Check your email for updated passwords!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - lapwing
I have no experience with marine engineering, but is there any reason that thing wouldn't spin like a top on the open water?It didn't have to plot a course though just float.
But would you go to a church that preached heresy?
Or which declared you a heretic?
Or where the minister asked visitors to pray for his divorce?
Amazingly the wishy-washy Church of England held out against marrying divorced people longer than some nonconformist churches in the UK. It's been allowed from 2002 but individual priests/ministers have the right to refuse.
Shorter Oxford Dictionary:
"Designating or pertaining to a sense or interpretation of a text, orig. esp. the Bible, obtained by taking words in their primary or customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar, without mysticism, allegory, or metaphor"
For example the literal intepretation of Canticles is a description of the love between a man and a woman; the metaphorical interpretation is the love between God and the Church/Israel. However the metaphorical intepretation conveys a literal or (I prefer) real truth: that God loves the church and human love is a foreshadowing of that love. There is reality behind the metaphor.
I thought one of your sources was pursuing a worrying political as well as theological agenda:
the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system yields the interpretative conclusion, for example, that Israel always and only refers to national Israel.This is a mistake: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.." Paul uses "Israel" with two meanings here.
Of course, one can create novel definitions or even new words to suit your purpose, or go searching for people who do this. I prefer to use dictionary definitions, or explain myself if I employ novel definitions. You did not do this. So you could define ordinary-literal and figurative-literal but I prefer to use straightforward dictionary definitions wherever possible, rather than clumsy and confusing redefinitions.
Nothing in your post related the idea of literal/non-literal to sensus plenior
Frodo didn't destroy the ring. Gollum took it from him and then fell into the lake of fire! I saw it in the cinema.
If you have approached the text with proper hermeneutics, it would be clear that Gollum was just an allegory, a representation of Frodo's inner struggle.
Haha I never thought of that though I think conservative Tolkienites would disagree. Sounds like a Ph D thesis but it's probably been done already.
e.g. in a shop
Me "that's interesting the change was 3 pound and one penny - did you know that there is one god in three persons" I shrink from this kind of thing.
Shop assistant "pardon" or "just wait there while I call the police"!
In this forum we've already crossed the hurdle of lack of interest. People wouldn't be here unless they were interested.
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. Heb 10;24, 25 NIV
There is also the example of the believers portrayed in the NT. Note that the Bible does not mandate a particular frequency of meeting - that can lead to attendeeism - making a god out of attending meetings.
In the sentence:
"From Stratford came William Shakespeare over all others, the playwright blessed with unsurpassed writing talent."
who is meant by the word "playwright"?
A simple question requiring a straighforward answer. Can you give a straightforward answer?
Similarly in "being over all God", "being" is a participle describing Jesus. A participle acts like an adjective (or adverb) that is derived from a verb.
A participle is a form of a verb that is used in a sentence to modify a noun or noun phrase, and thus plays a role similar to that of an adjective or adverb
"Christ being over all God" is a clear and unequivocal statement that Jesus is God.
The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence,
whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is
awkward and unnatural
One clear statement from scripture lapwingThe problem is that with you, Jem, we're not testing whether the Bible states that Jesus is God, we're testing your ability to produce contorted counterarguments.
According your "religion", Jesus is not God so you will refuse to hear any argument that says that He is. This leads you to try to turn adjectives into verbs and to ignore basic rules of both English and Greek grammar. You behave like a loyal worker at Big Brother's Ministry of "Truth" (an ironic misnomer of course).
"A (wo)man hears what (s)he wants to hear and disregards the rest"