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









I love the Puritans, Kevin!  Can you
recommend any good books on the subject?  Guess who was the first published
American poet? Anne Bradstreet, a Puritan woman.  I love her poem about her husband. 
Izzy

 




 
  
  "To
  My Dear and Loving Husband"
  by
  Anne
  Bradstreet  
  
 
 
  
  If ever two were
  one, then surely we. 
  If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;  
  If ever wife was happy in a man,  
  Compare with me, ye women, if you can. 
  I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold  
  Or all the riches that the East doth hold. 
  My love is such that rivers cannot quench, 
  Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense. 
  Thy love is such I can no way repay, 
  The heavens reward thee manifold, I
  pray.  
  Then while we live, in love let's so persevere
  
  That when we live no more, we may live ever.
  
 




 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 2:12
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On
playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for
'A' living)



 



CHRISTMAS EVANS, who was
born to this earth on Christmas Day 1766, and after seventeen years in his poor
home could neither read nor write. What
good could such an ignorant lad do in this wise world? Very
little, but for the grace of God, which grace was ministered unto him
abundantly in Jesus Christ. He was converted to God soon after his seventeenth
birthday, and later was ordained as a Baptist missionary in Wales. Coming
into "the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ," he
laboured in such apostolic power, and was owned of God in the salvation of
souls and the formation of local churches so marvellously that men called him
"The Apostle of Wales." His preaching was in such demonstration of
the Spirit and of power that Paxton Hood said, "His are very great sermons;
the present writer is almost disposed to be bold enough to describe them as the
greatest Gospel sermons of the last 100' years."





 





CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON has been
universally granted the title of "THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS." Writers
of all Christian denominations arise to call him "Blessed"! Coming to
London in 1854,
he took the city by storm. Thousands flocked to hear him, and multitudes
remained to receive the Saviour. In spite of a veritable bombardment of abuse
from the platform, pulpit, press and post, he pressed on with the great
Evangel, and at one time he preached to 12,000 persons in the immense building
called the "Royal
 Surrey Gardens."
"No preacher since Wesley," said Dr. Carlisle, "had faced such
an audience." Then came tragedy. There Was a false alarm of fire, and
panic broke out in one of his meetings. Seven people were killed and many
injured.

Surely
this will sound the death-knell of his London
ministry! Not so. In a few months he is drawing the same marvellous
congregations and, ere long, he has erected his own great Metropolitan
Tabernacle, where, for thirty years he preached the Gospel of the grace of God
to a regular congregation of 5,000 people, and could humbly testify that he
believed every seat in that vast building had witnessed a conversion to God. In
1890, just before his death, he asked this question, "How many thousands
have been converted here?". Then, replying to his own question, he said,
"There has not been a single day but what I have heard of two, three or
four, having been converted and that not for one, two or three years, but for
the last ten years." Surely an unmatched testimony to the power of the
Gospel.

Yes, it
was Spurgeon's preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, that
challenged London and the English- speaking world, and forced all to admit it
was "the power of God unto salvation." At his death he had a
membership of well over 5,000 people in the Tabernacle, which, according to Dr.
Carlisle, was the largest membership of any English- speaking church in the
world, at that time.

What
was the secret of this country boy's triumph? Not outstanding scholarship, --
he never passed through a theological college or university. Not academic
distinctions, -- he refused all degrees and diplomas. Not playing to the
gallery of popular opinion, -- he was a Puritan of the Puritans.

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/ridley/jrwho1.htm



ShieldsFamily
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus said,
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden
these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 

 

-Original Message-
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, perhap

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

2005-07-15 Thread knpraise

I have no idea how you came away with a "game show " fantasy!!!   And to think that you thought Bill over reacted !!!  It was a compliment to Terry.

Your questioning about a Phd and bibilical understanding  -   I would thinkwe are all in agreement on that one.   And answer would be a redundancy.  

so, a thoughtful, prayerful, "Spirit guided" reading of the Bible from cover to cover will present one with all the understanding of the biblical text in regards to "intent" as one could hope for?   Is that correct??

JD

  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:50:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

John wrote:
> Good points, here for Terry.

Good points?  Please try not to treat TruthTalk like some kind of game show. 
I am not in competition with Terry and he is not in competition with me.  He 
is my elder in the Lord whom I respect and learn from.

John wrote:
> In addition, it seems to me that David is separating
> biblical knowing via the Holy Spirit from the maturing
> process.

Yes, that is it.

John wrote:
> That is not how I read Heb 5:11 - 6:1ff.

Well, now, very good point!  Excellent passage to consider for this topic. 
Maturity does make one able to receive knowledge that he previously would 
not have been able to do.  Another passage that supports your point here is 
John 16:12, which then would lead us to an understanding that Biblical 
knowing via the Holy Spirit is an even more effective teacher than having 
Jesus in the flesh as your personal tutor.

John wrote:
> Christine will view many thing very differently as
> her walk progresses  --  we have all shared in the
> same process of spiritual growth

Amen, John.  This is truth.  You illustrate that there are many sides to 
consider in this multifaceted topic.

Can I ask another related question?  Does a person require a Ph.D. in order 
to understand the Bible?  Does a person with a Ph.D. have a better 
understanding of the Holy Spirit's intent in Scripture than a person with 
only a high school diploma?  I know Terry might say he needs more 
information to answer this question, but maybe you can answer it?

