Re: FW: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

[Knpraise]

In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:33:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This aside, what do you think of the content of my post?  Do you think using âarguments from silenceâ is a responsible way of interpreting the Bible?

I was raised in a fellowship that actually saw doctrinal statement in the "silence of the scriptures."   The reasoning was rather simple and  goes something like this:  if the Bible is the Word of God, God being the author must have completed His work of divine instruction in that book.   That being true, He said all that He intended to say and left off all that He intended to omit.   His explicate instruction is no more important than His silence, being that the biblical message is the full and complete will of God on any subject. When we add to the "silent instruction  of the Lord," we assert that His revealtion is not complete, that He did not say all that He intended to say.   Hence, we have the admonition in Rev. 22:18, 19 not to detract from the message (respect what has been divinely given) nor to add that which is not found (respect silence of divine revelation). 

The fact that this revelatory instruction (Rev 22:18,19) is found in the last verses of the entire Bible is evidence that the warning to include and revere the written message and God's silence should be extended to all 66 books.


Kind of neat, uh?

John Smithson