Jump to content
IGNORED

stars


preciouspearl

Recommended Posts

Guest Teditis
23 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

I peek in on you occasionally too, ha, ha.

How rude saying I'm on a delusional rant. That's Christ like?

You can say, I believe, I'm not sure, I assume, but I cannot say, "In the beginning," was some time in the distant past. Who's delusional?

If a person's mind is set on thing that are not clearly rational.. that would be the definition of "delusional". Which I don't take lightly.

I can confidently say that "I don't know" when it comes to understanding God's revelation through the Bible to us. But that a long way

off and different from your standpoint that you've got it all figured out and wrapped nicely in a bow.

Face it Hazard... you add to the Word of God/Bible... you've been challenged on it and failed at proving anything. You want there to be a

longer history to the earth than either the Bible or science suggests and so you twist Scripture to fit your narrative. Life/truth doesn't

work that way. We take from the Bible what we are given and live with it in peace and harmony with God... or we do what you are doing

and try to impose our own intellect (which is sorely wanting) to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, Teditis said:

If a person's mind is set on thing that are not clearly rational.. that would be the definition of "delusional". Which I don't take lightly.

I can confidently say that "I don't know" when it comes to understanding God's revelation through the Bible to us. But that a long way

off and different from your standpoint that you've got it all figured out and wrapped nicely in a bow.

Face it Hazard... you add to the Word of God/Bible... you've been challenged on it and failed at proving anything. You want there to be a

longer history to the earth than either the Bible or science suggests and so you twist Scripture to fit your narrative. Life/truth doesn't

work that way. We take from the Bible what we are given and live with it in peace and harmony with God... or we do what you are doing

and try to impose our own intellect (which is sorely wanting) to it.

You keep telling me how dumb I am; "See, this is why I wonder about your level of reading comprehension..."

"Your skills at grammar and written language seems to be wanting and below grade-school level."

Well maybe that's a good thing, much of the bible is hidden from the worldly wise who refuse to believe it, take note;

The Bible is a simple book to understand because it was given by God to be understood by the simple.

Following the commonly accepted argument that a perfect God cannot make anything imperfect, we can scripturally say that God did not fail in His purpose of giving man a simple revelation that could be easily understood by all men alike, even by the simple (Deut. 29:29; Ps. 119:104, 140; Proverbs 1:1-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Paul speaks of "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3).

Jesus thanked God that the truths of the Bible were hidden from the worldly wise who refused to believe, and stated that God has "revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25-27). He gives the reason truths are hidden from anyone. It is because they refuse to humble themselves to believe and conform to the Bible (Matt.13:10-17). Jesus speaks of the devil taking the Word from the hearts of men lest it should bring forth fruit (Matt. 13:19-23.

Paul also speaks of the devil blinding the minds of men lest they should believe, and he also speaks of men wilfully handling the Word of God dishonestly and deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:1-6).

The most simple beginners can understand the Bible one line at a time, for this is the way it was given, and it is the best way to understand it (Isa. 28:9-13). No man can get the vastness of the Bible at once. It is the infinite scope of the Bible truth that causes some men to think the Bible is hard to understand.

I'm a retired coal miner, not a seminary or university graduate.  

"Chaos" may be subjective, but God is not the author of confusion, and or even chaos. 1 Cor. 14:1, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
 
I'm reminding people who believe God created an original perfect earth, Gen. 1:1, that was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep Gen. 1:2.
God does not create anything that is without form, and void and flooded.
 
Its like saying, "God said, let us make man in our image and in our likeness." So, God created Adam.
The next verse, And Adam was without legs, eyes, no nose, no arms, and Adam could see no light because Adam was blind. 
Then God said, let there be legs, and God saw that that was good. Then God said, let there be a nose, arms, and God saw that was good.
Then God said, let Adam have sight, and God saw that that was very good!
That's not how God works. God created the heavens and the earth, "in the beginning," to be inhabited.
Isa 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
God did not originally create it without form, and void; and in darkness, and flooded, Gen. 1:2, No one can live on the earth in that state. God destroyed the original creation because of Lucifers rebellion, and then God restored it to a habitable state for man Gen. 1:3. Anyone who believes God created the earth without form, void, and in darkness does not know God and how God works.

