'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried
so hard
to get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You
do not see them
our (God's) way so, you do not see at all!
Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm
'thick'
but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of
you apprehend
THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES
that which is spoken
of as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of
Scripture overlap.
The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of
Scripture!!
This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis
both Scripture's
teaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some
occasions, are presumptuous
to the nth degree!!
> Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between
Orthodoxy and the
> teaching of Scripture. Judy has been
trying so hard to get you to see it.
> Martin Luther, if he was
here, would be trying so hard to get you to see
> it.
> You
just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not
the
> same thing. We repent if we walk contrary to
Scripture. We do not
> necessarily repent if we depart from
Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others
> to repent if they depart
from Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and
> the
>
standard of the Bible are two different things. Why can't you see
that?
>
> David Miller
>
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Lance Muir" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
To: <
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
>
>
>
David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning
the
> Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to
be an heresy
> that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE
TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD but,
> that
> does not change what it
is in this context.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
<
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day
in Genesis literal or figurative?
>
>
>> Excuse me,
John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so
how
>> can
>> you use the word repent in regards to
this? Do you really think it is a
>> sin
>> for
someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the
Godhead?
>>
>> David Miller
>>
>>
----- Original Message -----
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM
>> Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or
figurative?
>>
>> In short, Modalism
!!
>>
>> Modalism
>>
The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who
manifests
>> himself in three forms or manners: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.
>> REPENT -- HURRY
!!
>>
>> jd
>>
>> --------------
Original message --------------
>> From: Judy Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE"
>> More
accurately, one person in three
manifestations
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006
06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
writes:
>> ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS
>> From:
ShieldsFamily
>>
>> Unity in Diversity.
>>
Fatness in Skinniness.
>> Ugliness in Beauty.
>>
Dumbness in Intelligence.
>> Wisdom in Nonsense.
>>
Jibberish in Eloquence.
>>
>>
iz
>>
>>
>>
>> If your idea were so
JD then Jesus would have prayed "make them "unity in
>>
diversity" just as we are ...
>> I see that nowhere in
scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they
>> had
seen the Father
>> because he did only what he first saw the
Father do and he said only what
>> he
>> first heard
from the
>> Father. This is the kind of unity he was
praying about JD. Unifying
>> around
>>
rebellion is what the
>> end times "harlot church" is all
about.
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>>
>> We shall be one as He and the Father are
one, someday, Judy. Right now,
>> unity inspite of
diversity is all we've got.
>> Because you and I are not of the
same Christ does not mean that unity in
>> diversity does not
exist. jd
>> From: Judy Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies.
>> In
fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we
may
>> recognize
>> the faith
>> once
delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus
was
>> not
>> referring to any
>> "Unity in
diversity" in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and
>>
the
>> Father are One
>> Is "Unity in diversity" how
you see the Godhead or "Trinity?" JD
>>
>> On Sun, 19
Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
writes:
>> Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have)
taken note of those who
>> so
>> identify others as
sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective
>>
of
>> a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as
'recovering' the truth.
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>
It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is,
is
>> not
>> my real complaint. Henceforth and
forever more, I will be opposed to
>> sectarianism.
The legal content of the sectarian is often different
--
>> but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of
his/her stripes.
>> They are the ones who oppose the unity
concerns expressed by Christ in
>> John
>>
17. There can be unity in diversity. In
sectarian circles, the only
>> unity that exists is one
borne of the fear of reprisal. jd
>>
>> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>
One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks
more
>> because
>> of Conor than for any other
reason. My comments can stand on their own,
>>
I
>> believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth
nor do I beleive the
>> bible teaches such - for
the reasons stated. Could the earth be only
>>
6000
>> years old. I suppose so, but only the
sectarians beleive such, IMHO.
>> Is
>> God the
creator? Now that is the real question. I would
think we all
>> agree on the answer to that
question.
>>
>> End of the matter for me.
And, so, the opportunity to delve into the
>> character of the
opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned
--
>> in
>> a
>> biblical sense , of
course.
>>
>>
jd
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "David Miller"
<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>
John wrote:
>>> > To your first question ,
"no."
>>>
>>> If I get time, I will try and
present some of it for you.
>>>
>>> John
wrote:
>>> > To your second question, either
you
>>> > did not read my post or you
have
>>> > decided to insult my
presentation?
>>>
>>> I read your post very
carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.
>>> Most of
your argument revolves around why we should consider using a
>>
& gt; figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most
Bible
>> scholars,
>>> but the pressure for doing
this seems to come from science not good
>>> theology, in my
opinion.
>>>
>>> The strongest statement you
make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4
>>>
uses
>>> the word day figuratively. This is easily
understood to be figurative,
>>> but
>>> ; the
uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text
says,
>>> First
>>> Day, Second Day, Third Day,
etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days
>>> are
figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its
coupling
>>> with
>>> the evening and morning
statements that makes it difficult to perceive
>>>
it
>>> as
>>> being anything other than a
specific time period measured by evening and
>>> morning.
You would have to argue that evening and morning were
greatly
>>> extended, or that they too are figurative, to
maintain the figurative
>>> chronology that you hold onto.
There is the added problem of having
>>>
plants
>>> created l ong before the sun, moon, and stars?
Not likely from a
>>> biologist's
>>>
perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most
parsimonious
>>> explanation. I remain skeptical of the
figurative interpretation.
>>>
>>> What bothers
me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1
is
>>> that rather than trying to show from the text itself
why the meaning
>>> must
>>> be
>>>
figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be
read
>>> this
>>> way. I have no trouble
understanding that it might be read this way. I
>>> have
trouble with the idea that it should be read this
way.
>>>
>>> What is the motivation for making
it figurative? I believe the
>>> motivation
>>>
is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and
the
>>> claims
>>> of science, theologians would
not be taking a figurative approach to
>>>
Genesis
>>> 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to
argue directly from the
>>> text (any thing in the Bible
anywhere) for a very long process o f
>>>
creation?
>>>
>>> David
Miller
>>>
>>>
====================
>>> John, I have a couple questions for
you.
>>>
>>> 1. Have you ever read John
Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning
>>>
the
>>> length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his
perspective and even
>>> discussed this perso nally with him
before, but he comes from a theology
>>> background and I
come from a science background, so I don't know how
>>>
well
>>> he
>>> is accepted as a "t heologian."
His arguments for why the day is not
>>> figurative made a
lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>> 2. Is there any
THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day
>>>
figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone
saying
>>> that perhaps we should take the meaning
figuratively, but I wonder if
>>> there
>>> is
any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of
science
>>> that
>>> a
>>>
theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1
as
>>> figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy
Spirit guiding us,
>>> what
>>> would be the
reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis
1?
>>>
>>> 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>>>
& lt; BR>> 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.
>
>
> ----------
>
"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.
>