Show Posts

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

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 262

I like your analogy. Wouldn't the Lemurian faith encourage people to devise and improve their lemon meringue recipes and to cook and eat lemon meringue. I like lemon meringue.

Your analysis seems to leave you without a paradigm to guide your own decisions. Isn't that the point of the OP? Tearing down requires less effort and commitment than building up.

To make me believe your paradigm D as the "ultimate truth"
This isn't what the OP is asking.

The Bible doesn't use the word inerrant but does use the word inspired.
So the idea is that God inspired the biblical authors to write the original autographs down to the very words written. Most evangelicals don't advocate a dictation theory of inspiration but then one could ask how come the very words are determined by God if not dictated. One could argue that God foreknew the writing style of each author, but I'm not convinced that the idea that concepts rather than actual words are inspired is as controversial as some believe. You can hold that it was concepts rather than words without meaning that any of the words are "wrong" even if "wrong" actually has any meaning if the concepts have been determined. They aren't magic words but ordinary words used to convey (often extraordinary) meaning.

There are cases when Jesus and Paul made play of individual words. I don't see this as counting against inspired concepts. They would use the OT as it was - why would they do otherwise?

Inerrancy would say that God has conveyed information to us in the Bible without any deception. That doesn't necessarily mean 6 day creation since that is a matter of interpretation.

Quote from: JohnBee
let us not confuse YHWH(the Father) with Jesus(the Son)
Orthodox Christian belief is that YHWH=God=Father+Son+Holy Spirit
A separate subject though.

As has been said "rape" here is inaccurate - both passages are about promiscuity not rape. This is the point about having two cases: city and countryside. There was very little privacy in cities (people didn't have their own bedrooms etc.) so if a woman had been attacked she should have been able to make it known to people nearby.

None of this would have been necessary if a certain fruit hadn't been eaten. God is holy and sin is serious and as Lightfoot says these laws were made to make that message known more than actually inflicting punishment on people.

Christians are saved by God's grace so they do not need to keep the OT moral law to earn salvation since salvation cannot be earned - all have sinned.

There are moral commandments in the NT but how the moral aspects of the Law of Moses impinges on Christians is a matter of some dispute. It is clear though that Christians do not have carte blanche to ignore commandments such as do not kill or do not steal. Once saved one is expected to live according to the standards of the kingdom of God.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 13:8-10 AV

There are many Christians who find the effect such "miracles" and relics have on professing Christians odd.

In Britain we have Polish immigrants, many of which are good plumbers. So if this had happened in Poland it would be suspicious, but in India bad plumbing may be more common, so it may not be a deliberate RC plot.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Noah's ark question
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:27:32 AM »
Hi Johan,

Sorry I didn't pick up that you'd accepted my point about all flesh.

One can read this as referring just to a particular area e.g. the area around Basra** which hasn't since been completely flooded as described in Genesis (?) ... or that this particular flood was direct intervention by God in response to a particular situation, unlike other floods. So one can't say that a Cornish fishing village like Boscastle was flooded because its inhabitants were particularly sinful.

** I'm not saying Basra is the location of the flood.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Noah's ark question
« on: June 03, 2014, 05:15:05 AM »

It's clear that Peter restricts the "all flesh" of  Joel 2:28 to what happened at Pentecost. It's not as clear that Joel's usage is also limited but as I said the context implies that for Joel "all flesh" is restricted to Israel.

There aren't any contextual factors limiting the language's prima facie universal significance.
Isn't this the fallacy of arguing from silence (assuming your assertion is true)? The argument for a global flood seemed to depend on how to interpret "all flesh":

Quote from: GRWelsh
A local flood that happened in the Near East around 5500 years ago wouldn't have wiped out all humans on Earth.

Your argument that I'm mixing up literary devices with scientific descriptions doesn't seem applicable to anything I wrote. If
I'm questioning the logic that says if there are literary parallels between the creation and flood accounts (it would be helpful if you specified what you think they are) then there must be corresponding factual parallels.

The Hebrew word used for "man" in Gen 6:7 can be singular (e.g. 2:8) as well as plural and the root word is used 552 times in the OT (i.e. it's tenuous to push the use of this word as meaning a parallel between the two accounts if that was what you were thinking). As you know "earth" in 6:7 can mean a specific piece of land as in 28:15.