 God has so constructed the Bible that no one passage contains all the truth on any one subject and no passage contradicts another, whether it is on the same subject or not (Isa. 28:9-13) "9, Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10, For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11, For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12, To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13, But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

All Scriptures on a subject must be gathered and harmonized  with themselves and with all Scriptures on other subjects, before the whole truth can be fully understood. No "Scripture is of any private interpretation"; that is, no Scripture should be isolated from all others and understood by itself as being the whole truth on a subject in total disregard to all other passages on the same subject

(2 Peter 1:19-20, V. 19, We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: V. 20, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Two or three plain passages are required to establish any single truth, and if there are more than this number on a subject all must bear testimony to the same thing and none of them must contradict themselves or any other passages on any other subject (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6;19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). We are told to rightly divide the word of truth ( 2 Tim. 2:15) and compare "spiritual with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13).
For example, when this is done to the very passages that are used to teach unconditional security they will be found to be in harmony with the many hundreds of passages that plainly teach conditional security. On the other hand, these many hundreds of passages cannot possibly be harmonized with the wrong interpretations of the few that are used to teach unconditional security. To teach unconditional security is to leave an irreparable breach between two sets of Scriptures, but to teach conditional security is to have perfect harmony between all Scriptures.

 Look  Here, Eze. 28:13,  V. 13, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of GOD;  every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Not Adams Eden, God's Eden, before the Earth was destroyed because of Lucifers sin, the restored and Adam was created,

Ezek. 28:14, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the Holy Mountain of God; holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Ezek. 28:16;     16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

No angel was in any holy mountain of God when an earthly king of Tyre ruled, so this reference is in the eternal past when the cherub himself had a literal throne on earth on the holy mountain of God.

Here we have an insight into the position of Lucifer before his fall, and a revelation regarding the cause of his fall (V. 13-17). The mountain of God occurs 7 times (V. 14, 16, Ex. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kings 19:8).

The mountain of the Lord occurs 6 times (Gen. 22:14; Num. 10:33; Isa. 2:3; 30:29; Mic. 4:2; 8:3).

All these Scriptures do not refer to the same mountain in the same place, as can be seen from the various passages.

Ezek. 28: 16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
V. 17, Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
V. 18, Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of they TRAFFIC; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

Heb. rekullah, This refers to Lucifers walking up and down, slandering God to his own subjects among the angels until he had all his earthly subjects rebelling against the creator, as well as over one third fo the angels (Isa. 14:12-14; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Rev. 12:4). What ever it was, it is clear here that the behaviour resulted in violence;  and Lucifer sinned and broke with God. This could not refer to an earthly King, as thje ruler of Tyer, carrying on ordinary trade with the nations. It definitely concerns the traffic of a cherub, not a man. All the trade between nations in the entire world could not cause an angel to sin as here in verse 16.
 
Peter himself said;   2 Peter 3:5, For this they are willingly ignorant, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, PERISHED. He's not speaking about Noah's flood here. The world did not perish during Noah's flood, Noah, his wife. his sons and their wives, and all the animals survived, and there was light sun moon stars, nod empty, void, darkness as in Gen.1:2?
 V. 13, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of GOD;  every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Not Adams Eden, God's Eden, before the Earth was destroyed because of Lucifers sin, the restored and Adam was created,
Ezek. 28:14, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the Holy Mountain of God; holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezek. 28:16;     16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
No angel was in any holy mountain of God when an earthly king of Tyre ruled, so this reference is in the eternal past when the cherub himself had a literal throne on earth on the holy mountain of God.
Here we have an insight into the position of Lucifer before his fall, and a revelation regarding the cause of his fall (V. 13-17). The mountain of God occurs 7 times (V. 14, 16, Ex. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kings 19:8).
The mountain of the Lord occurs 6 times (Gen. 22:14; Num. 10:33; Isa. 2:3; 30:29; Mic. 4:2; 8:3).
All these Scriptures do not refer to the same mountain in the same place, as can be seen from the various passages.
Ezek. 28: 16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
V. 17, Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
V. 18, Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of they TRAFFIC; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
TRAFFIC;
Heb. rekullah, This refers to Lucifers walking up and down, slandering God to his own subjects among the angels until he had all his earthly subjects rebelling against the creator, as well as over one third fo the angels (Isa. 14:12-14; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Rev. 12:4). What ever it was, it is clear here that the behaviour resulted in violence;  and Lucifer sinned and broke with God. This could not refer to an earthly King, as the ruler of Tyer, carrying on ordinary trade with the nations. It definitely concerns the traffic of a cherub, not a man.
All the trade between nations in the entire world could not cause an angel to sin as here in verse 16.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

