|
Good points Izzy,
And even the medical community are admitting that this
is so. I just purchased a book called "Toxic Emotions" by Dr. Don Colbert
and in it he is going over much of what we are talking about. I see it in
my family - in ancestors, us, and our own children; it makes me every more
grateful for the cross and the cleansing blood of Calvary. There is a
pastor I know of in Georgia who ministers in the light of this wisdom and many
are healed from what is considered incurable chronic disease. He has
written a book called "The More Excellent Way" and in his
experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted bitterness coming from
unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always found a breach between the
person who has that disease and their father. I've never found a mother involved
in the breach; abandonment by a father, literally or emotionally, is also
implicated" Our son-in-law is a good
father, but he came out of a shocking situation although he is an Annapolis
graduate and a high achiever in everything he puts his hand to. The
chickens have a way of coming home to roost. If we, as a family, can
accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing of all breaches and
perfect peace in the Lord. IMO much of what we call peace today
falls short. Thanks for this Izzy, i jt
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Interesting
websites, and interesting subject, Jonathan. But don’t you think that generational
“curses” (such as genetic “imprinting” of sinful behavior, for lack of a better
way to put it) can be passed down from generation to generation? I believe you
have children, and there is no bigger convincer of the power of genetics than
having your own children! I
recently heard someone on TV say (re: a study on twins) that we are 50% formed
by our genes, and 50% by environment. Certainly the Blood of Christ redeems us
from having to sin, but we can still have a more of a disposition towards it in
the flesh, I think, if it is in our generational lineage. Yet I agree with you that we can make
generational sin a bigger bugaboo than it really is, once we are Believers. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jonathan
Hughes Hi
Slade, If you read what Judy
says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an
excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it
to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an
expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious
of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean,
possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to
look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing
that the Spirit communicated all
her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what
is done: 1) Choose a
passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will
then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In
this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is a collection
of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual.
We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise
living. People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of
interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a
doctrine (i.e. “the scriptures teach”). Now that we have the Bible on our
side we go in for the next strike. 2) If the plain
meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to
adjust it, to make it say something it doesn’t or at the very least to make
explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by
using the ‘argument from silence’ technique. That means that if something
is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been
and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if
Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can
just add them in as if He meant to. This is a dangerous and reckless way
of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the
argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the
centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume
that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing
(i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice).
Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only
way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking
our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order
to justify what we already believe. Let it be noted that all of us are
guilty of doing this at one point or another, including
myself. 3) Now that we
have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so
far we can continue to the third strike. Judy is aware that the orthodox
rendering of this passage “prove[s] that sin and this man’s blindness are
unrelated.” However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses
(usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the
passage cannot mean what is plainly says. The third strike builds on the
first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text. It must be
referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that
“Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that
day rather than what caused his problem to begin with.” The plain meaning
of course is that sin was not involved; rather it was “that the works of God
might be revealed in him.” It is all nice and
compact. We have started with scripture, moved to something that sounds
logical (the argument from silence) and then provided an alternative reading
that supports our beliefs prior to coming to the passage. None of us here
are perfect interpreters (including myself). We all need to be on the
watch for when scripture is mishandled. If any are interested
in learning more about generational sin and why I believe Judy’s beliefs are not
only Biblically wrong but hurtful please see the links
below: http://www.tmch.net/gensin.htm
Peace and
joy, Jonathan From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor Hi
Slade: Thank you for posting this scripture. I
know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to mean
or to prove that sin and this man's
blindness are unrelated. However, the scriptures teach that the "curse
causeless does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there was
definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss
it right then. It could have been
grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus
on the works of God being revealed in the man
that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with ..
judyt From: "Slade
Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As he passed by, he saw a man blind from
birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or
his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this
man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in
him. (John 9:1-3) --
slade
|
- FW: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Jonathan Hughes
- [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Judy Taylor
- RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational... Judy Taylor
- RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generati... Jonathan Hughes
- Re: FW: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generati... Knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational... Knpraise
- RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generati... ShieldsFamily
- RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request Slade Henson
- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational... Knpraise
- RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generati... ShieldsFamily
- [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational... Knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generati... Terry Clifton

