date:20050714

What makes me think that you  rarely keep things like this to yourself,
Christine? As I said in a different post, Christine, your Dad seems to have
'trained' his family well. I suppose he's to be commended for that, anyway.

'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an example of sarcasm. Insults and
scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and your Dad employ such during
'public' preaching?

The person your dad is at home may be different than the person who posts on
TT. Let's hope so.

PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a summary of 'A Separate Peace'?

- Original Message - 
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 13, 2005 15:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 Lance wrote:
  Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
  then, OK. But, it is an
  exercise in humour so, no.

 I normally keep thoughts like these to myself, but I
 thought you would appriciate this, Lance.

 It was John Knowles in A Seperate Peace that said,
 Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.


 Blessings


 --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
  then, OK. But, it is an
  exercise in humour so, no.
 
  You keep tryin' ta weasle out of this, David. It's
  the people who agree with
  me (you) thingy that you don't seem prepared to
  acknowledge.
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: July 13, 2005 11:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
  reading/interpreting the
  Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
 
 
   Lance wrote:
a. I read TT
b. Jesus isn't 'mentoring' anyone I know David.
Perhaps He is not even mentoring you.
  
   Jesus does mentor people, but I understand how you
  do not recognize that.
  
   Lance wrote:
Do you fail to note the excessively conflicting
conundra appearing daily on TT? Each is, as
you put it, mentored by Jesus.(I'll let God
  speak
for the Mormons)
  
   How can you say that Jesus isn't mentoring anyone
  you know, then turn
  around
   here and say that each on TT is mentored by Jesus?
   You just contradicted
   yourself.
  
   The conflicting conundra you mention exists
  because some are mentored by
   Christ through the Spirit of God and some are not.
  
   Peace be with you.
   David Miller.
  
   --
   Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
  with salt, that you may
  know how you ought to answer every man.
  (Colossians 4:6)
  http://www.InnGlory.org
  
   If you do not want to receive posts from this
  list, send an email to
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
  unsubscribed.  If you have a
  friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail
  to
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
  subscribed.
 
 
  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with
  salt, that you may know how you ought to answer
  every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
  http://www.InnGlory.org
 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list,
  send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you
  will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who
  wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
  subscribed.
 


 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 http://mail.yahoo.com
 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] David Miller acknowledges a lack of Scriptural iunderstanding- - at last




Not one 'pretends to understand the intended 
meaning of these passages as well as Jesus does', even with the Holy 
Spirit.

I do believe that this is the acknowledgement that 
David sought from me just yesterday.

Question to David as I anticipate a 'warning' to be 
issued:Should you exclude yourself from this statement YOU made then, kindly 
offer an explanation for its non-application to yourself. 

Question to the co-moderators: Argumentum ad 
Hominem is one of the fallacies in the study of logic. Perhaps it has no place 
on TT. Why not, for Judy's sake if for no other, switch to the Scriptures as a 
guideline for conduct on TT? Surely we esteem the 'truth of Scripture' over the 
'truth of logic'? If we're gonna criticize the employment of theology as a 
legitimate discipline we must conclude, logically of course, that this 
atheistically rooted discipline must not serve to govern us.

I have every confidence that David  Perry will 
take this matter under advisement as I perceive the 'L-word' to be far more 
reprehensible than the 'D-word'.

[TruthTalk] Why are important films harder to find at rental outlets?




Rent 'Sometimes in April' and, allow time for the 
extras along with the director's commentary.

[TruthTalk] [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: kids at church]]]




Start your day with a smike

-

Note: forwarded message attached.




---BeginMessage---




I thought these were pretty cute and worth passing on.
Wayne

 Original Message 

  

  Subject: 
  Fwd: kids at church

  







---BeginMessage---

-Original Message-From: Diana Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:09:33 -0400Subject: FW: kids at church







CHILDREN AND THE CHURCHA little boy was attending his first wedding.After the service, his cousin asked him, "How many women can a manmarry?""Sixteen," the boy responded. His cousin was amazed that he had ananswer so quickly."How do you know that?""Easy," the little boy said."All you have to do is add it up, like the Bishop said: 4 better, 4worse, 4 richer, 4 poorer."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~After a church service on Sunday morning, a young boy suddenly announcedto his mother, "Mom, I've decided to become a minister when I grow up.""That's okay with us, but what made you decide that?""Well," said the little boy, "I have to go to church on Sunday anyway,and I figure it will be more fun to stand up and yell, than to sit andlisten."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A 6-year-old was overheard reciting the Lord's Prayer at a churchservice:"And forgive us our trash passes, as we forgive those whopassed trash against us."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A boy was watching his father, a pastor, write a sermon."How do youknow what to say?" he asked."Why, God tells me.""Oh, then why do you keep crossing things out?"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A little girl became restless as the preacher's sermon dragged on andon. Finally, she leaned over to her mother and whispered, "Mommy, if wegive him the money now, will he let us go?"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~After t
he christening of his baby brother in church, little Johnnysobbed all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father askedhim three times what was wrong.Finally, the boy replied, "That priest said he wanted us brought up in aChristian home, and I want to stay with you guys!"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~Terri asked her Sunday school class to draw pictures of their favoriteBible stories. She was puzzled by Kyle's picture, which showed fourpeople on an airplane, so she asked him which story it was meant torepresent. The Flight to Egypt was his reply.Pointing at each figure,Ms. Terri said, "That must be Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus. But who'sthe fourth person?""Oh, that's Pontius - the pilot.O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~The Sunday School Teacher asks, "Now, Johnny, t
ell me frankly do you sayprayers before eating?""No sir," little Johnny replies, "I don't have to.My Mom is a goodcook."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A college drama group presented a play in which one character wouldstand on a trap door and announce, "I descend into hell!"A stagehand below would then pull a rope, the trapdoor would spring, andthe actor would drop from view. The play was well received. When theactor playing the part became ill, another actor who was quiteoverweight took his place. When the new actor announced, "I descend intohell!" the stagehand pulled the rope, and the actor began his plunge,but became hopelessly stuck. No amount of tugging on the rope could makehim descend.One student in the balcony jumped up and yelled: "Hallelujah!Hell is full!"O~O~O~O~O~O
~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~Pastor Dave Charlton tells us, "After a worship service at First BaptistChurch in Newcastle, Kentucky, a mother with a fidgety seven-year oldboy told me how she finally got her son to sit still and be quiet. Abouthalfway through the sermon, she leaned over and whispered, 'If you don'tbe quiet, Pastor Charlton is going to lose his place and will have tostart his sermon all over again!'It worked."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~This is the best one.A little girl was sitting on her grandfather's lap as he read her abedtime story. From time to time, she would take her eyes off the bookand reach up to touch his wrinkled cheek.She was alternately strokingher own cheek, then his again.Finally she spoke up, "Grandpa, did God make you?""Yes, sweetheart," he answere
d, "God made me a long time ago.""Oh," she paused, "Grandpa, did God make me too?""Yes, indeed, honey," he said, "God made you just a little while ago."Feeling their respective faces again, she observed, "God's gettingbetter at it, isn't he?"
---End Message---
---End Message---

Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: kids at church]]]


Your plan has worked on me. My favorite -- the little boy who didn't.t want to goa Christian home. 

JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:51:34 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: kids at church]]]


Start your day with a smike-Note: forwarded message attached.


Attached Message



From:
WAYNE GRAVELY navyvet91@bellsouth.net

To:
undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject:
[Fwd: Fwd: kids at church]

Date:
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:29 -0400
I thought these were pretty cute and worth passing on.Wayne Original Message  



Subject: 
Fwd: kids at church


Attached Message



From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject:
Fwd: kids at church

Date:
Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:49:04 -0400



-Original Message-From: Diana Lance dianamarielance@hotmail.comTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:09:33 -0400Subject: FW: kids at church







CHILDREN AND THE CHURCHA little boy was attending his first wedding.After the service, his cousin asked him, "How many women can a manmarry?""Sixteen," the boy responded. His cousin was amazed that he had ananswer so quickly."How do you know that?""Easy," the little boy said."All you have to do is add it up, like the Bishop said: 4 better, 4worse, 4 richer, 4 poorer."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~After a church service on Sunday morning, a young boy suddenly announcedto his mother, "Mom, I've decided to become a minister when I grow up.""That's okay with us, but what made you decide that?""Well," said the little boy, "I have to go to church on Sunday anyway,and I figure it will be more fun to stand up and yell, than to sit andlisten."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A 6-year-old was overheard reciting the Lord's Prayer at a churchservice:"And forgive us our trash passes, as we forgive those whopassed trash against us."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A boy was watching his father, a pastor, write a sermon."How do youknow what to say?" he asked."Why, God tells me.""Oh, then why do you keep crossing things out?"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A little girl became restless as the preacher's sermon dragged on andon. Finally, she leaned over to her mother and whispered, "Mommy, if wegive him the money now, will he let us go?"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
~After t he christening of his baby brother in church, little Johnnysobbed all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father askedhim three times what was wrong.Finally, the boy replied, "That priest said he wanted us brought up in aChristian home, and I want to stay with you guys!"O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~Terri asked her Sunday school class to draw pictures of their favoriteBible stories. She was puzzled by Kyle's picture, which showed fourpeople on an airplane, so she asked him which story it was meant torepresent. The Flight to Egypt was his reply.Pointing at each figure,Ms. Terri said, "That must be Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus. But who'sthe fourth person?""Oh, that's Pontius - the pilot.O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~The Sunday School Teacher asks, "Now, Johnny, t ell me frankly do you sayprayers before eating?""No sir," little Johnny replies, "I don't have to.My Mom is a goodcook."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~A college drama group presented a play in which one character wouldstand on a trap door and announce, "I descend into hell!"A stagehand below would then pull a rope, the trapdoor would spring, andthe actor would drop from view. The play was well received. When theactor playing the part became ill, another actor who was quiteoverweight took his place. When the new actor announced, "I descend intohell!" the stagehand pulled the rope, and the actor began his
 plunge,but became hopelessly stuck. No amount of tugging on the rope could makehim descend.One student in the balcony jumped up and yelled: "Hallelujah!Hell is full!"O~O~O~O~O~O ~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~Pastor Dave Charlton tells us, "After a worship service at First BaptistChurch in Newcastle, Kentucky, a mother with a fidgety seven-year oldboy told me how she finally got her son to sit still and be quiet. Abouthalfway through the sermon, she leaned over and whispered, 'If you don'tbe quiet, Pastor Charlton is going to lose his place and will have tostart his sermon all over again!'It worked."O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~This is the best one.A little girl wa
s sitting on her grandfather's lap as he read her abedtime story. From time to time, she would take her eyes off the bookand reach up to touch his wrinkled cheek.She was alternately strokingher own cheek, then his again.Finally she spoke up, "Grandpa, did God make you?""Yes, sweetheart," he answere d, "God made me a long

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Terry wrote:
 I make a simple statement that there is not enough
 information to tell who would be the the most accurate
 interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
 between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
 who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
 of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
 Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
 to me where I would have gotten the information needed
 to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that your 
post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in 
reading you.