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)

2005-07-15 Thread Lance Muir




Others included along with Evans are: Billy Bray, 
Holy Anne, the Irish Saint, AWTozer, Tom Hair, the praying plumber, Praying Hyde 
of India

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 15, 2005 16:11
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
  & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)
  
  CHRISTMAS EVANS, who was born to this earth on Christmas 
  Day 1766, and after seventeen years in his poor home could neither read nor 
  write. What good could such an ignorant lad do in this wise 
  world? Very little, but for the grace of God, which grace was ministered unto 
  him abundantly in Jesus Christ. He was converted to God soon after his 
  seventeenth birthday, and later was ordained as a Baptist missionary in Wales. 
  Coming into "the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ," he 
  laboured in such apostolic power, and was owned of God in the salvation of 
  souls and the formation of local churches so marvellously that men called him 
  "The Apostle of Wales." His preaching was in such demonstration of the Spirit 
  and of power that Paxton Hood said, "His are very great sermons; the present 
  writer is almost disposed to be bold enough to describe them as the greatest 
  Gospel sermons of the last 100' years."
   
  
  CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON has been universally granted the title of 
  "THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS." Writers of all Christian denominations arise to 
  call him "Blessed"! Coming to London in 1854, he took the city by storm. 
  Thousands flocked to hear him, and multitudes remained to receive the Saviour. 
  In spite of a veritable bombardment of abuse from the platform, pulpit, press 
  and post, he pressed on with the great Evangel, and at one time he preached to 
  12,000 persons in the immense building called the "Royal Surrey Gardens." "No 
  preacher since Wesley," said Dr. Carlisle, "had faced such an audience." Then 
  came tragedy. There Was a false alarm of fire, and panic broke out in one of 
  his meetings. Seven people were killed and many injured.
  Surely this will sound the death-knell of his London ministry! Not so. In a 
  few months he is drawing the same marvellous congregations and, ere long, he 
  has erected his own great Metropolitan Tabernacle, where, for thirty years he 
  preached the Gospel of the grace of God to a regular congregation of 5,000 
  people, and could humbly testify that he believed every seat in that vast 
  building had witnessed a conversion to God. In 1890, just before his death, he 
  asked this question, "How many thousands have been converted here?". Then, 
  replying to his own question, he said, "There has not been a single day but 
  what I have heard of two, three or four, having been converted and that not 
  for one, two or three years, but for the last ten years." Surely an unmatched 
  testimony to the power of the Gospel.
  Yes, it was Spurgeon's preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Holy 
  Spirit, that challenged London and the English- speaking world, and forced all 
  to admit it was "the power of God unto salvation." At his death he had a 
  membership of well over 5,000 people in the Tabernacle, which, according to 
  Dr. Carlisle, was the largest membership of any English- speaking church in 
  the world, at that time.
  What was the secret of this country boy's triumph? Not outstanding 
  scholarship, -- he never passed through a theological college or university. 
  Not academic distinctions, -- he refused all degrees and diplomas. Not playing 
  to the gallery of popular opinion, -- he was a Puritan of the 
  Puritans.
  http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/ridley/jrwho1.htm
  ShieldsFamily 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  






Matthew 
11:25
At that time Jesus 
said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You 
have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have 
revealed them to infants. 
  
-Original Message-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

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

2005-07-15 Thread Kevin Deegan

CHRISTMAS EVANS, who was born to this earth on Christmas Day 1766, and after seventeen years in his poor home could neither read nor write. What good could such an ignorant lad do in this wise world? Very little, but for the grace of God, which grace was ministered unto him abundantly in Jesus Christ. He was converted to God soon after his seventeenth birthday, and later was ordained as a Baptist missionary in Wales. Coming into "the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ," he laboured in such apostolic power, and was owned of God in the salvation of souls and the formation of local churches so marvellously that men called him "The Apostle of Wales." His preaching was in such demonstration of the Spirit and of power that Paxton Hood said, "His are very great sermons; the present writer is almost disposed to be bold enough to describe them as the greatest Gospel sermons of the last 100' years."

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON has been universally granted the title of "THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS." Writers of all Christian denominations arise to call him "Blessed"! Coming to London in 1854, he took the city by storm. Thousands flocked to hear him, and multitudes remained to receive the Saviour. In spite of a veritable bombardment of abuse from the platform, pulpit, press and post, he pressed on with the great Evangel, and at one time he preached to 12,000 persons in the immense building called the "Royal Surrey Gardens." "No preacher since Wesley," said Dr. Carlisle, "had faced such an audience." Then came tragedy. There Was a false alarm of fire, and panic broke out in one of his meetings. Seven people were killed and many injured.
Surely this will sound the death-knell of his London ministry! Not so. In a few months he is drawing the same marvellous congregations and, ere long, he has erected his own great Metropolitan Tabernacle, where, for thirty years he preached the Gospel of the grace of God to a regular congregation of 5,000 people, and could humbly testify that he believed every seat in that vast building had witnessed a conversion to God. In 1890, just before his death, he asked this question, "How many thousands have been converted here?". Then, replying to his own question, he said, "There has not been a single day but what I have heard of two, three or four, having been converted and that not for one, two or three years, but for the last ten years." Surely an unmatched testimony to the power of the Gospel.
Yes, it was Spurgeon's preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, that challenged London and the English- speaking world, and forced all to admit it was "the power of God unto salvation." At his death he had a membership of well over 5,000 people in the Tabernacle, which, according to Dr. Carlisle, was the largest membership of any English- speaking church in the world, at that time.
What was the secret of this country boy's triumph? Not outstanding scholarship, -- he never passed through a theological college or university. Not academic distinctions, -- he refused all degrees and diplomas. Not playing to the gallery of popular opinion, -- he was a Puritan of the Puritans.
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/ridley/jrwho1.htm
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
-Original Message-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. __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)

2005-07-15 Thread ttxpress





this is 
crucial NT theology, that the Ap Paul's ppl embracing the 
'self-control'ed character of (e.g.) Jude, have no obligation to go by 
Torah
 
in general, as he 
teaches, '..if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under 
law.'
 
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:52:34 -0400 "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:>> ..'Against such things there is no 
law.'
>The Torah does not condemn 
us.