How can we tell if the language is literal of figurative? This is one of the most simple questions to answer. Any man or woman with ordinary intelligence between the two ways of expressing the truth. The one fundamental rule to determine whether language is literal or figurative is this.
Take every statement in the Bible as literal when it is at all possible and where it is clear that it is literal, otherwise, it is figurative. In other words, what cannot be literal must be figurative. The subject matter itself as expressed in human language will always make this clear. One must be sure the language if figurative before giving it a figurative meaning. If it seems hard to determine by the words of the subject matter, then Scriptures on the same subject will clear up the difficulty. There are always plain literal statements in the Bible proving every doctrine, so if a figurative statement is found in the Bible on the same  subject, explain the figurative passage with the literal passages.
Remember, no figure of speech ever does away with the literal truth, but merely expresses it in another way. Figures of speech are of two main kinds; first, those involving only a word as in Gal. 2:9 where Peter, James, and John are called "pillars" of the church; second, those involving thought expressed in several words, or sentences, as the parable, allegory, symbol, type, riddle, fable, enigma, etc. With a knowledge of the general plan of God, what the Scriptures are, and how to interpret them, we can study the Bible and its eternal plan for mankind. Without a general knowledge of the entire plan of God for mankind we are faced with contradictions, opposition against God's Word which tries to turn men away from the truths God wants men to get in order for them to be blessed."
 
Every person who has any knowledge of these forms of human expression should understand the Bible just as he does any other books. All these forms of human expression were used by God in giving His revelations of all things and of Himself. He used them for the same purpose as men do, to convey literal truths. All men can understand the Bible alike on the same grounds on which they understand other books where these forms of human language are used if they will be sensible about the Bible as they are with other books.
 
Men do not SPIRITUALISE other books or make every literal statement in the SYMBOLIC and MYSTICAL, and there is no excuse for us to do this with Bible truths.
When such human language is used in other books, men do not differ so much. They do not make them mean anything that they want the to mean. They are sensible with the writings of others and put forth every effort to get the intended idea of the author, but when it comes to the Bible the intent of God as plainly stated means nothing to the average person. Just so each person can change and interpret to suit himself, he thinks that his interpretation must be the truth of the Bible.
This method of interpretation is nothing less than satanic opposition against God which tries to turn men away from the truths God wants them to get in order for them to be blessed. If Satan can succeed in his purpose, God and His Word will be discredited, and men will pay little heed to what is written. Men will not be held guiltless for this attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Teditis
20 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

God does not create anything that is without form, and void and flooded

This is error on your part... God creates as He desires.

And all of Genesis 1 shows that this is what he desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,518
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,418
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

The earth, "THAT WAS TO BE GROUND," ?

You mean to tell me, and expect me to believe that God created the earth in Gen 1:1, that you say, "THAT WAS TO BE GROUND," was not actually ground until it was made ground in Gen. 1:6, ???????

That's the most pathetic form of reasoning I have ever read. God does not create a wasteland, without form, covered with water and in darkness, then fix it?????

Every thing God creates He creates perfectly, every time the Earth was flooded it was because of sin and rebellion. It's you also who does not get it.

It's you who should "Be careful of making vague generalities."

Shabbat shalom, HAZARD.

Oh, don't be silly. The whole six days of Creation were the "beginning," "ree'shiyt," that Genesis 1:1 was talking about.

The "heavens," which are the "skies" in dual number, "shaamayim," were made on Day 2, and ...
the "earth," which is the "ground," the "dirt," the "soil," or the "land," "erets," was made on Day 3.

While THAT WHICH WOULD BE THE "EARTH" was still under water, it was merely the "seabed" or "ocean floor."

However, when YHWH raised it above the waters-below-the-skies, He called it "erets," "LAND!"

 

And, regarding God working creation in stages, haven't you ever read how Yeshua` (Jesus) healed some in stages?

Mark 8:22-25
22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
KJV

As in the Creation, there was more to do than just the one miracle. First, Yeshua` gave the blind man the ability to see; then, He adjusted the man's eyes to see clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

53 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, HAZARD.

