|
That's real good Lance,
So insightful from someone who has no understanding at
all.
I have never ever seen you present scripture as grounds
for anything you believe.
It is always some theologian or other or else it is rcc
orthodoxy... and yet you are
more opininionated than anyone I know who is a
sincere and steady student of
the Bible.
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David:No wonder you come both readily and frequently to Judy's defence.
Now,
if only we could clarify, prior to TT's demise, that you both hold to an heretical position concerning illumination/interpretation of Scripture. From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: March 21, 2006 17:56 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? > Yes.
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Deegan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:10 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? > > > > Do you still consider yourself a Trinitarian leaning towards Modalism? > > --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ---------- > "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.
|