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









Are you being condescending, Bill? If not,
I do not understand the meaning of your statement about DM, as it sounds to me
like just another insult. Surely that is not what you intended to convey.  What
do you mean by “just the way you are”?  Is that IYO a good thing? You
make it sound like such a terrible liability. Just wondering, Izzy

 

-Original Message-

 

I think your answers

are indicative of you, just the way you are -- and I need to accept
that.

Bill

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

2005-07-15 Thread Judy Taylor

I agree - and a study of what it means to be in 
"relationship" with diety would be a good thing.
Because some seem obsessed with the concept.  Last 
night I saw the notorious Jessica Hahn on
with Larry King live and was apalled to see what her 
life has become. However, even she claims a
"relationship" with God while ATST claiming Playboy and 
Hugh Hefner as her best friends and
saying she would be glad to do another nude 
layout.  She is obviously being led by sensuality
and has totally rejected the faith of her mother who 
went to an early grave following the scandal.
judyt

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:23:47 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Well said and, good supporting 
  illustrations.

From: ShieldsFamily 

Bill's point is valid IMO in the same 
way we can often have intensely personal encounters with a stranger sitting 
next to us on an airplane trip, because we know we will never see each other 
again.  Therefore there is no threat in being perfectly honest and 
open.  Have you ever had encounters like that? Like the man who told me 
that he was thinking of divorcing his wife, and I encouraged him against it. 
Like the teenaged who was going to visit her mother for the summer and I 
encouraged her to give her life to the Lord completely. Like the woman going 
to visit her son and daughter in law who were expecting a baby any day and 
the same time I was going to see mine for the same reason and we became good 
friends, and still keep contact. (Woops--we didn't remain anonymous there!) 

I think TT offers such anonymity and 
intimacy at the same time.  We know each other only insofar as we 
choose to portray and expose ourselves here--knowing that we will most 
likely never meet most of those to whom we are revealing ourselves.  
But unfortunately I don't remember everything I have read about everyone, 
and often miss some things I'm sure. izzy

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of David 
MillerSent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AMTo: 
    TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 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.

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

2005-07-15 Thread Lance Muir

Well said and, good supporting 
illustrations.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: July 15, 2005 12:17
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
  & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)

  Bill's point is valid IMO in the same way 
  we can often have intensely personal encounters with a stranger sitting next 
  to us on an airplane trip, because we know we will never see each other 
  again.  Therefore there is no threat in being perfectly honest and 
  open.  Have you ever had encounters like that? Like the man who told me 
  that he was thinking of divorcing his wife, and I encouraged him against it. 
  Like the teenaged who was going to visit her mother for the summer and I 
  encouraged her to give her life to the Lord completely. Like the woman going 
  to visit her son and daughter in law who were expecting a baby any day and the 
  same time I was going to see mine for the same reason and we became good 
  friends, and still keep contact. (Woops--we didn't remain anonymous there!) 

  I think TT offers such anonymity and 
  intimacy at the same time.  We know each other only insofar as we choose 
  to portray and expose ourselves here--knowing that we will most likely never 
  meet most of those to whom we are revealing ourselves.  But unfortunately 
  I don't remember everything I have read about everyone, and often miss some 
  things I'm sure. izzy

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of David MillerSent: 
  Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 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.

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

Bill's point is valid IMO in the same way
we can often have intensely personal encounters with a stranger sitting next to
us on an airplane trip, because we know we will never see each other
again.  Therefore there is no threat in being perfectly honest and
open.  Have you ever had encounters like that? Like the man who told me
that he was thinking of divorcing his wife, and I encouraged him against it.
Like the teenaged who was going to visit her mother for the summer and I encouraged
her to give her life to the Lord completely. Like the woman going to visit her
son and daughter in law who were expecting a baby any day and the same time I
was going to see mine for the same reason and we became good friends, and still
keep contact. (Woops--we didn't remain anonymous there!) 

I think TT offers such anonymity and
intimacy at the same time.  We know each other only insofar as we choose
to portray and expose ourselves here--knowing that we will most likely never
meet most of those to whom we are revealing ourselves.  But unfortunately
I don't remember everything I have read about everyone, and often miss some
things I'm sure. izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:37 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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.

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









Or it could be that Terry, like some of
the rest of us, doesn’t read all of everyone’s posts.  I tend to
ignore mormon-related posts and those that are lengthy about other subjects
that don’t interest me (like perichoresis).  izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005
10:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: 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 my worst. 





 





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





 





With all of this background at his disposal,
Terry claimed 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 as an 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 dedication and study, 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 a Bible. To say that he didn't have
enough information, I thought, was a major put 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 claims his yes does mean yes and his no means no,
and he claims his "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
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.





 





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)









I don’t object to anyone evaluating
the motives of others.  I do, however, object to constant sniping, taking
offense where there was none intended, nasty insinuations and assuming the
worst of others.  Very ungodly.  I’m gone for a few days and return to a
snakepit.  iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:49
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On
playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for
'A' living)



 



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)





 





- Original Message - 







From: Judy Taylor






To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: July 14, 2005
10:37





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 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.)






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
you
trying
> 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 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.  I

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









Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus said,
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven 

and earth, that You have
hidden these things from the wise and 

intelligent and have
revealed them to infants. 

 

 

-Original Message-
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.

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









Exactly right jt—being scorned by so
many about righteousness is a sure sign of DM’s walking in the Spirit. 
iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:18
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: 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 fail
to 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 person doing
his best to 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)

I do believe that I Cor 13 exhorts us to take a Believer at his word, does
it not? How else would love behave? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:55 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: 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: 
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)

2005-07-15 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
> Good points, here for Terry.

Good points?  Please try not to treat TruthTalk like some kind of game show. 
I am not in competition with Terry and he is not in competition with me.  He 
is my elder in the Lord whom I respect and learn from.

John wrote:
> In addition, it seems to me that David is separating
> biblical knowing via the Holy Spirit from the maturing
> process.