Oh, don't be silly. The whole six days of Creation were the "beginning," "ree'shiyt," that Genesis 1:1 was talking about.

The "heavens," which are the "skies" in dual number, "shaamayim," were made on Day 2, and ...
the "earth," which is the "ground," the "dirt," the "soil," or the "land," "erets," was made on Day 3.

While THAT WHICH WOULD BE THE "EARTH" was still under water, it was merely the "seabed" or "ocean floor."

However, when YHWH raised it above the waters-below-the-skies, He called it "erets," "LAND!"

 

And, regarding God working creation in stages, haven't you ever read how Yeshua` (Jesus) healed some in stages?

Mark 8:22-25
22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
KJV

As in the Creation, there was more to do than just the one miracle. First, Yeshua` gave the blind man the ability to see; then, He adjusted the man's eyes to see clearly.

You greet me with Shabbat shalom, then tell me not to be silly?

O'h Well 14 likes since my last post, looks like there are plenty on here who disagree with you!

No, I'm not being silly, I'm quoting Scripture. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The six days from Gen 1:2 on were His acts of restoring the earth to a habitable state.

Regarding Mark 8:22-25;

V.  23, And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?

Why did they lead the blind man out of the village?

Because Christ had already cursed this city and so now He refused to do another Miracle in it.

V. 24, And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.
   

V. 25, Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.

Many use this Scripture as an excuse for their lack of power and faith in Jesus and as a basis to prove that Christ also healed people gradually.

In verse  26, Jesus sent him away telling him not to enter into the village, not to give Bethsaida any more evidence of the visitation (Matt. 11:21.)

V. 26, "And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,518
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,418
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

13 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

You greet me with Shabbat shalom, then tell me not to be silly?

Oh Well, 14 likes since my last post, looks like there are plenty on here who disagree with you!

No, I'm not being silly, I'm quoting Scripture. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The six days from Gen 1:2 on were His acts of restoring the earth to a habitable state.

Regarding Mark 8:22-25;

V.  23, And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?

Why did they lead the blind man out of the village?

Because Christ had already cursed this city and so now He refused to do another Miracle in it.

V. 24, And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.
   

V. 25, Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.

Many use this Scripture as an excuse for their lack of power and faith in Jesus and as a basis to prove that Christ also healed people gradually.

In verse  26, Jesus sent him away telling him not to enter into the village, not to give Bethsaida any more evidence of the visitation (Matt. 11:21.)

V. 26, "And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village."

Shabbat shalom, HAZARD.

Sure, I wish you a holy day of peaceful rest, but that doesn't mean that you can't be silly, if you try.

silly |ˈsilēadjective (silliersilliesthaving or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish: another of his silly jokes | “Don't be silly!” she said.• ridiculously trivial or frivolous: he would brood about silly things.• [as complementused to convey that an activity or process has been engaged in to such a degree that someone is no longer capable of thinking or acting sensibly: he often drank himself silly | his mother worried herself silly over him.• archaic (especially of a woman, child, or animal) helpless; defenseless.noun (plural silliesinformalfoolish person (often used as a form of address): Come on, silly.PHRASESthe silly seasonhigh summer, regarded as the season when newspapers often publish trivial material because of a lack of important news.DERIVATIVES sillily |ˈsiləlēadverbORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense deserving of pity or sympathy): alteration of dialect seely happy, later innocent, feeble, from a West Germanic base meaning luck, happiness.The sense foolish developed via the stages feeble and unsophisticated, ignorant.

So, one is being silly when he or she is "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment, when one is being 'absurd' or 'foolish' or 'ridiculously trivial' or 'frivolous.'"

Please note: I did not call you a "fool." I said you were being "foolish"; that is, one who is being LIKE a fool in that one is being absurd!

You said, "14 likes since my last post"? I don't find any sort of comfort at all in "majority votes," because I know that the majority is SELDOM right.

The United States of America, contrary to some's opinions, is NOT a "democracy"; it is a "democratic REPUBLIC!" Total anarchy could be a "democracy," a "rule by the people!" Our founding fathers were sensible enough to know that the majority is NOT always right. That's why our laws are decided (or at least, supposed to be decided) on PRINCIPLES more than on public opinion, and the principles which the founding fathers had were based on the immutable Law of God found within the pages of God's Word, the Bible. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Yes, you quote Scripture, but you CONTINUE to drive a wedge between the first verse of Genesis 1 and the rest of the 1st and 2nd chapters of Genesis! That's nonsensical. If God had meant for it to be understood that way, don't you think He would have made that just a little clearer? If you want to consider that "majority rules," you might want to review history and see how many down through time have believed that there was no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 vs. how many believed that there was such a gap! I believe you would find that the majority did NOT believe in a gap!

