'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.
>