Yes, that is it.

John wrote:
> That is not how I read Heb 5:11 - 6:1ff.

Well, now, very good point!  Excellent passage to consider for this topic. 
Maturity does make one able to receive knowledge that he previously would 
not have been able to do.  Another passage that supports your point here is 
John 16:12, which then would lead us to an understanding that Biblical 
knowing via the Holy Spirit is an even more effective teacher than having 
Jesus in the flesh as your personal tutor.

John wrote:
> Christine will view many thing very differently as
> her walk progresses  --  we have all shared in the
> same process of spiritual growth

Amen, John.  This is truth.  You illustrate that there are many sides to 
consider in this multifaceted topic.

Can I ask another related question?  Does a person require a Ph.D. in order 
to understand the Bible?  Does a person with a Ph.D. have a better 
understanding of the Holy Spirit's intent in Scripture than a person with 
only a high school diploma?  I know Terry might say he needs more 
information to answer this question, but maybe you can answer it?

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)

2005-07-15 Thread David Miller

Gary wrote:
> ..'Against such things there is no law.'

Excellent point, Gary.  When we walk in the Spirit and manifest the fruit of 
the Spirit in all we think, say, and do, there is no law that would condemn 
us.  The Torah does not condemn us.  Someone might try and twist the Torah 
to make it condemn us, like they did with Jesus, accusing him falsely of 
blasphemy, but the law itself does not condemn us.  Why?  Because we are not 
violating it.

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 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 doubt Jude's ad hominem is born of perfect self-control
 
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


now i see clearly that conceit plagues 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 you first read it? 
 
 ||

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 
  doubt Jude's ad hominem is born of perfect 
  self-control
   
  On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

now i see 
clearly that conceit plagues 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 
you first read it? 
 
 ||

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

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 ttxpress




..no 
doubt Jude's ad hominem is born of perfect 
self-control
 
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:42:14 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  now i see clearly 
  that conceit plagues 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 
  you first read it? 
   
   ||

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.net>To: 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





now i see clearly 
that conceit plagues 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 you first 
read it? 
 
 ||

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

2005-07-14 Thread Terry Clifton





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)

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)

2005-07-14 Thread Terry Clifton





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)

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] 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: 
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: 
> 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

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: 
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 h

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)

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 needs a 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.

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)

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: 
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: 
> 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)




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. How are 
  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 
  consider him a 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 my worst. 
   
  And in turn, I have had these same opportunities 
  with each of you.
   
  With all of this background at his disposal, 
  Terry claimed 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 as an 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 
  dedication and study, 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 a Bible. To say that he didn't have 
  enough information, I thought, was a major put 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 claims his yes does mean yes and his no means no, and 
  he claims his "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 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.
   
  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 busines

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: 
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)

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.

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 I misunderstood.  
  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 opinions concerning the 
  discussions of others, and it is alright for 
  David to interject his opinions concerning the 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>> 
I

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 my worst.
And in turn, I have had these same opportunities
with each of you.
With all of this background at his disposal,
Terry claimed 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 as an 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
dedication and study, 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 a Bible. To say that he didn't have
enough information, I thought, was a major put 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 claims his yes does mean yes and his no means no, and
he claims his "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 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.
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)

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)

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: 
> 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: 
> > > 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 PRO

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

2005-07-14 Thread Judy Taylor




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

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 opinions concerning the discussions of others, and it is alright for David to interject his opinions concerning the 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

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)


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)

(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)

Good enough.

- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
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)




So that we all understand this: It is alright for 
Judy to interject her opinions concerning the discussions of others, and it 
is alright for David to interject his opinions concerning the 
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 rec

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




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)
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 14, 2005 10:37
  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 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:
> 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.

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: 
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: 
> > 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: 
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > &g

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: 
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: 
> 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)

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)

2005-07-14 Thread Judy Taylor





 
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 person doing his best to 
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)

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: 
> 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: 
> > > 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

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: 
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)

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: 
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)

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: 
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)

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)

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: 
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: 
> > 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.

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

2005-07-13 Thread ShieldsFamily

















From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005
7:48 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On
playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for
'A' living)



 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 







Style, content or
both?   Or did you just get up on the wrong side of the bed this
afternoon?





 





JD 



==





I was
not thinking either style or content, John.  I was thinking more on the
order of "Who needs to spell check?  Full speed ahead!"

Been out of bed since before sun up and am maintaining the same usual lovable
attitude that has endeared me to millions.  Well, maybe not quite
millions.  Pick a number.
Terry

 

How about to the ones that count, Terry? J iz

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

2005-07-13 Thread ShieldsFamily









Maybe Terry just forgot that your typing
is affected by the no fingers thingy, JD. How’s the knee? iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005
7:04 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On
playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for
'A' living)



 







Style, content or both?   Or did you just get up
on the wrong side of the bed this afternoon?





 





JD 



 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:08:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)



[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 







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





 





JD 



=





That you do, JD.  I can
confirm that your reading is much better than your writing.  (The evidence
is overwhelming)  :)
Terry

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





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Style, content or both?   Or did you just get up on the wrong
side of the bed this afternoon?
   
  JD 
==
  

I was not thinking either style or content, John.  I was thinking more
on the order of "Who needs to spell check?  Full speed ahead!"

Been out of bed since before sun up and am maintaining the same usual
lovable attitude that has endeared me to millions.  Well, maybe not
quite millions.  Pick a number.
Terry

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


Style, content or both?   Or did you just get up on the wrong side of the bed this afternoon?
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:08:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



And that, dear sir, was not your point !!   You often forget that I know how to read.  
 
JD =That you do, JD.  I can confirm that your reading is much better than your writing.  (The evidence is overwhelming)  :)Terry

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





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Actually, at this point in my post,  I was not
referencing either you  or Bill. I was dealing with
something that Judy had written.   I do think we have made our several
points and associated insults  --  time to move on.   
   
