to keep talking, i would love to -- because where all of what i was saying when i put these scriptures leads to, is to the praise of God. 
and by inspection, i really don't think this thread involves much praising God -- so i'd say that is a subject that will quickly go decidedly off-topic, though i have stated already how this has relevancy, it doesn't seem well-received -- to be honest, i never expected an interlude of praise on my part to be receiving so much attention. seems more interesting to those involved at the moment than the actual thread topic tho . .  . i'd like to praise God here -- i'd like that much better than to just keep entertaining contention for the sake of contention. 

wouldn't you? then PM me. 
good night. 

[post]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Oh please... I am sorry, but that is not true:

"but someone decided to criticize it anyway, though it was nothing but scripture, and accuse me of all kinds of bad hermeneutic and false theology. even though i didn't actually say anything: i just posted scripture. i didn't interpret anything: i just posted scripture. i didn't expound on anything ((until now, when you asked)): i just posted scripture. 
this person still found fault with a lot of things i never even said or did."
 

That was a direct reference to my previous critique of your string of Scriptures.  and in the same breath, I am accused of being hardened by God.   It was a veiled personal attack  against me on your part.

if it is a "direct reference" it is not "veiled" -- and it's not an attack, it's a plain statement of fact. all i did is present some scripture, and a statement you assert that you completely agree with, but you found opportunity to attack an "exegesis" i never gave. fact. 
& that's what i reiterated. 
are you now willing to explain why you criticized the scriptures i praised God with, since i gave a brief explanation? 
or like Steve, do you also see no reason to justify your unexplained and as-far-as-it-can-be-ascertained unwarranted criticism? 


if you read my post without thinking it's all about you, then you ought to be able to see that i was musing whether i am also hardened in some way - whether we are all set in some stasis. if you consider just how many people have ever been convinced to change their mind about anything on this forum or any other like it, even though there are tens of thousands of pages of arguing, you might start coming to the same conclusion. 

what, do you disagree that your view of Genesis 1 is 'set in stone' ? or your stance, contrary to Christ's, about John the baptist being the Elijah to come, as prophesied through Malachi? 
because that's what i was talking about -- which is clear from the post, i thought, if you take the whole context of it. 
and you would even say that it's 'set in stone' because it's the 'understanding God intends' -- so it is God who has set that understanding firmly in your heart, right? firm, as in hardened, yes? 

so you agree with me, again. 
isn't it good and pleasant when brothers dwell together in unity! mmm! 
♥

[RustyAngeL]

3 hours ago, post said:

if it is a "direct reference" it is not "veiled" -- and it's not an attack, it's a plain statement of fact. all i did is present some scripture, and a statement you assert that you completely agree with, but you found opportunity to attack an "exegesis" i never gave. fact. 
& that's what i reiterated. 
are you now willing to explain why you criticized the scriptures i praised God with, since i gave a brief explanation? 
or like Steve, do you also see no reason to justify your unexplained and as-far-as-it-can-be-ascertained unwarranted criticism? 


if you read my post without thinking it's all about you, then you ought to be able to see that i was musing whether i am also hardened in some way - whether we are all set in some stasis. if you consider just how many people have ever been convinced to change their mind about anything on this forum or any other like it, even though there are tens of thousands of pages of arguing, you might start coming to the same conclusion. 

what, do you disagree that your view of Genesis 1:1 is 'set in stone' ? or your stance, contrary to Christ's, about John the baptist being the Elijah to come, as prophesied through Malachi? 
because that's what i was talking about -- which is clear from the post, i thought, if you take the whole context of it. 
and you would even say that it's 'set in stone' because it's the 'understanding God intends' -- so it is God who has set that understanding firmly in your heart, right? firm, as in hardened, yes? 

so you agree with me, again. 
isn't it good and pleasant when brothers dwell together in unity! mmm! 
♥

Your so funny Steve you can make us laugh in the midst of conflict and it always turns out good.!!! Your a keeper.!!!!!!

[post]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Jews who rejected Jesus were not zealous for God

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
(Romans 10:2)
 

7 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I said that the Jews who rejected Jesus, i.e.,  the religious leaders were not really zealous for God and Jesus said that they put their traditions ahead of the word God.   Paul is speaking of the Jews in general.   I was speaking of those who actively rejected Jesus when confronted by Him during his earthly ministry.

 that's actually pretty funny of you to say that, since you are so zealous about "adding things that are not actually found in the text" !  

Paul is writing in Romans 10-11 about Jews who have rejected Christ. that's abundantly clear & shouldn't need direct references pointed out. these are the same Jews who crucified Him: remember, though He was brought before the sanhedrin, Pilate sought to release Him, because Pilate found no fault in Him. he offered him to the public - not to the sanhedrin - and it was the crowd who rejected Him then, and cried 'crucify Him!' -- Pilate washed his hands of the matter, and the crowd said 'His blood be upon us and our children' (re: Matthew 27:25). all those therefore who rejected Him, also have share in crucifying Him.
((and so does everyone, Jew or Gentile, who hears of Him and also rejects Him, it can be cogently argued -- i'm not being anti-Semitic here))

so when Paul says 'they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge' he is referring to all Jews who have not come to a true knowledge of God - a knowledge found only in Christ. quite literally then, this statement is made about the Jews 'who rejected Jesus' -- if they had accepted Christ, Paul would be calling them brethren or believers or saints.