You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You 
mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature 
believer.  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers more 
accurate interpreters of Scripture?  My comments on this thread concerned 
only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture 
he inspired to be written.  Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating 
on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of 
scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way.  That was 
perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret 
Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement of 
the Holy Spirit.

What do you think?  Is the maturity of the believer something important in 
regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture?  Is 
maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent in 
Scripture?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

David wrote concerning Terry's comment: I found nothing dishonest in what
you wrote. ... There was definitely a problem in reading you.

David, how do you presume to know this, other than in the say way the rest
of us might? Terry's word will have to suffice, as far as I'm concerned. Are
you privy to something we're not?

Bill

- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 Terry wrote:
  I make a simple statement that there is not enough
  information to tell who would be the the most accurate
  interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
  between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
  who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
  of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
  Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
  to me where I would have gotten the information needed
  to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

 I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that
your
 post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in
 reading you.

 You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You
 mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature
 believer.  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers
more
 accurate interpreters of Scripture?  My comments on this thread concerned
 only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the
Scripture
 he inspired to be written.  Perhaps part of the disconnect in
communicating
 on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of
 scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way.  That was
 perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret
 Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement
of
 the Holy Spirit.

 What do you think?  Is the maturity of the believer something important in
 regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture?
Is
 maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent
in
 Scripture?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty.
Why say that you found nothing dishonest in what he wrote? Are you trying
to be manipulative?

Bill
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 Terry wrote:
  I make a simple statement that there is not enough
  information to tell who would be the the most accurate
  interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
  between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
  who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
  of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
  Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
  to me where I would have gotten the information needed
  to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

 I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that
your
 post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in
 reading you.

 You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You
 mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature
 believer.  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers
more
 accurate interpreters of Scripture?  My comments on this thread concerned
 only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the
Scripture
 he inspired to be written.  Perhaps part of the disconnect in
communicating
 on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of
 scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way.  That was
 perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret
 Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement
of
 the Holy Spirit.

 What do you think?  Is the maturity of the believer something important in
 regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture?
Is
 maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent
in
 Scripture?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

I would suggest that: being 'Spirit-Filled, being gifted of God
(prophetically or otherwise), possessing skill in/with the original biblical
languages, being a mature (obedient to that which is revealed through
Scripture by the Spirit)believer ...these are yet no guarantee that one
will, IN ALL CASES understand 'the Holy Spirit's intent' (if this expression
was there previously then, I failed to note it). If one operates with some
sort of 'sliding scale' then the closer one comes to this, the closer one
comes to a sort of 'infallibility'.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 14, 2005 09:37
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 Terry wrote:
  I make a simple statement that there is not enough
  information to tell who would be the the most accurate
  interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
  between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
  who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
  of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
  Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
  to me where I would have gotten the information needed
  to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

 I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that
your
 post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in
 reading you.

 You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You
 mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature
 believer.  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers
more
 accurate interpreters of Scripture?  My comments on this thread concerned
 only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the
Scripture
 he inspired to be written.  Perhaps part of the disconnect in
communicating
 on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of
 scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way.  That was
 perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately interpret
 Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the involvement
of
 the Holy Spirit.

 What do you think?  Is the maturity of the believer something important in
 regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture?
Is
 maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's intent
in
 Scripture?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

2005-07-14 Thread Christine Miller

Lance wrote:
 'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an example
 of sarcasm. Insults and
 scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and your
 Dad employ such during
 'public' preaching?

It's often dangerous to do with you, Lance, but I'm
going to answer your comment here seriously. It is
easy to respond to the crowd's aggression with more
aggression (or bitter retorts), but to do so would not
be a good witness. On my first experiences on the
street, I found myself feeling controversial and
combatant, and checked myself. Since then I have
learned to interact with angry and bitter crowds in a
spirit of meekness and paitience. My father serves as
an example to me in this. I have never seen him fail
to exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit while
preaching. 

Lance wrote:
 PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a summary
 of 'A Separate Peace'?

No, I have read the book several times. I was once
very much a literary junkie. In high school I was on
the academic team, in charge of any literature
questions. My natural aptitudes and tastes are
contrary to my father's in that way. 

I guess he wasn't able to 'train' me out of my
right-brained tendencies. :-)


Blessings

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 What makes me think that you  rarely keep things
 like this to yourself,
 Christine? As I said in a different post, Christine,
 your Dad seems to have
 'trained' his family well. I suppose he's to be
 commended for that, anyway.
 
 'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an example
 of sarcasm. Insults and
 scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and your
 Dad employ such during
 'public' preaching?
 
 The person your dad is at home may be different than
 the person who posts on
 TT. Let's hope so.
 
 PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a summary
 of 'A Separate Peace'?
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: July 13, 2005 15:10
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
 reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
 
 
  Lance wrote:
   Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
   then, OK. But, it is an
   exercise in humour so, no.
 
  I normally keep thoughts like these to myself, but
 I
  thought you would appriciate this, Lance.
 
  It was John Knowles in A Seperate Peace that
 said,
  Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.
 
 
  Blessings
 
 
  --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
   then, OK. But, it is an
   exercise in humour so, no.
  
   You keep tryin' ta weasle out of this, David.
 It's
   the people who agree with
   me (you) thingy that you don't seem prepared to
   acknowledge.
  
  
   - Original Message - 
   From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
   Sent: July 13, 2005 11:14
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
   reading/interpreting the
   Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
  
  
Lance wrote:
 a. I read TT
 b. Jesus isn't 'mentoring' anyone I know
 David.
 Perhaps He is not even mentoring you.
   
Jesus does mentor people, but I understand how
 you
   do not recognize that.
   
Lance wrote:
 Do you fail to note the excessively
 conflicting
 conundra appearing daily on TT? Each is, as
 you put it, mentored by Jesus.(I'll let God
   speak
 for the Mormons)
   
How can you say that Jesus isn't mentoring
 anyone
   you know, then turn
   around
here and say that each on TT is mentored by
 Jesus?
You just contradicted
yourself.
   
The conflicting conundra you mention exists
   because some are mentored by
Christ through the Spirit of God and some are
 not.
   
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
   
--
Let your speech be always with grace,
 seasoned
   with salt, that you may
   know how you ought to answer every man.
   (Colossians 4:6)
   http://www.InnGlory.org
   
If you do not want to receive posts from this
   list, send an email to
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
   unsubscribed.  If you have a
   friend who wants to join, tell him to send an
 e-mail
   to
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
   subscribed.
  
  
   --
   Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
 with
   salt, that you may know how you ought to answer
   every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
   http://www.InnGlory.org
  
   If you do not want to receive posts from this
 list,
   send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
 you
   will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who
   wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
   subscribed.
  
 
 
  __
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
 protection around
  http://mail.yahoo.com
  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
 with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man. 
 (Colossians 4:6)

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)






On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
in part:
Since then I have learned to interact with angry and bitter crowds in a 
spirit of meekness 
and paitience. My father serves as an example to me in this. I have never 
seen him failto exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit while preaching. 


Excellent testimony Christine and I have noted the same 
on this TT List.
I've seldom seen one persondoing his bestto 
be a peacemaker so ridiculed and
maligned for who he is and how he expresses 
himself. But then I guess he would be
in even worse shape if everyone spoke highly of him 
huh!

Thanks for sharing Christine, I know your dad must be 
proud of you, judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

David Miller wrote:
 I rest my case, John.  My assumption was
 correct.  I had not cast any aspersions toward
 Bill.  Bill is quite knowledgeable, but he does
 not pretend to understand the intended meaning
 of these passages as well as Jesus does.

John wrote:
 And that, dear sir, was not your point !!
 You often forget that I know how to read.

Your response here does not add to the discussion.  It is simply another ad 
hominem remark.

I sometimes do wonder if you are able to read.  You skipped over the PCA 
comment by Judy, and then railed at me for assuming that you would know that 
she attended a PCA church.  You completely miss more than 50% of the content 
of most my posts.  But now you have gotten this discussion off track again. 
Perhaps I should not even answer this post, but I'm going to try at least 
once more before giving up on you.

I had made the point in my previous post that should Jesus in the flesh 
mentor a newly born again person like Vladimir every day for two months on 
the passages mentioned, then he would have a better grasp of the intended 
meaning of the Holy Ghost than another person.  You had perceived correctly 
an unspoken assumption of mine that this other person had not already 
benefited from this very same instruction.  You said that I should give this 
other person more credit than this.  So, I asked this other person whether 
or not his present understanding would benefit if Jesus sat down with him. 
His answer was that Jesus would say something like, Have we been together 
so long and you still do not understand?  Therefore, he confirmed my 
original assumption.

You are right about this not being my original point, but you challenged my 
original point by questioning an assumption I made when I offered my own 
vote as to who might better understand.  Therefore, I examined the validity 
of my assumption and found that your criticism was without merit.

Now we can get back to the original point if you are interested.  Lance has 
expressed that he is not interested.  The original point concerns how the 
Holy Spirit reveals truth to us.  A stepping stone to that understanding is 
first establishing our perspective about the benefit of personal instruction 
from Jesus.  Another stepping stone is establishing whether or not maturity 
is necessary for understanding the intent of Scripture.  Also, must one 
apply himself to diligent study for years, perhaps at a university, in order 
to understand the intent of Scripture?  My answer, of course, is no.  God's 
purpose, in fact, is to confound the wisdom of the mighty.  Those who apply 
themselves to years of study are actually more likely to miss the intended 
meaning of Scritpure!  This statement may shock the educated on this list, 
but this is my perspective.  We may never be able to fully explore these 
questions because interest is lacking among the participants here.  Lance 
has asked to drop the subject, and so we will do unless someone else 
expresses and interest in pursuing it.  There is a whole lot more to be said 
on this subject, some very thrilling concepts of truth, but it is only for 
those who have ears to hear.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Bill Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a
'recasting' of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressing
issues other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason I
intentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quite
intentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much
'reading' of you.)
- Original Message - 
From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 14, 2005 10:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty.
 Why say that you found nothing dishonest in what he wrote? Are you
trying
 to be manipulative?

