Judy writes > Yes, Nathan was
the prophet and his words were inspired by God since this was the anointing
for his ministry - fourfold restitution was what is required under the law
of Moses.
So what is the problem Bill? . . .
BT > The
problem is, Judy, you have evidently missed the point. Without some
"non-biblical" input to place my answer in context, you misunderstood my use of Scripture to say to
you what "God says using God's words." No problem, I will add
some commentary of my own to try to help you with the
context.
You are guilty of doing the
very thing you expect others not to do. The pertinent statement in my use of
the Nathan/David account was this: "You are the man!" Yes, David could have
had Nathan killed -- but he didn't. Instead, not playing insinsate, he
got the point of Nathan's parable and repented of his wrong doing; that is,
he was quilty as charged; he knew it; and rather than skirt the issue, he
took responsibility for his actions.
How does
this pertain to you? You have yet to take responsibility for yours.
Concerning the use of non-biblical terminology to speak to biblical
concepts, you make the following claim: "You may all do this Bill but
one speaking as the 'oracles of God' says what God says using God's Words .
. . Reaping what we sow is God's righteous judgment."
Judy, you are complicit in
doing the same thing; e.g., you have written concerning the Godhead, "They
were one in all aspects and operated like a symphony," and "I would
demonstrate the Godhead this way: God the Father has the thought; God the
Word speaks it into existence; and God the Spirit carries it out. So you see
the Godhead as one working in harmony, like a symphony."
Debbie wrote this to
you: "When talking about God or what he is saying to us in the
Bible, I am sure I use terms which are not in any translation or
manuscript of Scripture." As do you, Judy, as witnessed above.
Hence, with her, why do you not also "find it strange and
arbitrary to make a rule of avoiding doing so"? You do not apply your own rules to yourself.
And as I said before, nor ought you have to. The problem here is
not with the language you use; it is with your unreasonable expectation
concerning the language of others, whether it be mine or Debbie's or
anyone else's. In other words, you need to change your
standards. They are untenable -- not even
you can meet them. And so, the question is, are you going to continue to
skirt the issue, or are you going to drop the attack on others, take
responsibility for your actions and change your standards?
Bill (By the way, DaveH and
G: I am preparing responses to your requests. I will get them out when this
conflict is resolved -- if, that is, it can be
resolved)
