'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!
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.
>