   
  JD 

  
  
  

I agree
Terry

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


Actually, at this point in my post,  I was not referencing either you  or Bill. I was dealing with something that Judy had written.   I do think we have made our several points and associated insults  --  time to move on.   
 
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:06:00 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



No figment here.   I know when I have been placed in hell and when I have not.  And I know when a brother has been placed outside the realm of the Spirit and when he has not  --   if I can't figure that out --  we should  just stop writing altogether.  ==First Bill, then you.  Is paranoia catching? 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.Terry<
/HTML>

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





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  No figment here.   I know when I have been placed in hell and
when I have not.  And I know when a brother has been placed outside the
realm of the Spirit and when he has not  --   if I can't figure that
out --  we should  just stop writing altogether.  
  
  
  

==
First Bill, then you.  Is paranoia catching? 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.
Terry

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





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  And that, dear sir, was not your point !!   You often forget
that I know how to read.  
   
  JD 
=
  

That you do, JD.  I can confirm that your reading is much better than
your writing.  (The evidence is overwhelming)  :)
Terry

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


No figment here.   I know when I have been placed in hell and when I have not.  And I know when a brother has been placed outside the realm of the Spirit and when he has not  --   if I can't figure that out --  we should  just stop writing altogether.   By the way, Judy  --   I am not including you  in any of this most recent situation.   And, I am ready to move on.   What I have learned from his is that there are some who think they must know those on this forum in a personal way (apparently) before they can venture a guess as to whether they are in or out, as if they could ever KNOW  this.   When I give anyone credit as being a disciple,  it is not my judgment that they are definitely "in."  It is only an acknowledgement of their claim to be a Christian.   
 
 
JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:59:27 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)



I didn't see what Terry wrote as bad behavior; I saw it as him making an honest statement.
If Bill felt "excluded from the faith" by that, then he obviously needs some foundational work
I didn't read any assumption from DM dither  - but then that was possibly another figment
since he is normally quite careful about these things.  If the judgmental assumptions are a 
figment of yours or Bills imaginations - then where does that leave you?  The victim of 
"accusing spirits" who speak to all of us all of the time, you must learn to recognize and 
resist them.  This is walking after the Spirit.   jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:49:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Of course not   --  but you do not ask the right question.  The question should be "Does bad behavior excuse bad behavior."  Those on the right fairly often make worded statements that exclude some on this forum from The Faith.   Such was the assumption  (probably unintentional)  from DM and the confirmation from Terry  (again, probably unintentional.)     I will excuse BT for getting upset at such judgmental assumptions.  Someone on this forum can place me squarely in the pit of hell and that is just fine  --   but if I think someone to be "nuts" well,  THAT IS NUTS.   JD    From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Does becoming upset excuse bad behavior JD?   Jesus told the sons of thunder they didn't know what
spirit they were of.jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:51:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy -- do you have any idea what was upsetting to Bill? JD 


From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck Bill
Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it loving.  jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:

Now this is totally uncalled for, ... jt
 
Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway.   
 
Bill


Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information it takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill

- Original Message ----- 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Lance Muir wrote: 



Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the outcome likely differ?
 
Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! ==Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry

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

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

JD  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:00:55 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

David Miller wrote:
>> Why don't we let Bill address the validity of this
>> assumption.  Bill, would it benefit your understanding
>> of Scripture in any way if Jesus sat down with
>> you and discussed these passages with you every day
>> for two months?

Bill wrote:
> He would probably say something like, "Have we
> been together so long and you still do not understand?"
> :>)

Ah, thanks for the answer.  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.

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)

2005-07-13 Thread Kevin Deegan

Is this exchange an example of discussing personal attributes?
What is the difference betwixt it & AD HOM?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do want to drop it! See my previous post. It's you, it's you, it's you ODave, standing in the need of prayer! (There's a kind of, pretend smiley, Ithink, David) May the flock be with you!But then, how could they not as you'd just judge them for their disagreementwith you (by extension once again, God) I'm so glad that God blessed youwith a wife and children who so readily 'fall in line'.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: July 13, 2005 12:58Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting theScriptures for living (not for 'A' living)> Lance wrote:> > He wants no part in what is rapidly becomiing> > a silly extension of an important point. Given that> > David cannot apprehend the point at hand,
 why> > don't we just press on to other matters?>> If you want to drop it, fine, but this is not a silly extension at all.It> goes to the heart of the matter.>> Lance wrote:> > Question to David:Where does this hypothetical question> > originate? Did Jesus ever 'sit down and mentor you for> > two months?' Don't change the wording.>> If you would answer my hypothetical question, I might consider answering> your questions. If you want to drop what you consider to be silly, goright> ahead. You, Bill, and some others always seem to do that just at themoment> when we get to the point that will clear up everything. You haveconvinced> me with your analogy that you experience and practice natural knowledgebut> you call it spiritual knowledge, hence the confusion in much of our> communication on TruthTalk.>> Peace be with
 you.> David Miller.>> --> "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.
		 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)

2005-07-13 Thread David Miller

David Miller wrote:
>> Why don't we let Bill address the validity of this
>> assumption.  Bill, would it benefit your understanding
>> of Scripture in any way if Jesus sat down with
>> you and discussed these passages with you every day
>> for two months?

Bill wrote:
> He would probably say something like, "Have we
> been together so long and you still do not understand?"
> :>)

Ah, thanks for the answer.  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.

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)




Like I said, Terry, I hope you sleep well tonight; 
I'm sure the air is heavy where you're at right now.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:59 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
  & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)
  Bill Taylor wrote: 
  



Terry 
writes  >  I think the question was probably designed to put 
you in the expert's seat and we were expected to verify that with our 
answer.
 
