'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.
>