Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:16:02 -0800

More of your PsyhcoassertionISM?
Besides you prefer Opinions of one as RW with NO ABSOLUTE MORALS and No clear idea of what he believes. He is afloat on the sea of consensus. Lets call a meeting of men to get all the opinions tally them till we get consensus or majority.
What a basis for Truth!
Catholic Bishop Rowan Williams is all about OPINIONS....
 
http://episcopalwomenscaucus.org/ruach/Fall2002_vol23_2_3/01Archbishop.html
The consensus has a MIND:
Williams said the declaration against homosexual unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals "declares clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion"
 
IN MY OPINION since the consensus(general) MIND
'Despite the levels of bitter controversy over sexuality in the Communion, I do not hear much enthusiasm for revisiting in 2008 the last Lambeth Conference's resolution on this matter. In my judgement, we cannot properly or usefully re-open the discussion as if Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 did not continue to represent the general mind of the Communion.' 2008 Letter from RW - Lambeth 2008 http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=357
 
The majority conviction is after all just a Majority OPINION
"I have to distinguish plainly between personal theories and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church, and have always tried to make such a distinction when I have been questioned on this subject," he said. "My ideas have no authority beyond that of an individual theologian."
Check the SOURCE Fellas why not read the letter yourself?
Letter sent to all 38 primates of the Anglican Church in 1998 Lambeth Resolution
http://cpsajoburg.org.za/socres/sexuality/sex_refl/sex_ref12.html
Afraid of facts, like to live in Ignorance?
Make it sound Holy whilst he does his subversive "work"
What is Bishop Williams' solution to "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion"? He hints: "my main hope will be to try and maintain a prayerful listening to Scripture envisaged by Lambeth". It's not a very promising assurance. It sounds rather like the usual p.c. cant, ostensibly espousing a cautious moderation while in fact permissive in the face of radical change. By now, we know what "prayerful listening" too often means: endless "dialogue" in which all points of view are entertained equally, and leading to the overturning of the official consensus.
Dec 2002 Anglican Free Press
 
Well there you have more facts now WHAT is your OPINION?
And why can't you guys do your own Homework?
Truth can not be found in the consensus of a group of SOPHISTS and that by design!

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What gender are you when offering up an opinion?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 22, 2006 16:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

The STANDARD of ORTHODOXY in RW's eyes as shown in his own words is The opinions of Men in the consensus of his church

David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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:
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:
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.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

Reply via email to