Gen1

When I read scripture, it is done with prayer and submission, not with preconception and because I have submitted, the Holy Spirit teaches the truth and the truth is not open to interpretation. The scriptures are unlike our speech and writings, they are definite but our words are, often, laden with our understanding and life experience, much like the misuse you describe of the word translation.

While I was studying literary criticism, I was deeply disturbed by Roland Barthes' concept of the death of the author, which shows how the reader's perception of a literary work is as valid as the author's perception of it. I was conflicted, because of what that meant for the Bible. I realised, though, that the Bible is a totally unique book for Christians, because unlike any other work in history, the Author of that work lives in us, and communicates directly to us as we read. You are correct in saying that "the scriptures are unlike our speech and writings".

But all of us here who are Christians have that same Spirit guiding our understanding of scripture as we read. And still, sometimes we disagree. How can we explain this? Do we just have a debate over which one of us is the most led by the spirit, and then we all just to submit to the teachings of that person?

None of us are an island, Bill. Whenever the Spirit reveals something to us, we need to submit that revelation to the judgment of other mature Christians. That's why we discuss things on this forum. I am fully aware that sometimes my biases and preconceptions get in the way of being led by the Spirit. I want to confront all my preconceptions, and I know I'm not there yet, but I press on toward that goal. If someone tells me that they have, in this lifetime, succeeded in eliminating all of their bias and preconceptions as they read scripture, you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical. We can't each be the Church by ourselves; we need one another.

If we disagree on any issue, we should be able to discuss that issue with the understanding that all of us are legitimately seeking the Spirit's guidance.
 
Really Bill......

You claim to be a Bible teacher, but yet when asked a question you respond by inferring that I'm a heretic?????

Certainly you have this verse in your Bible?

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; 2Ti 2:24, 25

Do you call this gentleness, patience, meekness, even if supposing I am wrong, is this the way you teach in your church?
Not to mention 1 Cor 13:4-8...

Gene,
What you have done in this post is a demonstration, a good one, of what David Koresh, Jim Jones and many lessor heretics have done to scripture. You have made your case by pulling a root from here, a branch from there, another from this tree and leaves from Sweet Gum, China Berry and needles from a Yellow Pine, taped them together and your calling it a tree. I trust you understand the metaphor.

Bill we all come here with a certain amount of respect, ...it's how we interact with our brothers and sisters in Christ that either builds up our respect or tears it down, ...you, sir, have lost a lot of respect in my eyes.

Scripture must be read and understood in much the same manor that we read the latest novel. What you have presented is not in context and context was a principal understood by the third grade when I waqs in school. It is a matter of basics.

I wasn't taught how to read the Bible in school, I was taught in school that the Bible was just a collection of Jewish fairy tales, why do you think we believed "God was dead?"

What I was taught by trustworthy men of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, teaching through the Gift of Teaching is,

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1Co 2:12, 13

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2Ti 2:15

And the rightly dividing the Word of Truth, comparing spiritual with spiritual is because,

...they are spiritually discerned. 1Co 2:14

Again, I have followed Paul's admonition to Timothy, and that makes me a heretic?????

So if you are a Bible teacher (don't forget James 3:1), please use the gift given to you by the Holy Spirit and explain to me, in context, Isa 45:18, ...for the moment forget the other verses I cited, ...just this one verse, ...that way we won't be creating some kind of bizarre tree.

Blessings and Love,

Gene
 
While I was studying literary criticism, I was deeply disturbed by Roland Barthes' concept of the death of the author, which shows how the reader's perception of a literary work is as valid as the author's perception of it. I was conflicted, because of what that meant for the Bible. I realised, though, that the Bible is a totally unique book for Christians, because unlike any other work in history, the Author of that work lives in us, and communicates directly to us as we read. You are correct in saying that "the scriptures are unlike our speech and writings".

But all of us here who are Christians have that same Spirit guiding our understanding of scripture as we read. And still, sometimes we disagree. How can we explain this? Do we just have a debate over which one of us is the most led by the spirit, and then we all just to submit to the teachings of that person?

You are beginning at a point that does not exist and when one builds on nothing, nothing is built. It is a sad thing but, as I've illustrated, many times, in the past 23+ years, less than 2% of us, the people naming Christ as our Saviour, are lead by the Holy Spirit and for that reason, better than 98% of the church membership are not members of the Church. (The lack of caps on the fist writing of Church is intentional.)