 Bill
 - Original Message -
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

  Terry wrote:
   I make a simple statement that there is not enough
   information to tell who would be the the most accurate
   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
   between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
   who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
   of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
   Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
   to me where I would have gotten the information needed
   to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

  I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that
 your
  post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in
  reading you.

  You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You
  mention both accurate interpreter of scriptures and most mature
  believer.  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers
 more
  accurate interpreters of Scripture?  My comments on this thread
concerned
  only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the
 Scripture
  he inspired to be written.  Perhaps part of the disconnect in
 communicating
  on this is that some connect the idea of accuracy interpreter of
  scriptures and maturity of believers in a more definite way.  That
was
  perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accurately
interpret
  Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of the
involvement
 of
  the Holy Spirit.

  What do you think?  Is the maturity of the believer something important
in
  regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture?
 Is
  maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit's
intent
 in
  Scripture?

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Does that include an interest in film also?

- Original Message - 
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 14, 2005 10:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 Lance wrote:
  'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an example
  of sarcasm. Insults and
  scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and your
  Dad employ such during
  'public' preaching?

 It's often dangerous to do with you, Lance, but I'm
 going to answer your comment here seriously. It is
 easy to respond to the crowd's aggression with more
 aggression (or bitter retorts), but to do so would not
 be a good witness. On my first experiences on the
 street, I found myself feeling controversial and
 combatant, and checked myself. Since then I have
 learned to interact with angry and bitter crowds in a
 spirit of meekness and paitience. My father serves as
 an example to me in this. I have never seen him fail
 to exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit while
 preaching.

 Lance wrote:
  PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a summary
  of 'A Separate Peace'?

 No, I have read the book several times. I was once
 very much a literary junkie. In high school I was on
 the academic team, in charge of any literature
 questions. My natural aptitudes and tastes are
 contrary to my father's in that way.

 I guess he wasn't able to 'train' me out of my
 right-brained tendencies. :-)

 Blessings

 --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  What makes me think that you  rarely keep things
  like this to yourself,
  Christine? As I said in a different post, Christine,
  your Dad seems to have
  'trained' his family well. I suppose he's to be
  commended for that, anyway.

  'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an example
  of sarcasm. Insults and
  scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and your
  Dad employ such during
  'public' preaching?

  The person your dad is at home may be different than
  the person who posts on
  TT. Let's hope so.

  PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a summary
  of 'A Separate Peace'?

  - Original Message - 
  From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: July 13, 2005 15:10
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
  reading/interpreting the
  Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

   Lance wrote:
Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
then, OK. But, it is an
exercise in humour so, no.

   I normally keep thoughts like these to myself, but
  I
   thought you would appriciate this, Lance.

   It was John Knowles in A Seperate Peace that
  said,
   Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

   Blessings

   --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Contradicted? If this were an exercise in logic
then, OK. But, it is an
exercise in humour so, no.

You keep tryin' ta weasle out of this, David.
  It's
the people who agree with
me (you) thingy that you don't seem prepared to
acknowledge.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 13, 2005 11:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 Lance wrote:
  a. I read TT
  b. Jesus isn't 'mentoring' anyone I know
  David.
  Perhaps He is not even mentoring you.

 Jesus does mentor people, but I understand how
  you
do not recognize that.

 Lance wrote:
  Do you fail to note the excessively
  conflicting
  conundra appearing daily on TT? Each is, as
  you put it, mentored by Jesus.(I'll let God
speak
  for the Mormons)

 How can you say that Jesus isn't mentoring
  anyone
you know, then turn
around
 here and say that each on TT is mentored by
  Jesus?
 You just contradicted
 yourself.

 The conflicting conundra you mention exists
because some are mentored by
 Christ through the Spirit of God and some are
  not.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace,
  seasoned
with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.
(Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this
list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an
  e-mail
to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
  with
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer
every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this
  list,
send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
  you
will be

[TruthTalk] Re:Who does understand the Holy Spirit's intended meaning of all Scripture????????

I believe I just heard David Miller say 'NOT ME (meaning not David Miller).
I've not misread you on this have I, David?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 14, 2005 10:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 David Miller wrote:
  I rest my case, John.  My assumption was
  correct.  I had not cast any aspersions toward
  Bill.  Bill is quite knowledgeable, but he does
  not pretend to understand the intended meaning
  of these passages as well as Jesus does.

 John wrote:
  And that, dear sir, was not your point !!
  You often forget that I know how to read.

 Your response here does not add to the discussion.  It is simply another
ad
 hominem remark.

 I sometimes do wonder if you are able to read.  You skipped over the PCA
 comment by Judy, and then railed at me for assuming that you would know
that
 she attended a PCA church.  You completely miss more than 50% of the
content
 of most my posts.  But now you have gotten this discussion off track
again.
 Perhaps I should not even answer this post, but I'm going to try at least
 once more before giving up on you.

 I had made the point in my previous post that should Jesus in the flesh
 mentor a newly born again person like Vladimir every day for two months on
 the passages mentioned, then he would have a better grasp of the intended
 meaning of the Holy Ghost than another person.  You had perceived
correctly
 an unspoken assumption of mine that this other person had not already
 benefited from this very same instruction.  You said that I should give
this
 other person more credit than this.  So, I asked this other person whether
 or not his present understanding would benefit if Jesus sat down with him.
 His answer was that Jesus would say something like, Have we been together
 so long and you still do not understand?  Therefore, he confirmed my
 original assumption.

 You are right about this not being my original point, but you challenged
my
 original point by questioning an assumption I made when I offered my own
 vote as to who might better understand.  Therefore, I examined the
validity
 of my assumption and found that your criticism was without merit.

 Now we can get back to the original point if you are interested.  Lance
has
 expressed that he is not interested.  The original point concerns how the
 Holy Spirit reveals truth to us.  A stepping stone to that understanding
is
 first establishing our perspective about the benefit of personal
instruction
 from Jesus.  Another stepping stone is establishing whether or not
maturity
 is necessary for understanding the intent of Scripture.  Also, must one
 apply himself to diligent study for years, perhaps at a university, in
order
 to understand the intent of Scripture?  My answer, of course, is no.
God's
 purpose, in fact, is to confound the wisdom of the mighty.  Those who
apply
 themselves to years of study are actually more likely to miss the intended
 meaning of Scritpure!  This statement may shock the educated on this list,
 but this is my perspective.  We may never be able to fully explore these
 questions because interest is lacking among the participants here.  Lance
 has asked to drop the subject, and so we will do unless someone else
 expresses and interest in pursuing it.  There is a whole lot more to be
said
 on this subject, some very thrilling concepts of truth, but it is only for
 those who have ears to hear.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)





Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why 
did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read 
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and 
this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be 
manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the 
flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit of 
the doubt. jt


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill Taylor 
raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of the 
content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other than 
those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 
'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional 
therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' of 
you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they 
way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why 
say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are 
youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Terry 
wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not 
enough   information to tell who would be the the most 
accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature 
believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a 
Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly 
placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body of 
the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, 
explain   to me where I would have gotten the information 
needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance. 
  I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I 
was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it 
was. There was definitely a problem in  reading you. 
  You mention something in this post that is somewhat 
interesting. You  mention both "accurate interpreter of 
scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do you think these 
are related? Are more mature believers more  accurate 
interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this threadconcerned 
 only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the 
Scripture  he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the 
disconnect in communicating  on this is that some connect 
the idea of "accuracy interpreter of  scriptures" and "maturity of 
believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas  perhaps part 
of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret  
Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of 
theinvolvement of  the Holy Spirit.  
 What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something 
importantin  regards to the ability to understand the intended 
meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity a requirement before one 
can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent in  
Scripture?   Peace be with you.  David 
Miller.   --  "Let your speech be 
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought 
to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  
 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.  -- "Let your 
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you 
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell 
him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.


--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

So that we all understand this: It is alright for
Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the discussions of others, and it
is alright for David to interject hisopinions concerningthe
discussions of others, but it is not okay for Bill to ask a couple
questions.Oh, and talk about being manipulative: I did not "accuse" David
of anything: I asked him a question. Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives
of others after the flesh," Judy: it "is a dangerous business. Much better to
love them and give them the benefit of the doubt."

Bill

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:37
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess
On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A'
living)

Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap;
why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill
and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be
manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit of
the doubt. jt

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill
Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of
the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other
than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally
'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional
therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading'
of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they
way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why
say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are
youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry
wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not
enough information to tell who would be the the most
accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature
believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a
Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly
placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body of
the Church. If that comment is less than honest,
explain to me where I would have gotten the information
needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance.
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I
was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it
was. There was definitely a problem in reading you.
You mention something in this post that is somewhat
interesting. You mention both "accurate interpreter of
scriptures" and "most mature believer." Do you think these
are related? Are more mature believers more
accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this
threadconcerned only the ability to understand the intent of
the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired to be
written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating
on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of
scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way.
Thatwas perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot
accuratelyinterpret Scripture without having time for
maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of the Holy
Spirit. What do you think? Is the maturity of
the believer something importantin regards to the ability to
understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity
a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent
in Scripture? Peace be with
you. David Miller. --
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians
4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed. -- "Let your
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join,
tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.

--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,
that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell
him

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Good enough.

- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 Bill wrote:
  David wrote concerning Terry's comment:
  I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote. ...
  There was definitely a problem in reading you.

  David, how do you presume to know this, other
  than in the say way the rest of us might? Terry's
  word will have to suffice, as far as I'm concerned.
  Are you privy to something we're not?

 I was just expressing my opinion, Bill.  I didn't want Terry to think that
 everyone had trouble understanding him.  Sometimes I feel that way when
one
 person ascribes evil motives to me and the rest of the list is silent.  I
 didn't want Terry to feel like something was wrong with the way he was
 communicating.

 Bill wrote:
  By they way ... I don't remember anyone accusing
  Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you found nothing
  dishonest in what he wrote? Are you trying to be
  manipulative?