Well, you certainly did none of 
that. By the way, you are amazingly perceptive for a man who wrote with no 
forethought or intended malice. I hope you sleep well tonight. As for me, 
I'm quite willing to let your "yes" be yes and your "no," no. 

 
Bill==That 
  makes sense, Bill.  My yes does mean yes and my no means no.  My not 
  enough info to form a decision also means just what it says.  But how 
  could you know that?  You don't know me either.Probably a good thing 
  for both of us.Terry

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

2005-07-13 Thread Christine Miller

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: 
> 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.

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





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Terry
writes  >  I think the question was probably designed to put you in
the expert's seat and we were expected to verify that with our answer.
  
   
  Well, you certainly did none
of that. By the way, you are amazingly perceptive for a man who wrote
with no forethought or intended malice. I hope you sleep well tonight.
As for me, I'm quite willing to let your "yes" be yes and your "no,"
no. 
   
  Bill

==
That makes sense, Bill.  My yes does mean yes and my no means no.  My
not enough info to form a decision also means just what it says.  But
how could you know that?  You don't know me either.
Probably a good thing for both of us.
Terry

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

2005-07-13 Thread Judy Taylor




I didn't see what Terry wrote as bad behavior; I saw it 
as him making an honest statement.
If Bill felt "excluded from the faith" by that, then he 
obviously needs some foundational work
I didn't read any assumption from DM dither  - but 
then that was possibly another figment
since he is normally quite careful about these 
things.  If the judgmental assumptions are a 

figment of yours or Bills imaginations - then where 
does that leave you?  The victim of 

"accusing spirits" who speak to all of us all of the 
time, you must learn to recognize and 
resist them.  This is walking after the 
Spirit.   jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:49:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Of course not   --  but you do not ask the right 
  question.  The question should be "Does bad behavior excuse bad 
  behavior."  Those on the right fairly often make worded 
  statements that exclude some on this forum from The Faith.   Such 
  was the assumption  (probably unintentional)  from DM and the confirmation from Terry  (again, 
  probably unintentional.)     I will excuse BT for getting upset at such judgmental assumptions.  Someone on 
  this forum can place me squarely in the pit of hell and that is 
  just fine  --   but if I think someone to be "nuts" well,  
  THAT IS NUTS.   JD   
   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  Does becoming upset excuse bad behavior JD?   Jesus told the sons of thunder 
  they didn't know what
  spirit they were of.jt
   
  On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:51:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Judy -- do you have any idea what was upsetting to Bill? JD 
  

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck 
Bill
Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it 
loving.  jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:

  Now this is totally 
  uncalled for, ... jt
   
  Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always 
  claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, 
  Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not 
  to this pack anyway.   
   
  Bill
  

  Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
   
  Isn't it amazing how much less 
  information it takes to determine the jerks among 
us?
   
  We all get your point, Lance -- and it's 
  a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your 
  comparisons, not to this pack anyway. 
   
  By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on 
  these, or do they come naturally?  
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Terry Clifton 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 
        6:20 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On 
playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for 
living (not for 'A' living)
Lance Muir wrote: 


  Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of 
  instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three 
  extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, 
  Philippians 2 & Galatians 
  5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this 
  by suggesting that Kramnik was 
  actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the 
  outcome likely differ?
   
  Not tryin' ta be 
  clever TTers! 
==Hard 
to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
  man.Terry

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


Of course not   --  but you do not ask the right question.  The question should be "Does bad behavior excuse bad behavior."  Those on the right fairly often make worded statements that exclude some on this forum from The Faith.   Such was the assumption  (probably unintentional)  from DM and the confirmation from Terry  (again, probably unintentional.)     I will excuse BT for getting upset at such judgmental assumptions.  Someone on this forum can place me squarely in the pit of hell and that is just fine  --   but if I think someone to be "nuts" well,  THAT IS NUTS.   
 
 
JD    -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:13:21 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)



Does becoming upset excuse bad behavior JD?   Jesus told the sons of thunder they didn't know what
spirit they were of.jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:51:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy -- do you have any idea what was upsetting to Bill? JD 


 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck Bill
Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it loving.  jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:

Now this is totally uncalled for, ... jt
 
Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway.   
 
Bill


Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information it takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Lance Muir wrote: 



Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the outcome likely differ?
 
Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! ==Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry

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




Terry 
writes  >  I think the question was probably designed to put you in 
the expert's seat and we were expected to verify that with our 
answer.
 
Well, you certainly did none of that. By the 
way, you are amazingly perceptive for a man who wrote with no forethought or 
intended malice. I hope you sleep well tonight. As for me, I'm quite 
willing to let your "yes" be yes and your "no," no. 
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
  & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)
  Bill Taylor wrote: 
  

Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information it 
takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a 
valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not 
to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work and 
these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill==I 
  am not certain what you mean by "these", Bill. That was a simple fact stated 
  with no fore thought or intended malice.  I do not know you any better 
  than the Russian gentleman, nor do I know how much attention either of you 
  would pay to the guiding of the Spirit.  Because of a lack of 
  information, I cannot answer Lance's question any other way, though I think 
  the question was probably designed to put you in the expert's seat and we were 
  expected to verify that with our answer.Terry

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

2005-07-13 Thread Judy Taylor




Does becoming upset excuse bad behavior JD?   
Jesus told the sons of thunder they didn't know what
spirit they were of.jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:51:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy -- do you have any idea what was upsetting to 
Bill? JD 

  
   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck 
  Bill
  Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" 
  groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it loving.  
  jt
   
  On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Now this is totally 
uncalled for, ... jt
 
Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always 
claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, 
Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to 
this pack anyway.   
 
Bill

  
Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information 
it takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a 
valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, 
not to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on 
these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry 
  Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 
  6:20 AM
      Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On 
  playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living 
  (not for 'A' living)
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  


Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two 
months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or 
three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, 
Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more 
likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting 
that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the 
Bible). Would the outcome likely differ?
 
Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! 
==Hard 
  to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
  man.Terry

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





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either
man.
Terry
   
  Isn't it amazing how much less
information it takes to determine the jerks among us?
   
  We all get your point, Lance -- and
it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your
comparisons, not to this pack anyway. 
   
  By the way, Terry: Do you have to
work and these, or do they come naturally?  
   
  Bill

==
I am not certain what you mean by "these", Bill. That was a simple fact
stated with no fore thought or intended malice.  I do not know you any
better than the Russian gentleman, nor do I know how much attention
either of you would pay to the guiding of the Spirit.  Because of a
lack of information, I cannot answer Lance's question any other way,
though I think the question was probably designed to put you in the
expert's seat and we were expected to verify that with our answer.
Terry

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


Judy -- do you have any idea what was upsetting to Bill? 
 
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:06:59 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)



If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck Bill
Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it loving.  jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Now this is totally uncalled for, ... jt
 
Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway.   
 
Bill


Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information it takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)
Lance Muir wrote: 



Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). Would the outcome likely differ?
 
Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! ==Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either man.Terry

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

Jere 321:31-34 is NOT applicable to this discussion for it does not reference biblical interpretations. 

Jd  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:51:01 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

Lance wrote:
> Why not let God be the judge of what I can and
> cannot understand vis a vis the work of the Spirit
> in the life of the believer, David? Let me say again
> what I meant in other words: X is converted,
> filled/baptized/annointed with the Spirit. X will be
> speaking with David Miller on the aforementioned
> passages in two months time. David will have to
> mentor X on those passages as X will still be a novice.

I got it, Lance, but the truth is that if X truly is anointed with the 
Spirit, he would need no tutoring by me, Bill, or anybody else.  He will see 
the writer's intent just fine.  This is why the Scriptures say:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
(33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of 
Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall 
be my people.
(34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least 
of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their 
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Lance wrote:
> Now do you see why I use TT to illustrate my point?

I understand why you use TT to illustrate your point, but your false 
assumption is that everyone on TruthTalk is being taught by the Holy Spirit 
concerning Scripture.  If understanding the writer's intent in Scripture 
involves college or seminary or many years of study, then you would be 
right.  However, that is the natural way to understanding, not the spiritual 
way.  God speaks to us spiritually through Scripture.  This is exactly what 
Judy has been unsuccessfully trying to get you guys to see, but your 
education and confidence in your education hinders your ability to hear her.

Lance wrote:
> Obedience is an imperative for growth in understanding
> but obedience is no guarantee of growth in understanding,
> of God's Word. Have you not been witness to such on
> and off TT? I have.

John 7:16-17
(16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that 
sent me.
(17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it 
be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

You seem to assume that everyone on TT is obedient.  I think that to be a 
false assumption.  Many (most) on TT testify that they continue in sin and 
do not keep the commandments of Jesus.

You seem to assume that the longer one is a Christian and studies God's 
Word, the better he will understand the intent of the Holy Spirit concerning 
Scripture.  Such might sometimes be true for those who give ear to the 
scribes and professors of theology, but to the one who casts himself 
completely upon the Lord for understanding, it is not true.  A born again 
man who casts himself completely upon the Spirit of God for knowledge and 
wisdom might only be in such a state for only one month and know much better 
the intent of the author in Scripture than a professor who has studied it 
for 50 years.  I have observed this many times.  He might not know all the 
history, the Greek words underlying his translation, the etymology of words, 
the many debates that people have over what the passage might mean, or all 
the particular lingo used to talk about the subject, but he will hear and 
understand what the Holy Spirit meant to convey by inspiring what is 
written.

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)

And to think you got this way without drugs  !  I jest, of course.  

JD  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:29:50 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

John wrote:
> LOL David  !!   What do you mean "I don't
> think so" ?   IT'S LANCE'S POINT.  Surely
> he is the one who is best equipped to determine
> if you have correctly understood him.

No, John.  Communication is a two way street.  Lance is not hearing me very 
well today.  He does not understand what I am saying, so he does not realize 
that I got his point just fine.  He has said nothing to indicate that I have 
not heard him and understood him.  He has only demonstrated that he does not 
hear and understand me.  Have you noticed that he has refused to answer my 
simple question?

John wrote:
> YOU QUOTE LANCE AGAINST HIMSELF -
> a rather humorous maneuver, at best !!!

I have not quoted Lance against himself.  You are without understanding of 
what I have 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)

MY POINT IS THIS:   he already has and continues to do so!!    But you are the Prophet -- shouldn't you already know this?   I do.  

Jd -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:26:44 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

John wrote:
> In the following, you make the grand assumption
> that Bill Taylor has not benefited from the very
> same instruction :

Why don't we let Bill address the validity of this assumption.  Bill, would 
it benefit your understanding of Scripture in any way if Jesus sat down with 
you and discussed these passages with you every day for two months?

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)

2005-07-13 Thread Lance Muir

I do want to drop it! See my previous post. It's you, it's you, it's you O
Dave, standing in the need of prayer! (There's a kind of, pretend smiley, I
think, David) May the flock be with you!
But then, how could they not as you'd just judge them for their disagreement
with you (by extension once again, God) I'm so glad that God blessed you
with a wife and children who so readily 'fall in line'.

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: July 13, 2005 12:58
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


> Lance wrote:
> > He wants no part in what is rapidly becomiing
> > a silly extension of an important point. Given that
> > David cannot apprehend the point at hand, why
> > don't we just press on to other matters?
>
> If you want to drop it, fine, but this is not a silly extension at all.
It
> goes to the heart of the matter.
>
> Lance wrote:
> > Question to David:Where does this hypothetical question
> > originate? Did Jesus ever 'sit down and mentor you for
> > two months?' Don't change the wording.
>
> If you would answer my hypothetical question, I might consider answering
> your questions.  If you want to drop what you consider to be silly, go
right
> ahead.  You, Bill, and some others always seem to do that just at the
moment
> when we get to the point that will clear up everything.  You have
convinced
> me with your analogy that you experience and practice natural knowledge
but
> you call it spiritual knowledge, hence the confusion in much of our
> communication on TruthTalk.
>
> 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)

2005-07-13 Thread Lance Muir

David, David, David, David! Do I have your attention? Much more
important than that, does God have your attention on this matter? Your post
is rife with sloppy and errant thinking (naturally and spiritually). For a
logician of the first order, there are times when ya surely exhibit the
opposite.

