'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.
>