 Manipulative?  I have no idea what you mean.  Terry perceived being
accused
 of dishonesty.  He wrote, If that comment is less than honest...  My
 reason for posting was to encourage Terry.  From my perspective, he was
not
 even close to being dishonest.  He was being misunderstood and the problem
 is more likely to be found to be from the evil surmisings in the minds of
 some of those who read him.  I do not say this as a slam, but as something
 for us to consider soberly concerning why there is a problem with even the
 most innocuous of statements posted in this forum being misunderstood.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

(Sorry in advance David but, that was much 'reading' of you.)

Lance has powerful insight that can only be termed sharp piercing, he is even able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' of you.)- Original Message - From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: July 14, 2005 10:00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting theScriptures for living (not for 'A' living) By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living) Terry wrote: I make a simple statement that there is not enough information to tell who would be the the most accurate interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian, who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain to me where I would have gotten the information needed to reach the same conclusion as Lance.
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in reading you. You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature believer." Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this threadconcerned only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot
accuratelyinterpret Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something importantin regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent in Scripture? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send
an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt. jt


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Terry wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not enough   information to tell who would be the the most accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain   to me where I would have gotten the information needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance.   I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in  reading
 you.   You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You  mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more  accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this threadconcerned  only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture  he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating  on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of  scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas  perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret  Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of  the Holy Spirit.
   What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something importantin  regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent in  Scripture?   Peace be with you.  David Miller.   --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Those with evil surmisings will continue, in spite of your continued attempts to clear the air.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill wrote: David wrote concerning Terry's comment: I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote. ... There was definitely a problem in reading you. David, how do you presume to know this, other than in the say way the rest of us might? Terry's word will have to suffice, as far as I'm concerned. Are you privy to something we're not?I was just expressing my opinion, Bill. I didn't want Terry to think that everyone had trouble understanding him. Sometimes I feel that way when one person ascribes evil motives to me and the rest of the list is silent. I didn't want Terry to feel like something was wrong with the way he was communicating.Bill wrote: By they way ... I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he
wrote? Are you trying to be manipulative?Manipulative? I have no idea what you mean. Terry perceived being accused of dishonesty. He wrote, "If that comment is less than honest..." My reason for posting was to encourage Terry. From my perspective, he was not even close to being dishonest. He was being misunderstood and the problem is more likely to be found to be from the evil surmisings in the minds of some of those who read him. I do not say this as a slam, but as something for us to consider soberly concerning why there is a problem with even the most innocuous of statements posted in this forum being misunderstood.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Just so that we all may couch our opinions in acceptable terms. Please use questions to malign others.Questions are better than godly edifying anyday to a "minister of questions" 1 Tim 1:4

our Mormon friends are masters of the question.
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




So that we all understand this: It is alright for Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the discussions of others, and it is alright for David to interject hisopinions concerningthe discussions of others, but it is not okay for Bill to ask a couple questions.Oh, and talk about being manipulative: I did not "accuse" David of anything: I asked him a question. Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives of others after the flesh," Judy: it "is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt."

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:37 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit of the doubt. jt


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Terry wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not enough   information to tell who would be the the most accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain   to me where I would have gotten the information needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance.   I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in  reading
 you.   You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You  mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more  accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this threadconcerned  only the ability to understand the intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture  he inspired to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating  on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of  scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas  perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret  Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of  the Holy Spirit.
   What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer something importantin  regards to the ability to understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent in  Scripture?   Peace be with you.  David Miller.   --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)




Wrong; I deal with what you say rather than your motive 
for saying it Lance.
I can't speak for Perry, DavidM, Kevin, Linda, JD 
though I've not noticed them doing
this. Bill does it consistently and has said it 
is part of his belief structure.However,
our own motives are the ones we need to discern since 
they are the only ones we
have control over. jt

PS Why does Gary have no place on your list? He'll be 
feeling rejected

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:49:16 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jt critiques 'evaluating the motives of others 
  after the flesh' saying that it 'is a dangerous business'.
  The moderators do it. DavidM does it concerning 
  me, John, Bill, Kevin, Linda and you (Debbie and 
  Perry pretty much get a 'pass' cause they're nice 
  folks)
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; 
why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read 
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill 
and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to 
be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after 
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit 
of the doubt. jt


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill 
Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' 
of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues 
other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason 
Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been 
quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that 
was much'reading' of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By 
they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of 
dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he 
wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Terry wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not 
enough   information to tell who would be the the most 
accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature 
believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a 
Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly 
placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body 
of the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, 
explain   to me where I would have gotten the information 
needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance. 
  I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. 
I was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it 
was. There was definitely a problem in  reading 
you.   You mention something in this post that is 
somewhat interesting. You  mention both "accurate 
interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do 
you think these are related? Are more mature believers 
more  accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on 
this threadconcerned  only the ability to understand the 
intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture  he inspired 
to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in 
communicating  on this is that some connect the idea of 
"accuracy interpreter of  scriptures" and "maturity of 
believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas  perhaps 
part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret 
 Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of 
theinvolvement of  the Holy Spirit. 
  What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer 
something importantin  regards to the ability to understand 
the intended meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity a 
requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent 
in  Scripture?   Peace be with 
you.  David Miller.   -- 
 "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 
4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send 
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants 
to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.  -- "Let 
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.


--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If

[TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)





Yes, it is a question - and I stand corrected. 
Sorry Imisunderstood. 
But I have a question for you Bill. Are you 
expecting DavidM to respond - Yes Bill
I am manipulating? Judyt

From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

So that we all understand this: It is alright for 
Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the 
discussions of others, and it is alright for David 
to interject hisopinions concerningthe discussions of others, but it 
is not okay for Bill to ask a couple questions.Oh, and talk about being 
manipulative: I did not "accuse" David of anything: I asked him a question. 
Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives of others after the flesh," Judy: it 
"is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give them the benefit of 
the doubt." Bill

  From: Judy Taylor 
  Lance you fellows appear to 
  be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
  over what Terry wrote? He apparently read 
  something into it that was not intended
  Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill 
  and this is what DavidM is replying
  to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to be 
  manipulative.
  
  IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after 
  the flesh is a dangerous business.
  Much better to love them and give them the benefit of 
  the doubt. jt
  
  
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill 
  Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' of 
  the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues other 
  than those germain to the originals. That was the reason Iintentionally 
  'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been quiteintentional 
  therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that was much'reading' 
  of you.)
  From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By they 
  way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of dishonesty. Why 
  say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he wrote? Are 
  youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
   From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Terry 
  wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not 
  enough   information to tell who would be the the most 
  accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature 
  believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a 
  Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly 
  placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body of 
  the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, 
  explain   to me where I would have gotten the information 
  needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance. 
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I 
  was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it 
  was. There was definitely a problem in  reading you. 
You mention something in this post that is somewhat 
  interesting. You  mention both "accurate interpreter of 
  scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do you think these 
  are related? Are more mature believers more  
  accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on this 
  threadconcerned  only the ability to understand the intent of 
  the Holy Ghost in the Scripture  he inspired to be 
  written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in communicating 
   on this is that some connect the idea of "accuracy interpreter of 
   scriptures" and "maturity of believers" in a more definite way. 
  Thatwas  perhaps part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot 
  accuratelyinterpret  Scripture without having time for 
  maturity, regardless of theinvolvement of  the Holy 
  Spirit.   What do you think? Is the maturity of 
  the believer something importantin  regards to the ability to 
  understand the intended meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity 
  a requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent 
  in  Scripture?   Peace be with 
  you.  David Miller.   -- 
   "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
  may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 
  4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an 
  email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.  -- "Let your 
  speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you 
  ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If 
  you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, 
  tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.
  
  
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) 
  http://www.InnGlory.org
  
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell 
  him to send an e-mail to

Re: [TruthTalk] David Miller acknowledges a lack of Scriptural iunderstanding- - at last

Lance wrote:
 Not one 'pretends to understand the intended meaning
 of these passages as well as Jesus does', even with the
 Holy Spirit.  I do believe that this is the acknowledgement
 that David sought from me just yesterday.

No, Lance, this is not the acknowledgment that I was seeking.  I wanted you 
to answer the question of whether or not the tutoring experience with Jesus 
would enable this person to understand this passage better than a highly 
educated professor of theology that you respect.

Lance wrote:
 Question to David as I anticipate a 'warning'
 to be issued:

Warning?  Why?

Lance wrote:
 Should you exclude yourself from this statement YOU
 made then, kindly offer an explanation for its non-application
 to yourself.

There are a lot of people who might be excluded, and the answer to this will 
be readily apparent if we can progress in steps.  Until we are tracking 
together in our thought process, it would not add to our mutual 
understanding to answer this question right now.  Knowledge builds upon 
concepts, precept upon precept, and steps cannot be skipped.  It is kind of 
like explaining a mathematical proof without showing the steps needed to get 
there.  Skipping steps would only add to the confusion.

Please note that a VERY IMPORTANT consideration here that has not been 
agreed upon is whether or not the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah is 
infallible.  If we cannot agree among ourselves that this truth is 
infallible, and then when we teach this truth we are teaching something 
infallible, I do not see how we can proceed.  Thus far, this issue has been 
sidestepped because of the Christian Indoctrination that nobody but Jesus is 
infallible in understanding and teaching.

Lance wrote:
 Question to the co-moderators: Argumentum
 ad Hominem is one of the fallacies in the study
 of logic. Perhaps it has no place on TT. Why not,
 for Judy's sake if for no other, switch to the Scriptures
 as a guideline for conduct on TT? Surely we esteem
 the 'truth of Scripture' over the 'truth of logic'? If we're
 gonna criticize the employment of theology as a legitimate
 discipline we must conclude, logically of course, that this
 atheistically rooted discipline must not serve to govern us.

Logic is not atheistically rooted.  It is rooted in the Logos, in Christ 
himself.

It would be great if we could just say, let Scripture govern us or better 
yet, let love govern us.  The problem is that we do not all agree about 
what love is or how it acts.  We do not all agree on what Scripture teaches. 
The reason for the ad hom rule is to try and have just one agreement to 
govern our discussion, that we will address the message rather than the 
messenger.

If you examine the Scriptures themselves, or examine what love is, both 
would lead you to accept the idea that the discussion should center on what 
is said rather than who says it.  Whether it is praise or criticism, it does 
not matter.  We would do better in regards to the purposes of this forum, to 
discuss the issues being raised rather than the one who raises the issue. 
We also should not focus on why someone raises an issue over the issue 
itself.

Lance wrote:
 I have every confidence that David  Perry will take
 this matter under advisement as I perceive the 'L-word'
 to be far more reprehensible than the 'D-word'.