Regarding Mark 8:22-25, you asked, "Why did they lead the blind man out of the village?" Does it matter? Once Yeshua` had led him out of the village, it still took 2 times to get the man's vision fixed! This shows NO weakness in the power of God demonstrated in Yeshua`, nor is it reflective of the village's disbelief. To the contrary, it simply means that the blind man had more than one physical reason for his blindness!

THIS is what is similar to the Creation account. There was simply more than one thing to do to create the skies and the land and the seas and their inhabitants. There was enough to do to take six days to get it all done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, Teditis said:

I quoted you exactly... I don't have control over that feature... there were no "brackets", and even if there were brackets

I doubt that you understand what grammatical significance brackets have in written English.

Your skills at grammar and written language seems to be wanting and below grade-school level.

That's not meant to be an attack... merely an observation.

What does that even mean? Brackets? What do brackets do to a sentence?

I have a vested interest in the Bible being taken literally, as it is written... that's why I go on about this topic.

I think that you twist and contort Scripture to suit your preconceived ideas. Thereby trying to convince believer's

of this so-called Gap-Theory that has no foundation in Scripture and tries to push God's Word into a semantical

rabbit-hole, so that you can fix your mind alongside traditional scientific models of an "old earth".

I didn't attack your conception that Jesus wasn't with the Father at the Beginning... I merely pointed out that

that was all the Scripture meant. Jesus was at the Beginning.

 

You told me before that I was on ignore... keep it that way. I've had you on ignore for a year now, haha.

I just peek in when you're on a delusional rant about this subject or the RCC.

Why do you run away when people start asking question that go to the heart of your misconceived theory about

the Beginnings?

Teditis has been banned from the thread for the above post and will be issued a warning point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,518
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,418
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

On 1/27/2017 at 5:39 PM, HAZARD said:

How can we tell if the language is literal of figurative? This is one of the most simple questions to answer. Any man or woman with ordinary intelligence between the two ways of expressing the truth. The one fundamental rule to determine whether language is literal or figurative is this:

Take every statement in the Bible as literal when it is at all possible and where it is clear that it is literal, otherwise, it is figurative. In other words, what cannot be literal must be figurative.

The subject matter itself as expressed in human language will always make this clear. One must be sure the language is figurative before giving it a figurative meaning. If it seems hard to determine by the words of the subject matter, then Scriptures on the same subject will clear up the difficulty. There are always plain literal statements in the Bible proving every doctrine, so if a figurative statement is found in the Bible on the same subject, explain the figurative passage with the literal passages.

Shalom, HAZARD.

That's good, as far as it goes. However, there's another possibility when determining whether something should be taken literally: Sometimes, we don't understand HOW something could be interpreted literally. In those cases, we may ASSUME that a passage should be taken figuratively when it really shouldn't.

Take, for instance, the account of Yonah (Jonah) and the "whale." Many have assumed in the past that this couldn't possibly be literal since no "whale" could actually swallow a man. However, "whale" in the Bible just simply means "huge." It doesn't necessarily mean an "order of large sea-going mammals that has two sub-orders, baleen whales (mysticetes) and toothed whales (odontocetes)." It can also mean any "huge" sea-going creature, such as a monstrous fish. 

Now obviously, a baleen whale, like the huge humpback whale, couldn't swallow a man. However, we have legends in which the toothed whale, the orca or killer whale, has been known to swallow human beings who have survived. A short visit to any Sea World park will reveal that information.

On the other hand, the Hebrew words used in the Yonah account are "daag gaadowl," which mean a "great fish."

Yet, in the NT we read,

Matthew 12:40
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
KJV

Here, the Greek word is "keetous," which is from "keetos":

NT:2785 keetos (kay'-tos); probably from the base of NT:5490; a huge fish (as gaping for prey):
KJV - whale.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Furthermore, we are told that "the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah." (Jonah 1:17) Therefore, this fish was SPECIALLY prepared to swallow a man. Believing that God is quite capable of performing miracles at a whim, there's really no reason to doubt that God could prepare a fish large enough to LITERALLY swallow Yonah.