This is just plain tedious. Of course you'd say what you said concerning Jt,
she tends to agree with you and, in so doing, with God, of course. I believe
I'll just say 'point, set, match' to David Miller by default.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: July 13, 2005 12:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the
Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)


> Lance wrote:
> > Why not let God be the judge of what I can and
> > cannot understand vis a vis the work of the Spirit
> > in the life of the believer, David? Let me say again
> > what I meant in other words: X is converted,
> > filled/baptized/annointed with the Spirit. X will be
> > speaking with David Miller on the aforementioned
> > passages in two months time. David will have to
> > mentor X on those passages as X will still be a novice.
>
> I got it, Lance, but the truth is that if X truly is anointed with the
> Spirit, he would need no tutoring by me, Bill, or anybody else.  He will
see
> the writer's intent just fine.  This is why the Scriptures say:
>
> Jeremiah 31:33-34
> (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
> Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward
> parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall
> be my people.
> (34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man
his
> brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least
> of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive
their
> iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
>
> Lance wrote:
> > Now do you see why I use TT to illustrate my point?
>
> I understand why you use TT to illustrate your point, but your false
> assumption is that everyone on TruthTalk is being taught by the Holy
Spirit
> concerning Scripture.  If understanding the writer's intent in Scripture
> involves college or seminary or many years of study, then you would be
> right.  However, that is the natural way to understanding, not the
spiritual
> way.  God speaks to us spiritually through Scripture.  This is exactly
what
> Judy has been unsuccessfully trying to get you guys to see, but your
> education and confidence in your education hinders your ability to hear
her.
>
> Lance wrote:
> > Obedience is an imperative for growth in understanding
> > but obedience is no guarantee of growth in understanding,
> > of God's Word. Have you not been witness to such on
> > and off TT? I have.
>
> John 7:16-17
> (16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that
> sent me.
> (17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether
it
> be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
>
> You seem to assume that everyone on TT is obedient.  I think that to be a
> false assumption.  Many (most) on TT testify that they continue in sin and
> do not keep the commandments of Jesus.
>
> You seem to assume that the longer one is a Christian and studies God's
> Word, the better he will understand the intent of the Holy Spirit
concerning
> Scripture.  Such might sometimes be true for those who give ear to the
> scribes and professors of theology, but to the one who casts himself
> completely upon the Lord for understanding, it is not true.  A born again
> man who casts himself completely upon the Spirit of God for knowledge and
> wisdom might only be in such a state for only one month and know much
better
> the intent of the author in Scripture than a professor who has studied it
> for 50 years.  I have observed this many times.  He might not know all the
> history, the Greek words underlying his translation, the etymology of
words,
> the many debates that people have over what the passage might mean, or all
> the particular lingo used to talk about the subject, but he will hear and
> understand what the Holy Spirit meant to convey by inspiring what is
> written.
>
> 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 hi

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

2005-07-13 Thread Judy Taylor




If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck 
Bill
Calling everyone but your little "perichoresis" 
groupies a pack and/or jerk is neither kind nor is it loving.  
jt
 
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:26 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Now this is totally uncalled 
  for, ... jt
   
  Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always claiming she can't 
  read between the lines? I've heard of selective 
  hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, Lance, please do not toss me 
  out in another of your comparisons, not to this pack anyway.   
  
   
  Bill
  

  Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
  man.Terry
   
  Isn't it amazing how much less information it 
  takes to determine the jerks among us?
   
  We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a 
  valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, 
  not to this pack anyway. 
   
  By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on 
  these, or do they come naturally?  
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:20 
    AM
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing 
        chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 
'A' living)
Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  

  Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two 
  months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or 
  three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, 
  Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more likely 
  approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting that 
  Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the Bible). 
  Would the outcome likely differ?
   
  Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! 
  ==Hard 
to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
man.Terry

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




I'm sure that will make a world's worth of 
difference -- on several planes. Why even the flat-earthers will get your point 
now :>)
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:07 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess 
  & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
  living)
  
  Please note Bill that when I reposted I changed 
  it to David Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Bill 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: July 13, 2005 12:04
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing 
chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' 
living)

Now this is totally 
uncalled for, ... jt
 
Is it, Judy?   How would you know -- aren't you the one always 
claiming she can't read between the lines? I've heard of selective hearing: perhaps yours is related. Again, 
Lance, please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, not to 
this pack anyway.   
 
Bill

  
Hard to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
man.Terry
 
Isn't it amazing how much less information 
it takes to determine the jerks among us?
 
We all get your point, Lance -- and it's a 
valid one. But please do not toss me out in another of your comparisons, 
not to this pack anyway. 
 
By the way, Terry: Do you have to work on 
these, or do they come naturally?  
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 
      6:20 AM
      Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On 
      playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living 
  (not for 'A' living)
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  



Were we to give Vladmir a Bible and two 
months of instruction on reading/interpreting it then, pick two or 
three extended passages for discussion (say the Sermon on the Mount, 
Philippians 2 & Galatians 5), whose observations would more 
likely approximate 'writerly intent'? (Supplement this by suggesting 
that Kramnik was actually converted just before being given the 
Bible). Would the outcome likely differ?
 
Not tryin' ta be clever TTers! 
==Hard 
  to tell based on the limited infomation I have on either 
  man.Terry

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