When you say, L-word, do you mean liberal?  When you say D-word do you 
mean damn?

Assuming such to be the case:

I would agree with you that the term liberal should not be thrown around as 
an epithet against others.  However, neither word is banned from the list. 
It is all in how you use it.  If someone is talking about how sinners are 
damned to hell, that is acceptable.  However, if one uses words like hell 
and damn as curse words or expletives, that is not acceptable.  In like 
manner, if someone is talking about the danger of liberalism, that is fine, 
but if one is simply maligning others on the list by cursing at them with 
the word (you liberals!), that is not helpful.  Probably everyone has 
crossed this line to some extent, and latitude often is given or it slips 
by.  That's why we should all work to moderate ourselves in addition to 
having a moderator.  We all are, after all, accountable to each other. 
Nevertheless, just because such slips by from time to time does not mean it 
is encouraged or acceptable.  If you have some problem and you don't want to 
nudge us away from inflammatory language yourself, write the moderator 
privately and say, this post is attacking me and not the subject being 
discussed.  Please address it.  Thank you.  Then you can post on the 
subject and ignore the ad hom elements.

I admit that I have addressed ad hom elements too much myself these last few 
weeks.  I will try to do better about leaving that to the moderator.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Who does understand the Holy Spirit's intended meaning of all Scripture????????

Lance wrote:
 I believe I just heard David Miller say
 'NOT ME (meaning not David Miller).
 I've not misread you on this have I, David?

I don't know how to answer because I have no idea what from my post you are 
responding to and no time to try and figure it out.  Sorry.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

2005-07-14 Thread Christine Miller

No, not particularly.

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Does that include an interest in film also?

 - Original Message - 
 From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: July 14, 2005 10:07
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
 reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

  Lance wrote:
   'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an
 example
   of sarcasm. Insults and
   scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and
 your
   Dad employ such during
   'public' preaching?

  It's often dangerous to do with you, Lance, but
 I'm
  going to answer your comment here seriously. It is
  easy to respond to the crowd's aggression with
 more
  aggression (or bitter retorts), but to do so would
 not
  be a good witness. On my first experiences on the
  street, I found myself feeling controversial and
  combatant, and checked myself. Since then I have
  learned to interact with angry and bitter crowds
 in a
  spirit of meekness and paitience. My father serves
 as
  an example to me in this. I have never seen him
 fail
  to exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit while
  preaching.

  Lance wrote:
   PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a
 summary
   of 'A Separate Peace'?

  No, I have read the book several times. I was once
  very much a literary junkie. In high school I was
 on
  the academic team, in charge of any literature
  questions. My natural aptitudes and tastes are
  contrary to my father's in that way.

  I guess he wasn't able to 'train' me out of my
  right-brained tendencies. :-)

  Blessings

  --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   What makes me think that you  rarely keep things
   like this to yourself,
   Christine? As I said in a different post,
 Christine,
   your Dad seems to have
   'trained' his family well. I suppose he's to be
   commended for that, anyway.

   'Irony is wasted on the stupid' would be an
 example
   of sarcasm. Insults and
   scorn comprise the heart of sarcasm. Do you and
 your
   Dad employ such during
   'public' preaching?

   The person your dad is at home may be different
 than
   the person who posts on
   TT. Let's hope so.

   PS:Ouch! Did you attend 'Grade Saver' for a
 summary
   of 'A Separate Peace'?

   - Original Message - 
   From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
   Sent: July 13, 2005 15:10
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On
   reading/interpreting the
   Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Lance wrote:
 Contradicted? If this were an exercise in
 logic
 then, OK. But, it is an
 exercise in humour so, no.

I normally keep thoughts like these to myself,
 but
   I
thought you would appriciate this, Lance.

It was John Knowles in A Seperate Peace that
   said,
Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

Blessings

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Contradicted? If this were an exercise in
 logic
 then, OK. But, it is an
 exercise in humour so, no.

 You keep tryin' ta weasle out of this,
 David.
   It's
 the people who agree with
 me (you) thingy that you don't seem prepared
 to
 acknowledge.

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: July 13, 2005 11:14
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
 On
 reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

  Lance wrote:
   a. I read TT
   b. Jesus isn't 'mentoring' anyone I know
   David.
   Perhaps He is not even mentoring you.

  Jesus does mentor people, but I understand
 how
   you
 do not recognize that.

  Lance wrote:
   Do you fail to note the excessively
   conflicting
   conundra appearing daily on TT? Each is,
 as
   you put it, mentored by Jesus.(I'll let
 God
 speak
   for the Mormons)

  How can you say that Jesus isn't mentoring
   anyone
 you know, then turn
 around
  here and say that each on TT is mentored
 by
   Jesus?
  You just contradicted
  yourself.

  The conflicting conundra you mention
 exists
 because some are mentored by
  Christ through the Spirit of God and some
 are
   not.

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

  --
  Let your speech be always with grace,
   seasoned
 with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man.
 (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

  If you do not want to receive posts from
 this
 list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
 unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send
 an
   e-mail
 to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
 subscribed.

=== message truncated ===

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Concerning the evaluating of motives, Lance wrote:
 DavidM does it concerning me, John, Bill, Kevin, Linda and you

I admit a weakness in doing this sometimes, but it is not something I want 
to encourage on the list.  Please write me privately any quotes where you 
think I am doing this and I will try to do better.  It might also be 
possible that you are reading the judgment of motives into my post when that 
is not at all what I am trying to communicate.  I often am misunderstood by 
some on the list to be talking about motives when I am talking only about 
the substance of what is being said.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it
that was not intended ...

As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated
repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent.That is,
as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do.

Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote.
Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on TT.
I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands,of times over the
last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to my
background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family, to my
politics,to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and you've seen
me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good" days and "bad"
days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've had opportunity to
see me at myworst.

And in turn, I have had these same opportunities
with each of you.

With all of this background at his disposal,
Terryclaimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base a
decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew
nothing. I took that asan insult. Terry does have enough information on me
to know"whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly
intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question),
between myself, with my background and many years of
dedicationandstudy, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to
become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago
(hypothetically) had never even read aBible. To say that he didn't have
enough information, I thought, was a majorput down.

Terry, however, claims that it was not intended as
such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian
gentleman."He claimshis yes does mean yes and his no means no, and
he claimshis "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it
says."I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated
reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this.

I, on the other hand, do feel like I know you all
quite well; in fact, I think there is opportunity here to get to know people
better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is
because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our
relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our
personal commitment to JesusChrist; hence we do get to "know each other"
quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here
on TT.

I have read Terry enough to know that he is quite
witty. I have also read him enough to know when he is employing that wit. On
this occasion, however, I may have misread him. He says I did: I'll take his
word for it.

Bill

Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit
of the doubt. jt

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Who does understand the Holy Spirit's intended meaning of all Scripture????????

Seems to be some kind of 'disease' going 'round, David. I can't understand
you, Terry can't understand Bill, you can't understand John (that's you
twice!).

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 14, 2005 11:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Who does understand the Holy Spirit's intended
meaning of all Scripture

 Lance wrote:
  I believe I just heard David Miller say
  'NOT ME (meaning not David Miller).
  I've not misread you on this have I, David?

 I don't know how to answer because I have no idea what from my post you
are
 responding to and no time to try and figure it out.  Sorry.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Yes, Judy, I did.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:12 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
   On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)

  Yes, it is a question - and I stand corrected. 
  Sorry Imisunderstood. 
  But I have a question for you Bill. Are you 
  expecting DavidM to respond - Yes Bill
  I am manipulating? Judyt

  From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  So that we all understand this: It is alright for 
  Judy to interject her opinionsconcerning the 
  discussions of others, and it is alright for 
  David to interject hisopinions concerningthe discussions of 
  others, but it is not okay for Bill to ask a couple questions.Oh, and 
  talk about being manipulative: I did not "accuse" David of anything: I asked 
  him a question. Perhaps you ought not "elevate the motives of others after the 
  flesh," Judy: it "is a dangerous business. Much better to love them and give 
  them the benefit of the doubt." Bill

From: Judy Taylor 
Lance you fellows appear 
to be looking for a scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read 
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill 
and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to 
be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after 
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit 
of the doubt. jt

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill 
Taylor raises an interesting point hereunder. I also noted a'recasting' 
of the content of some posts by David. He'd then be addressingissues 
other than those germain to the originals. That was the reason 
Iintentionally 'defaulted' the match. I perceived it to have been 
quiteintentional therefore deceptive. (Sorry in advance David but, that 
was much'reading' of you.)
From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] By 
they way, Miller, I don't remember anyone accusing Terry of 
dishonesty. Why say that you "found nothing dishonest" in what he 
wrote? Are youtrying to be manipulative? Bill
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Terry wrote:   I make a simple statement that there is not 
enough   information to tell who would be the the most 
accurate   interpreter of scriptures or the most mature 
believer   between Bill, who I have never met, and a 
Russian,   who I have never heard of. That is hardly 
placing one   of you in Hell and the other outside the body 
of the   Church. If that comment is less than honest, 
explain   to me where I would have gotten the information 
needed   to reach the same conclusion as Lance. 
  I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. 
I was amazed that your  post was interpreted the way it 
was. There was definitely a problem in  reading 
you.   You mention something in this post that is 
somewhat interesting. You  mention both "accurate 
interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature  believer." Do 
you think these are related? Are more mature believers 
more  accurate interpreters of Scripture? My comments on 
this threadconcerned  only the ability to understand the 
intent of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture  he inspired 
to be written. Perhaps part of the disconnect in 
communicating  on this is that some connect the idea of 
"accuracy interpreter of  scriptures" and "maturity of 
believers" in a more definite way. Thatwas  perhaps 
part of Lance's perspective, that one cannot accuratelyinterpret 
 Scripture without having time for maturity, regardless of 
theinvolvement of  the Holy Spirit. 
  What do you think? Is the maturity of the believer 
something importantin  regards to the ability to understand 
the intended meaning of Scripture? Is  maturity a 
requirement before one can understand the Holy Spirit'sintent 
in  Scripture?   Peace be with 
you.  David Miller.   -- 
 "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 
4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send 
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants 
to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.  -- "Let 
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Bill wrote:
 ... I think there is opportunity here to get to know
 people better than there is in most of the personal
 encounters that we have. This is because there is
 far more interaction between us than in most of our
 relationships, and this in regards to that which matters
 most to us: our personal commitment to Jesus Christ;
 hence we do get to know each other quite well;
 we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves
 here on TT.