So, while some think that the account of Yonah "cannot be literal" and therefore "must be figurative," there's no reason why it shouldn't be thought to be literal, and it actually makes better sense with a God who can do miracles.

Quote

Remember, no figure of speech ever does away with the literal truth, but merely expresses it in another way. Figures of speech are of two main kinds; first, those involving only a word as in Gal. 2:9 where Peter, James, and John are called "pillars" of the church; second, those involving thought expressed in several words, or sentences, as the parable, allegory, symbol, type, riddle, fable, enigma, etc. With a knowledge of the general plan of God, what the Scriptures are, and how to interpret them, we can study the Bible and its eternal plan for mankind. Without a general knowledge of the entire plan of God for mankind we are faced with contradictions, opposition against God's Word which tries to turn men away from the truths God wants men to get in order for them to be blessed."
 
Every person who has any knowledge of these forms of human expression should understand the Bible just as he does any other books. All these forms of human expression were used by God in giving His revelations of all things and of Himself. He used them for the same purpose as men do, to convey literal truths. All men can understand the Bible alike on the same grounds on which they understand other books where these forms of human language are used if they will be sensible about the Bible as they are with other books.
 
Men do not SPIRITUALISE other books or make every literal statement in the SYMBOLIC and MYSTICAL, and there is no excuse for us to do this with Bible truths.
When such human language is used in other books, men do not differ so much. They do not make them mean anything that they want them to mean. They are sensible with the writings of others and put forth every effort to get the intended idea of the author, but when it comes to the Bible the intent of God as plainly stated means nothing to the average person. Just so each person can change and interpret to suit himself, he thinks that his interpretation must be the truth of the Bible.
This method of interpretation is nothing less than satanic opposition against God which tries to turn men away from the truths God wants them to get in order for them to be blessed. If Satan can succeed in his purpose, God and His Word will be discredited, and men will pay little heed to what is written. Men will not be held guiltless for this attitude.

Look, friend and brother, the truth of the Bible is very real. I've no doubt about that. However, the truth of the Bible is NOT primarily found in the English versions of the Bible that we read. That means that the truth within the OT is found in the Hebrew text. That means that the truth in the NT, although much was probably written originally in Aramaic, is found in the Koine Greek text (since we do not have the original Aramaic manuscripts).

However, to understand the Bible in the OT within the Hebrew text, one must think like a Hebrew! They had a different culture, a different geography, a different set of surrounding nations, a different perspective on the world, a different way of thinking about God, a different way of talking, a different way of writing literature, a different way of seeing the list of pros and cons around them. One cannot expect to read the Hebrew text like one reads an English novel!

Ask yourself a series of questions: What did a Hebrew think of God? What did a Hebrew find important in life? How did a Hebrew treat his property, his livestock, his family?

Our normal order of the parts of speech in a sentence is in the basic form "subject-verb-(direct object, if one exists)." The normal order within the Hebrew text was often "verb-subject-'et'-direct object." However, order was less important in the Hebrew language than it is in English.

Words were almost NEVER treated as a LABEL! That is, they seldom (if ever) gave a subject or an object the status of a name! We who use English have SEVERAL words and phrases that are treated as labels! For instance, in prophecy, we often raise the status of the words "the tribulation" to that of a certain, special, future, TIME PERIOD, the status of the words "Abomination of Desolation" to that of an EVENT, the status of "the Antichrist" to a SINGLE PERSON! This infatuation we have for labels GREATLY undermines our understanding of prophecy. We are blinded to the fact that "the tribulation" is a CONDITION we suffer, that the "Abomination of Desolation" is really a HORROR of DEVASTATION, and the "Antichrist" is a SPIRIT - an ATTITUDE - of discounting the actual Messiah (Christ) coming in the flesh and being named "Yeeshuwa` Natsariy" or "Jesus of Nazareth."

"Bneey Yisra'el" did not just mean "citizens of the country of Israel"; the words literally meant "SONS (i.e., grandsons with however many 'greats' attached) of the man named by God as 'Yisra'el,' 'Prince with God'!" Their relationship was (and is) FAMILY! Theirs was a much more literal culture, being as literal as farmers and herdsmen usually are! Even their abstract concepts had a literal frame of reference and an etymological connection to literal, tangible things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...