Note that I'm not arguing that the flood was local. What I am arguing is that the Bible is not clear enough to say whether it means a local or global flood. However, the purpose of the flood - to punish people for their behaviour - is clear.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Noah's ark question
« on: June 02, 2014, 05:01:01 PM »
Just to throw an exegetical spanner into the works:

The phrase "all flesh" used of the effects of the flood in Gen 9:11,15 is also used for the promised outpouring of the Spirit in Joel 2:28 which Peter claimed was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:16) when 3000 (not the entire human population) were converted.

That won't work, since this is only an intertextual phenomenon. It tells us nothing about what Genesis means, only how the text was used.

The language is clearly universal and the flood account itself reverses the creation of Gn 1, then employs those same literary allusions to the creation cosmology of Gn 1 when the world is renewed. Gen 1 wasn't a 'local' creation.

And given the remote possibility that the Flood is presented as 'local', it still has no has no original contact with a local  'historical' event of a flood that gave rise to various flood myths.

My point is that the phrase "all flesh" isn't necessarily global. In Joel it is most likely confined to Israel (and so the church in the NT?) given the "your sons and daughters" later in the passage. Even though Genesis and Joel have different authors and are different genres, the usage of "all" not being universal has a broad grammatical application which would apply to Genesis and Joel and more generally.

I recall a passage in Acts where it says all the region came to hear Paul preach - obvious hyperbole or "all the town came out to see the returning Cup winners" etc

So your "The language is clearly universal" is too dogmatic given the data. With your comparison with the Gen 1 Creation you're making the common mistake of getting literary devices mixed up with scientific comparisons.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Noah's ark question
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:04:48 PM »
Hi Johan,

All I'm saying is that the same phrase used in Gen 9:15 translated as all flesh, all life etc. was referred to by Peter when quoting Joel 2:28 about the baptising in the Spirit of the apostles and other followers and the conversion of 3000 people. So not the entire human population. So can we automatically assume the same phrase in Gen 9 means the entire human population? I don't think so.

Common sense does tell you that the original audience wouldn't be thinking that the flood meant all Australians perished. (Ah but God would know that you say. Ah then why didn't God/Jesus explain the nature of the universe (galaxies etc.) or quantum mechanics to the Jews in the Bible I say?!)

Beware applying modern thinking to ancient texts.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Noah's ark question
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:12:33 PM »
Just to throw an exegetical spanner into the works:

The phrase "all flesh" used of the effects of the flood in Gen 9:11,15 is also used for the promised outpouring of the Spirit in Joel 2:28 which Peter claimed was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:16) when 3000 (not the entire human population) were converted.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Can Jesus Be Wrong?
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:05:18 PM »
You skated over Philippians 2 without properly addressing its moral aspect or the interaction between the moral and doctrinal teaching. Paul is giving teaching to the Philippians to the effect that they should abandon selfish ambition and consider others better - that they should look to the interests of others as well as their own.

What was Jesus' own "interest"? Answer "equality with God". How did Jesus look to our interests? By willingly renouncing his own interest ("equality with God") for our own interest (redemption). It really can't be much simpler yet you are refusing to see it since it clashes with JW teaching. Jem, JW teaching is wrong on this. Look at what the Bible actually says and forget the JW teaching.

I notice that you never address scripture that disagrees with your doctrine
Well that's because there aren't any such verses obviously. I certainly have responded to many verses you have raised. You spray out a load of scriptures with inadequate exegesis rather than exegete one (esp one you don't like) properly.

Another big problem with you Jem is you take no notice of what other people say in this forum but just repeat the same old JW indoctrinated phrases ad nauseam. So for instance by saying:

Can you tell me why the Father would have to authorize an equal part of himself to do anything "in heaven and on earth"?

You show you are ignoring the many statements made to effect that the different persons of the Trinity have different roles, but this does not mean any kind of hierarchy of importance.

In Jn 15:18-20 Jesus again talking about the relationship between Him and His disciples - a point i've already made about Jn 13 in the same discourse.