This is a very interesting perspective, Bill, and kind of surprising to me. 
I will be thinking about this some more.  My general perspective is that I 
know the people on TruthTalk much less than those I know in person. 
Furthermore, the people on TruthTalk who have never met me, from my 
perspective, do not know me very well at all.  There is some merit to what 
you are saying in the sense that sometimes people expose themselves here 
more than they do in person, but if that extends to a better knowing of 
somebody... well, I will have to think about that some more.  I certainly do 
not think that I interact more here than elsewhere.  Anyway, thanks for 
giving me something to ponder.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)




Thanks for the explanation Bill, but IMO your 
expectation is still too high especially since Terry has written 
more
than once that he does not share your understanding of 
scripture. As for the Russian fellow I don't know who he
is and I doubt that Terry would either. Howare we 
to know how proficient he is so far as scripture is concerned?
He may be Russia's top evangelical for all we 
know.

I can understand also why Terry would say he doesn't 
know you. Knowing about someone is not the same as
"knowing" them. To really "know" someone takes 
both time and communication. Sometimes ppl can live in the
same house or even be married to ppl and not really 
"know" them - I've been on TT for quite a while and I wouldn't
get offended if Terry said the same about me because we 
think differently and are at different places spiritually.
This doesn't mean that I don't considerhima 
brother in the Lord and as such I don't believe he would write
something with a deliberate intent to hurt or woun even 
someone he disagreed with. jt 


From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into it 
that was not intended ...

As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated 
repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent.That is, 
as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do. 

Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote. 
Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on TT. 
I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands,of times over the 
last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to my 
background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family, to my 
politics,to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and you've seen 
me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good" days and "bad" 
days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've had opportunity to 
see me at myworst. 

And in turn, I have had these same opportunities 
with each of you.

With all of this background at his disposal, 
Terryclaimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base a 
decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew 
nothing. I took that asan insult. Terry does have enough information on me 
to know"whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly 
intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question), 
between myself, with my background and many years of 
dedicationandstudy, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to 
become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago 
(hypothetically) had never even read aBible. To say that he didn't have 
enough information, I thought, was a majorput down.

Terry, however, claims that it was not intended as 
such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian 
gentleman."He claimshis yes does mean yes and his no means no, and 
he claimshis "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it 
says."I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated 
reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this.

I, on the other hand, do feel like I know you all 
quite well; in fact, I think there is opportunity here to get to know people 
better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is 
because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our 
relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our 
personal commitment to JesusChrist; hence we do get to "know each other" 
quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here 
on TT.

I have read Terry enough to know that he is quite 
witty. I have also read him enough to know when he is employing that wit. On 
this occasion, however, I may have misread him. He says I did: I'll take his 
word for it.

Bill

  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  
  


Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a scrap; 
why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read 
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than Bill 
and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying to 
be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others after 
the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the benefit 
of the doubt. jt

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Do you feel like you know me better than you know Vladimir Kramnik?

Bill

- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

 Bill wrote:
  ... I think there is opportunity here to get to know
  people better than there is in most of the personal
  encounters that we have. This is because there is
  far more interaction between us than in most of our
  relationships, and this in regards to that which matters
  most to us: our personal commitment to Jesus Christ;
  hence we do get to know each other quite well;
  we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves
  here on TT.

 This is a very interesting perspective, Bill, and kind of surprising to
me.
 I will be thinking about this some more.  My general perspective is that I
 know the people on TruthTalk much less than those I know in person.
 Furthermore, the people on TruthTalk who have never met me, from my
 perspective, do not know me very well at all.  There is some merit to what
 you are saying in the sense that sometimes people expose themselves here
 more than they do in person, but if that extends to a better knowing of
 somebody... well, I will have to think about that some more.  I certainly
do
 not think that I interact more here than elsewhere.  Anyway, thanks for
 giving me something to ponder.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Do you consider me a brother in the Lord,
Judy?

Bill

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:39
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess
On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A'
living)

Thanks for the explanation Bill, but IMO your
expectation is still too high especially since Terry has written
more
than once that he does not share your understanding
of scripture. As for the Russian fellow I don't know who he
is and I doubt that Terry would either. Howare
we to know how proficient he is so far as scripture is concerned?
He may be Russia's top evangelical for all we
know.

I can understand also why Terry would say he doesn't
know you. Knowing about someone is not the same as
"knowing" them. To really "know" someone takes
both time and communication. Sometimes ppl can live in the
same house or even be married to ppl and not really
"know" them - I've been on TT for quite a while and I wouldn't
get offended if Terry said the same about me because
we think differently and are at different places spiritually.
This doesn't mean that I don't
considerhima brother in the Lord and as such I don't believe he
would write
something with a deliberate intent to hurt or woun
even someone he disagreed with. jt

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into
it that was not intended ...

As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated
repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent.That is,
as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do.

Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote.
Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on
TT. I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands,of times over
the last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to
my background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family,
to my politics,to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and
you've seen me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good"
days and "bad" days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've
had opportunity to see me at myworst.

And in turn, I have had these same opportunities
with each of you.

With all of this background at his disposal,
Terryclaimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base
a decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew
nothing. I took that asan insult. Terry does have enough information on
me to know"whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly
intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question),
between myself, with my background and many years of
dedicationandstudy, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to
become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago
(hypothetically) had never even read aBible. To say that he didn't have
enough information, I thought, was a majorput down.

Terry, however, claims that it was not intended
as such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian
gentleman."He claimshis yes does mean yes and his no means no, and
he claimshis "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it
says."I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated
reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this.

Bill

Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a
scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than
Bill and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying
to be manipulative.

IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others
after the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know you any better than I know
Vladimir Kramnik, would you think there something amiss with my faculties?

What do you think:

1)  Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent' of the
biblical authors now, after all your many years of study, than you were two
months into your reading of Scripture?

2)  Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach new disciples to obey
everything he had commanded? And in conjunction with this: Why did he not
just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will be with you always, until
the end of the age?

What would you want us to conclude about you, David:

1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study in God's word, to
determine the writerly intent of the biblical authors, or

2) that you were better equipped two months into your study than you are
today?

Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from my time with you
on TT, would you be insulted if I told you that I didn't have enough
information on either you or Vladimir Kramnik to determine which of your
observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this
knowing -- hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his
study of Scripture)?

Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone should be enough to
suffice in answering the question?

Tell me, David, would you think my intent was to insult you, if I responded,
instead with, it's hard to tell based on the limited information I have on
either man?

Bill






- Original Message -
From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 Do you feel like you know me better than you know Vladimir Kramnik?

 Bill

 - Original Message -
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


  Bill wrote:
   ... I think there is opportunity here to get to know
   people better than there is in most of the personal
   encounters that we have. This is because there is
   far more interaction between us than in most of our
   relationships, and this in regards to that which matters
   most to us: our personal commitment to Jesus Christ;
   hence we do get to know each other quite well;
   we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves
   here on TT.
 
  This is a very interesting perspective, Bill, and kind of surprising to
 me.
  I will be thinking about this some more.  My general perspective is that
I
  know the people on TruthTalk much less than those I know in person.
  Furthermore, the people on TruthTalk who have never met me, from my
  perspective, do not know me very well at all.  There is some merit to
what
  you are saying in the sense that sometimes people expose themselves here
  more than they do in person, but if that extends to a better knowing of
  somebody... well, I will have to think about that some more.  I
certainly
 do
  not think that I interact more here than elsewhere.  Anyway, thanks for
  giving me something to ponder.
 
  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.
 
  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org
 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
 

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Bill wrote:
 Do you feel like you know me better than 
 you know Vladimir Kramnik?

Yes!

Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

The Italian guy was coached by Christ for two months.Bill, in the illustration, is apparently without such pleasure.And the comparison was between a coached Italian guy and poor old BT. That was the point of your illustration. Now you argue that you were trying to establish that Bill's knowing is inferior to Jesus'. NO KIDDING. but, that was not your original point and NO ONE ON THIS FORUM needsa parable to appreciate that Jesus knows more than Bill

JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:22:16 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

David Miller wrote:
I rest my case, John. My assumption was
correct. I had not cast any aspersions toward
Bill. Bill is quite knowledgeable, but he does
not pretend to understand the intended meaning
of these passages as well as Jesus does.

John wrote:
And that, dear sir, was not your point !!
You often forget that I know how to read.

Your response here does not add to the discussion. It is simply another ad
hominem remark.

I sometimes do wonder if you are able to read. You skipped over the PCA
comment by Judy, and then railed at me for assuming that you would know that
she attended a PCA church. You completely miss more than 50% of the content
of most my posts. But now you have gotten this discussion off track again.
Perhaps I should not even answer this post, but I'm going to try at least
once more before giving up on you.

I had made the point in my previous post that should Jesus in the flesh
mentor a newly born again person like Vladimir every day for two months on
the passages mentioned, then he would have a better grasp of the intended
meaning of the Holy Ghost than another person. You had perceived correctly
an unspoken assumption of mine that this other person had not already
benefited from this very same instruction. You said that I should give this
other person more credit than this. So, I asked this other person whether
or not his present understanding would benefit if Jesus sat down with him.
His answer was that Jesus would say something like, "Have we been together
so long and you still do not understand?" Therefore, he confirmed my
original assumption.

You are right about this not being my original point, but you challenged my
original point by questioning an assumption I made when I offered my own
vote as to who might better understand. Therefore, I examined the validity
of my assumption and found that your criticism was without merit.

Now we can get back to the original point if you are interested. Lance has
expressed that he is not interested. The original point concerns how the
Holy Spirit reveals truth to us. A stepping stone to that understanding is
first establishing our perspective about the benefit of personal instruction
from Jesus. Another stepping stone is establishing whether or not maturity
is necessary for understanding the intent of Scripture. Also, must one
apply himself to diligent study for years, perhaps at a university, in order
to understand the intent of Scripture? My answer, of course, is no. God's
purpose, in fact, is to confound the wisdom of the mighty. Those who apply
themselves to years of study are actually more likely to miss the intended
meaning of Scritpure! This statement may shock the educated on this list,
but this is my perspective. We may never be able to fully explore these
questions because interest is lacking among the participants here. Lance
has asked to drop the subject, and so we will do unless someone else
expresses and interest in pursuing it. There is a whole lot more to be said
on this subject, some very thrilling concepts of truth, but it is only for
those who have ears to hear.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] PUBLIC APOLOGY TO BILL TAYLOR




He told me that upon using his name in my little 
analogy that 'stuff' would happen. Oh said I, surely you're being paranoid! 
Well, as it turns out, surely not.

Once David has given Bill a somewhat more 
comprehensive response than 'yes!' I shall implore all others to leave off 
addressing this issue vis a vis my friend, Bill.

Feel free to level both barrels at me as someone 
actually deserving of such villification. 

Many thanks,

Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Bill wrote:
 Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know
 you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik,
 would you think there something amiss with my
 faculties?

Yes.

Bill wrote:
 What do you think:
 1)  Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent'
 of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study,
 than you were two months into your reading of Scripture?

I probably don't have enough information to answer this.  :-)

There are many reasons for my Biblical studies, but understanding the 
author's intent is not real high on the list.  I would say that Biblical 
study more often gives me more confidence about my understanding of the 
author's intent.

Bill wrote:
 2)  Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach
 new disciples to obey everything he had commanded?

Because people have a tendency to stray away from obeying him.  Exhorting 
one another and urging one another to walk in love helps us keep on track. 
Teaching is helpful, but not necessary.

Bill wrote:
 And in conjunction with this: Why did he not
 just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will
 be with you always, until the end of the age?

Because we are his mouthpiece on the earth.  He teaches through us.  We 
teach primarily because he is with us always, until the end of the age.

Bill wrote:
 What would you want us to conclude about you, David:
 1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study
 in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical
 authors, or
 2) that you were better equipped two months into your study
 than you are today?

I don't see where being better equipped now means all that much in regards 
to the question of understanding the intent of the author.  We have a very 
different perspective about this that is rather fascinating.  I have been 
very surprised by your reaction to Lance mentioning your name, and even more 
so by the turmoil that you have raised over Terry's post.  I can study for 
years, and then one day the Holy Spirit says, David, I am going to teach 
you now about what I meant when I said ...  Well, I'm blown away.  All the 
study in the world does not lead me to that understanding.  My studies might 
confirm it, but study itself often leaves open many options concerning 
intent.  It is only by revelation that we really know his intent.

Bill wrote:
 Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from
 my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you
 that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir
 Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more
 likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing -- 
 hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his
 study of Scripture)?

No, I honestly would not be insulted in the least.  Sorry.  I think that 
perhaps the insult comes from your perspective that greater study means a 
better understanding of the author's intent.  My perspective is that there 
are many factors to consider in knowing whether or not someone is going to 
grasp the intent of Scripture.  Saying that you need more information to 
answer makes fine sense to me.

Bill wrote:
 Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone
 should be enough to suffice in answering the question?

No.  I would hope this guy had such an encounter with God's Spirit that we 
both speak the same way and understand the Spirit's intent in the same way. 
I don't think he needs years of study in order to get that.  I would hope 
that when I shared what I understood, the guy would say, yeah, that is 
exactly what I see too!  When he shared, I would say, Amen!  Actually, I 
have met men half my age and newly born again where I have had such 
experiences, so this is a little more than just hypothetical.

Bill wrote:
 Tell me, David, would you think my intent was to insult
 you, if I responded, instead with, it's hard to tell based
 on the limited information I have on either man?

No, Bill, I would not think that you would be intending to insult me.  We 
honestly have different perspectives about what it takes for a person to 
have a proper understanding of Scripture.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

I will be quite honest with you, David. I think you are playing with words
here and being evasive. When I use the word study, I use it inclusively of
all our activities having to do with the reading of Scripture, and not in
some limited sense with regards to formal training. If you want to go back
and re-answer the questions with that in mind, feel free to do so. If not,
then drop it.

Either way you have enough information now to know why I took offense at
Terry's statement.

Bill


- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 Bill wrote:
  Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know
  you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik,
  would you think there something amiss with my
  faculties?

 Yes.

 Bill wrote:
  What do you think:
  1)  Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent'
  of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study,
  than you were two months into your reading of Scripture?

 I probably don't have enough information to answer this.  :-)

 There are many reasons for my Biblical studies, but understanding the
 author's intent is not real high on the list.  I would say that Biblical
 study more often gives me more confidence about my understanding of the
 author's intent.

 Bill wrote:
  2)  Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach
  new disciples to obey everything he had commanded?

 Because people have a tendency to stray away from obeying him.  Exhorting
 one another and urging one another to walk in love helps us keep on track.
 Teaching is helpful, but not necessary.

 Bill wrote:
  And in conjunction with this: Why did he not
  just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will
  be with you always, until the end of the age?

 Because we are his mouthpiece on the earth.  He teaches through us.  We
 teach primarily because he is with us always, until the end of the age.

 Bill wrote:
  What would you want us to conclude about you, David:
  1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study
  in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical
  authors, or
  2) that you were better equipped two months into your study
  than you are today?

 I don't see where being better equipped now means all that much in
regards
 to the question of understanding the intent of the author.  We have a very
 different perspective about this that is rather fascinating.  I have been
 very surprised by your reaction to Lance mentioning your name, and even
more
 so by the turmoil that you have raised over Terry's post.  I can study for
 years, and then one day the Holy Spirit says, David, I am going to teach
 you now about what I meant when I said ...  Well, I'm blown away.  All
the
 study in the world does not lead me to that understanding.  My studies
might
 confirm it, but study itself often leaves open many options concerning
 intent.  It is only by revelation that we really know his intent.

 Bill wrote:
  Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from
  my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you
  that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir
  Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more
  likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing --
  hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his
  study of Scripture)?

 No, I honestly would not be insulted in the least.  Sorry.  I think that
 perhaps the insult comes from your perspective that greater study means a
 better understanding of the author's intent.  My perspective is that there
 are many factors to consider in knowing whether or not someone is going to
 grasp the intent of Scripture.  Saying that you need more information to
 answer makes fine sense to me.

 Bill wrote:
  Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone
  should be enough to suffice in answering the question?

 No.  I would hope this guy had such an encounter with God's Spirit that we
 both speak the same way and understand the Spirit's intent in the same
way.
 I don't think he needs years of study in order to get that.  I would hope
 that when I shared what I understood, the guy would say, yeah, that is
 exactly what I see too!  When he shared, I would say, Amen!  Actually,
I
 have met men half my age and newly born again where I have had such
 experiences, so this is a little more than just hypothetical.

 Bill wrote:
  Tell me, David, would you think my intent was to insult
  you, if I responded, instead with, it's hard to tell based
  on the limited information I have on either man?

 No, Bill, I would not think that you would be intending to insult me.  We
 honestly have different perspectives about what it takes for a person to
 have a proper understanding of Scripture.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Actually, David, I take that back: I do not think you are playing with
words or deliberately being evasive in your answers. I think your answers
are indicative of you, just the way you are -- and I need to accept that.
Please just disregard my comments and forgive me for the ad hom.

 Bill


- Original Message -
From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


 I will be quite honest with you, David. I think you are playing with words
 here and being evasive. When I use the word study, I use it inclusively
of
 all our activities having to do with the reading of Scripture, and not in
 some limited sense with regards to formal training. If you want to go back
 and re-answer the questions with that in mind, feel free to do so. If not,
 then drop it.

 Either way you have enough information now to know why I took offense at
 Terry's statement.

 Bill


 - Original Message -
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the
 Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


  Bill wrote:
   Put another way, David: If I said I didn't know
   you any better than I know Vladimir Kramnik,
   would you think there something amiss with my
   faculties?
 
  Yes.
 
  Bill wrote:
   What do you think:
   1)  Are you better equipped to determine the 'writerly intent'
   of the biblical authors now, after all your many years of study,
   than you were two months into your reading of Scripture?
 
  I probably don't have enough information to answer this.  :-)
 
  There are many reasons for my Biblical studies, but understanding the
  author's intent is not real high on the list.  I would say that Biblical
  study more often gives me more confidence about my understanding of the
  author's intent.
 
  Bill wrote:
   2)  Why did Jesus command the disciples to teach
   new disciples to obey everything he had commanded?
 
  Because people have a tendency to stray away from obeying him.
Exhorting
  one another and urging one another to walk in love helps us keep on
track.
  Teaching is helpful, but not necessary.
 
  Bill wrote:
   And in conjunction with this: Why did he not
   just say, Leave the teaching to me, since I will
   be with you always, until the end of the age?
 
  Because we are his mouthpiece on the earth.  He teaches through us.  We
  teach primarily because he is with us always, until the end of the age.
 
  Bill wrote:
   What would you want us to conclude about you, David:
   1) that you are better equipped now, after years of study
   in God's word, to determine the writerly intent of the biblical
   authors, or
   2) that you were better equipped two months into your study
   than you are today?
 
  I don't see where being better equipped now means all that much in
 regards
  to the question of understanding the intent of the author.  We have a
very
  different perspective about this that is rather fascinating.  I have
been
  very surprised by your reaction to Lance mentioning your name, and even
 more
  so by the turmoil that you have raised over Terry's post.  I can study
for
  years, and then one day the Holy Spirit says, David, I am going to
teach
  you now about what I meant when I said ...  Well, I'm blown away.  All
 the
  study in the world does not lead me to that understanding.  My studies
 might
  confirm it, but study itself often leaves open many options concerning
  intent.  It is only by revelation that we really know his intent.
 
  Bill wrote:
   Tell me, David, knowing what I do about you, and this from
   my time with you on TT, would you be insulted if I told you
   that I didn't have enough information on either you or Vladimir
   Kramnik to determine which of your observations would more
   likely approximate 'writerly intent' (and this knowing --
   hypothetically, of course -- that he was only two months into his
   study of Scripture)?
 
  No, I honestly would not be insulted in the least.  Sorry.  I think that
  perhaps the insult comes from your perspective that greater study means
a
  better understanding of the author's intent.  My perspective is that
there
  are many factors to consider in knowing whether or not someone is going
to
  grasp the intent of Scripture.  Saying that you need more information to
  answer makes fine sense to me.
 
  Bill wrote:
   Wouldn't you expect that my knowledge of you alone
   should be enough to suffice in answering the question?
 
  No.  I would hope this guy had such an encounter with God's Spirit that
we
  both speak the same way and understand the Spirit's intent in the same
 way.
  I don't think he needs years of study in order to get that.  I would
hope
  that when I shared what I understood, the guy would say, yeah, that is

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Bill wrote:
 I think you are playing with words
 here and being evasive.

No, rest assured that I am not, but I understand how you might think that.