In Rev 3:12 describing the Father as "my God" is not worship obviously. If JWs think that worship is just calling God God then JW worship must be completely uninspiring. Your comment here again betrays that you are ignoring the fact that the different persons of the Trinity have different roles.

You mustn't forget that Thomas called Jesus God in Jn 20:28; that Moses is described as "God" to his brother Aaron in Ex 4:16; that the Father described Jesus as "O Lord" in Heb 1:10.  According to your thesis Heb 1:10 shows the Father inferior to Jesus! I think you need "tae think again" Jem!

Your exegesis of Ex 3:15 and what is meant by "name" is far too simplistic and in fact inaccurate. In Ex 23:21 God says that "his name" is in the angel that would precede the Israelites. Did God take a branding iron to this angel? (What does it actually mean Jem?) That is how you would have to interpret it Jem. When a thesis (yours) leads to nonsense it's a good idea to abandon the thesis. In the OT name can mean reputation. Believing in the name of God means belieiving in God. It must also be embarassing for you that JWs have been mispronouncing YHWH as "Jehovah" all this time.

It is nonsense to suggest that God can be exalted or given "a name that is above every other name",
What do you think a "name  above every name" means then? (there is no "other" in the Greek - JWs adding to the Word of God)
διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ [above] πᾶν [every] ὄνομα [name] ,
You're coming close to calling the Bible nonense here.

If Jesus is God, can you tell me why we need a mediator between us and God but we need no mediator between us and Jesus?
The persons of the Trinity have different roles Jem.
You have been told this many times yet choose to ignore it.
The persons of the Trinity have different roles Jem.
The persons of the Trinity have different roles Jem.
The persons of the Trinity have different roles Jem.

Is three times enough for you to get it? Likely not.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Can Jesus Be Wrong?
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:57:15 AM »
That is a terrible distortion of Philippians 2:

3Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,a 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The moral teaching to us is in verses 3 and 4: count others (in the fellowship) better than yourselves, look to the interests of others as well as your own. Then we are given Jesus as the supreme example. Jesus could have held on (e.g. "grasped the nettle" grasp=hold on to) to the equality he had with God, but instead considered our interests first (i.e. above his own) by coming to this earth to die for us. For the comparison to work Jesus must have a right to the "equality" which he voluntarily relinquishes for our sake.

Because you are distorting this passage to fit your own doctrine of Jesus you are devaluing Paul's moral teaching. If Jesus didn't freely relinquish equality (specified in the passage) in coming to earth then how can Paul be asking the Philippians to relinquish their own interests in favour of others? The moral and doctrinal teaching here interrelate.

I see you're still doing Bible study as fishing for proof texts in various versions - in this case they don't even support your view!

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Muslim converts more likely to radicalise
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:35:23 AM »
Hello hawke123,

Thanks for making such thoughtful comments on this topic.

I think people are looking at the terrible behavior of some Muslims and then with a confirmation bias mindset reading Islamic texts to verify their preconceived notion that Islam is inherently depraved.  People do and have unfairly done the same thing to Christianity.
The problem of this approach is that you're looking at the behaviours of billions of followers of each religion, all of which are sinners and some of which would not be genuine in their faith. It is much clearer and simpler to look at the lives of the two founders and their teachings.

Actually, while Christian Europe was fumbling around in the dark ages, Islamic countries were benefiting from education in mathematics and philosophy.
Many people consider the "darkness" of the so-called Dark Ages to be not as dark as was once thought.

See an overview at

Cult = A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members:

early 17th century (originally denoting homage paid to a divinity): from French culte or Latin cultus 'worship', from cult- 'inhabited, cultivated, worshipped', from the verb colere.


Sect = 1. A group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.
(often derogatory) A group that has separated from an established Church; a nonconformist Church:

Middle English: from Old French secte or Latin secta, literally 'following', hence 'faction, party', from the stem of sequi 'follow'.


Denomination = A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church: the Presbyterian community is the second-largest denomination in the country

e.g. branch of any religion: e.g. "Orthodox Jewish denominations"

late Middle English (in sense 3): from Latin denominatio(n-), from the verb denominare (see denominate = designate). sense 1 dates from the mid 17th century.


From the above it seems that Christianity, in its early days was superficially a sect of Judaism, but in reality and certainly now it is a distinct religion.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 262