Bill wrote:
 If you want to go back and re-answer the
 questions with that in mind, feel free to do
 so. If not, then drop it.

It is probably best to drop it for now.  You, Lance, and a few others here 
do not separate spiritual revelation from understanding that comes naturally 
through study.  The wisdom that is of the earth takes years to perfect, but 
the wisdom that comes from above does not.

Bill wrote:
 Either way you have enough information now
 to know why I took offense at Terry's statement.

Yes, thank you, I do have enough information now to know why.  I appreciate 
you taking time to explain.  It was quite revealing and very interesting.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] PUBLIC APOLOGY TO BILL TAYLOR





Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  He told me that upon using his name
in my little analogy that 'stuff' would happen. Oh said I, surely
you're being paranoid! Well, as it turns out, surely not.
  
  Once David has given Bill a somewhat
more comprehensive response than 'yes!' I shall implore all others to
leave off addressing this issue vis a vis my friend, Bill.
  
  Feel free to level both barrels at
me as someone actually deserving of such villification. 
  
  Many thanks,
  
  Lance


How 'bout if we all go back and read Phil.2:3 and follow the
instructions, "in lowliness of mind,let each esteem others better
than himself". That way, no one gets puffed up with his/ her own
knowledge.
Terry.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)





David Miller wrote:

  Terry wrote:
  
  
I make a simple statement that there is not enough
information to tell who would be the the most accurate
interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
who I have never heard of.  That is hardly placing one
of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
Church.  If that comment is less than honest, explain
to me where I would have gotten the information needed
to reach the same conclusion as Lance.

  
  
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry.  I was amazed that your 
post was interpreted the way it was.  There was definitely a problem in 
reading you.

You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting.  You 
mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature 
believer."  Do you think these are related?  Are more mature believers more 
accurate interpreters of Scripture? 

=
This is going to be hard to put into words, David. I hope it comes
through as intended and that anyone can understand.

I now have more information stored in my feeble mind than I had
twenty-four years ago. I know the geographic relationship between
Jericho and Jerusalem and Bethlehem. I have a better idea of what an
omer or a firkin might be. I understand why the soldiers cast lots for
the robe of Jesus. I knew none of the details when I had been saved
for two moths. At two months I was a baby Christian but I was soaking
up the word as fast as my ability would allow me. Everything was new
and everything was tremendously exciting. I was born again, on a new
adventure, a wholly new way of life.

Twenty-four years ago it was a roller coaster ride, Jesus and me.
Whee! yahoo! Whatever you say on a roller coaster ride.

Now it is a pleasant walk in the woods, yet in no way less satisfying
than the roller coaster. I am learning less rapidly now because I have
already learned the basics and there is less left to learn. I have
finished the burger and am slowly eating the fries that came with it. 

Do I know more now? Most certainly. Did I know enough then? You bet.
Was one better than the other? I honestly do not know. I have not
tried a comparison. Both were and are wonderful.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Terry wrote:
 Twenty-four years ago it was a roller coaster
 ride, Jesus and me.  Whee! yahoo!

LOL.  Yeah, I hear ya.  :-)

Terry wrote:
 Did I know enough then?  You bet.
 Was one better than the other?
 I honestly do not know.

Certainly you would now have more knowledge, but that is not the same thing 
as understanding the intent of the author of Scripture.  For example, when 
you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you really understand the meaning that the 
Holy Spirit means to convey to you any better now than when you first read 
it?  Maybe you know the passage by heart now, by memory, but is the meaning 
meant to be conveyed to you by the Holy Spirit only unlocked after you give 
yourself to industrious study over years of time?  I think not.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)





David Miller wrote:

  Terry wrote:
  
  
Twenty-four years ago it was a roller coaster
ride, Jesus and me.  Whee! yahoo!

  
  
LOL.  Yeah, I hear ya.  :-)

Terry wrote:
  
  
Did I know enough then?  You bet.
Was one better than the other?
I honestly do not know.

  
  
Certainly you would now have more knowledge, but that is not the same thing 
as understanding the intent of the author of Scripture.  For example, when 
you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you really understand the meaning that the 
Holy Spirit means to convey to you any better now than when you first read 
it?  Maybe you know the passage by heart now, by memory, but is the meaning 
meant to be conveyed to you by the Holy Spirit only unlocked after you give 
yourself to industrious study over years of time?  I think not.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

  

==
In my opinion, you think correctly.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

2005-07-14 Thread ttxpress





now i see clearly 
that conceitplagues legalists while 'against such things [as 
self-control]there [really]is no law.'

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:20 -0400 "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:||

when you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you 
really understand the meaning ..any better now than when youfirst 
readit?

||

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Good points, here for Terry. In addition, it seems to me that David is separating biblical knowing via the Holy Spirit from the maturing process. That is not how I read Heb 5:11 - 6:1ff. Christine will view many thing very differently as her walk progresses -- we have all shared in the same process of spiritual growth

JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:42:13 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

David Miller wrote:
Terry wrote:

I make a simple statement that there is not enough
information to tell who would be the the most accurate
interpreter of scriptures or the most mature believer
between Bill, who I have never met, and a Russian,
who I have never heard of. That is hardly placing one
of you in Hell and the other outside the body of the
Church. If that comment is less than honest, explain
to me where I would have gotten the information needed
to reach the same conclusion as Lance.
I found nothing dishonest in what you wrote, Terry. I was amazed that your
post was interpreted the way it was. There was definitely a problem in
reading you.

You mention something in this post that is somewhat interesting. You
mention both "accurate interpreter of scriptures" and "most mature
believer." Do you think these are related? Are more mature believers more
accurate interpreters of Scripture? =This is going to be hard to put into words, David. I hope it comes through as intended and that anyone can understand.I now have more information stored in my feeble mind than I had twenty-four years ago. I know the geographic relationship between Jericho and Jerusalem and Bethlehem. I have a better idea of what an omer or a firkin might be. I understand why the soldiers cast lots for the robe of Jesus. I knew none of the details when I had been saved for two moths. At two months I was a baby Christian but I was soaking up the word as fast as my ability would allow me. Everything was new and everything was tremendously exciting. I was born again, on a new adventure, a wholly new way of life.Twenty-four years ago it was a roller coaster ride, Jesus and me. Whee! yahoo! Whatever you say on a roller
coaster ride.Now it is a pleasant walk in the woods, yet in no way less satisfying than the roller coaster. I am learning less rapidly now because I have already learned the basics and there is less left to learn. I have finished the burger and am slowly eating the fries that came with it. Do I know more now? Most certainly. Did I know enough then? You bet. Was one better than the other? I honestly do not know. I have not tried a comparison. Both were and are wonderful.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

2005-07-14 Thread ttxpress




..no 
doubtJude's ad hominemis born ofperfect 
self-control

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  now i see clearly 
  that conceitplagues legalists while 'against such things [as 
  self-control]there [really]is no law.'
  
  On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:20 -0400 "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:||
  
  when you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you 
  really understand the meaning ..any better now than when 
  youfirst readit?
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

I find much of this rather preposterous. What you seem to be saying, David, is that a single, thoughtful, prayerful "Spirit guided" reading of the Bible will produce a full and complete understanding of the intent of the various writers. The absurdity of this conclusion (and I mean this in a kind way) should present the intrinsic error in such a conclusion.

JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:20 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Terry wrote:
Twenty-four years ago it was a roller coaster
ride, Jesus and me. Whee! yahoo!

LOL. Yeah, I hear ya. :-)

Terry wrote:
Did I know enough then? You bet.
Was one better than the other?
I honestly do not know.

Certainly you would now have more knowledge, but that is not the same thing
as understanding the intent of the author of Scripture. For example, when
you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you really understand the meaning that the
Holy Spirit means to convey to you any better now than when you first read
it? Maybe you know the passage by heart now, by memory, but is the meaning
meant to be conveyed to you by the Holy Spirit only unlocked after you give
yourself to industrious study over years of time? I think not.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

2005-07-14 Thread ttxpress




..'Against such 
things there is no law.'

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:00:01 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..no 
  doubtJude's ad hominemis born ofperfect 
  self-control
  
  On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

now i see 
clearly that conceitplagues legalists while 
'against such things [as self-control]there [really]is no 
law.'

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:20 -0400 "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:||

when you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you 
really understand the meaning ..any better now than when 
youfirst readit?

||

RE: [TruthTalk] David Miller acknowledges a lack of Scriptural iunderstanding- -

2005-07-14 Thread Charles Perry Locke


From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Question to the co-moderators: Argumentum ad Hominem is one of the 
fallacies in the study of logic. Perhaps it has no place on TT.


  That is like saying a shovel has no place in digging a hole. The hole is 
the object...the shovel only enhances our ability to dig one. Like the 
shovel, logic is a tool we can use to enhance our ability to understand 
doctrine and explain it to others. Logic does not affect the doctrines we 
discuss...it sets the ground rules for how we discuss doctrine.


 Why not, for Judy's sake if for no other, switch to the Scriptures as a 
guideline for conduct on TT? Surely we esteem the 'truth of Scripture' over 
the 'truth of logic'? If we're gonna criticize the employment of theology 
as a legitimate discipline we must conclude, logically of course, that this 
atheistically rooted discipline must not serve to govern us.


  No, we do not esteem the 'truth of scripture' over the 'truth of logic', 
because they are not opposing...they co-exist without either interfering 
with the other. We can esteem the truth of both at the same time, thus, 
using reason to understand end explain scripture.


  It is the very fact that logic is a-theistic, that is, does not define a 
theology, that we can use it in dicsussing theology. It will not interfere 
with the theology we are discussing.


  Instead of using the formal term ad-hominem, the TT guidelines could 
just as easily have stated, Do not introduce arguments that appeal to the 
characteristics, beliefs, or biases of any individual. Argue only the facts 
of your and the opposing postitions.


I have every confidence that David  Perry will take this matter under 
advisement as I perceive the 'L-word' to be far more reprehensible than the 
'D-word'.


I do not understand waht the L and D words are.

Perry


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


I love it  When Mr. G is being ignored, conversation abounds nonetheless !!! 


JD-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:45:59 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess  On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)



..'Against such things there is no law.'

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:00:01 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..no doubtJude's ad hominemis born ofperfect self-control

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


now i see clearly that conceitplagues legalists while 'against such things [as self-control]there [really]is no law.'

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:20 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:||

when you read Galatians 5:22-23, do you really understand the meaning ..any better now than when youfirst readit?

||

[TruthTalk] TruthTalk _____________ tripping out -------------------------