So it is normal that there is much disagreement inside the walls of the Church Body, most of them are not of the Body at all. What you should do with this piece of information is up to you, what I do with it is a daily Spiritual Inventory. The very idea that you have tried to dissuade me with science and now with philosophy alarms the very Spirit, dwelling in my being, this is not of Christ. So, am I telling you your not saved? Nope! That is not my purview. Do I see you as trying to tempt me into that position, an agenda? Your working hard to get there.

None of us are an island, Bill. Whenever the Spirit reveals something to us, we need to submit that revelation to the judgment of other mature Christians. That's why we discuss things on this forum. I am fully aware that sometimes my biases and preconceptions get in the way of being led by the Spirit. I want to confront all my preconceptions, and I know I'm not there yet, but I press on toward that goal. If someone tells me that they have, in this lifetime, succeeded in eliminating all of their bias and preconceptions as they read scripture, you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical. We can't each be the Church by ourselves; we need one another.{/quote]

The members of the Bride of Christ, do indeed need each other but many are called and only a few are chosen and of those, the chosen, not all are members of the Bride. (Matt. 22:1-14) The Holy Spirit does, for a fact, teach each of us the truth we need, when, we need it but when we come together and we share what we have been taught by the Spirit, although differing, they fit, like hand in custom glove, with each other. (The basic truth, taught in scripture is that the Spirit never disagrees with the Spirit and in Mal. 3:6a we learn that God never, never, changes.) If we disagree, at least one of us is following the wrong spirit and it is perhaps, time for both of us to do a Spiritual inventory.

If we disagree on any issue, we should be able to discuss that issue with the understanding that all of us are legitimately seeking the Spirit's guidance.
Agreed and that is happening but you are still setting mines and booby traps along the trail. That is not the produce of the Holy Spirit. I might be wrong because of this stupid disease but I thinly recall us having a similar discussion and you putting me on ignore. That. also, is not of the Spirit. Members of the Bride never need to attack. And your preference for the things of this world, over the wisdom of scripture, befuddles me. (Proverbs, the whole book.)
 
You are beginning at a point that does not exist and when one builds on nothing, nothing is built. It is a sad thing but, as I've illustrated, many times, in the past 23+ years, less than 2% of us, the people naming Christ as our Saviour, are lead by the Holy Spirit and for that reason, better than 98% of the church membership are not members of the Church. (The lack of caps on the fist writing of Church is intentional.)

So it is normal that there is much disagreement inside the walls of the Church Body, most of them are not of the Body at all. What you should do with this piece of information is up to you, what I do with it is a daily Spiritual Inventory. The very idea that you have tried to dissuade me with science and now with philosophy alarms the very Spirit, dwelling in my being, this is not of Christ. So, am I telling you your not saved? Nope! That is not my purview. Do I see you as trying to tempt me into that position, an agenda? Your working hard to get there.

The members of the Bride of Christ, do indeed need each other but many are called and only a few are chosen and of those, the chosen, not all are members of the Bride. (Matt 22:1-14) The Holy Spirit does, for a fact, teach each of us the truth we need, when, we need it but when we come together and we share what we have been taught by the Spirit, although differing, they fit, like hand in custom glove, with each other. (The basic truth, taught in scripture is that the Spirit never disagrees with the Spirit and in Mal 3:6a we learn that God never, never, changes.) If we disagree, at least one of us is following the wrong spirit and it is perhaps, time for both of us to do a Spiritual inventory.

Agreed and that is happening but you are still setting mines and booby traps along the trail. That is not the produce of the Holy Spirit. I might be wrong because of this stupid disease but I thinly recall us having a similar discussion and you putting me on ignore. That. also, is not of the Spirit. Members of the Bride never need to attack. And your preference for the things of this world, over the wisdom of scripture, befuddles me. (Proverbs, the whole book.)

Okay. Let's work through some of these things.

Firstly, let me just be blunt, not to attack you in any way, but I just want to talk about how things feel from my perspective. It feels like in this entire discussion, I've had to discuss not the issues in your opening post, which is what I wanted to do, but defend my right to discuss those issues with you. It feels, to me, like when you use the word "agenda," you mean "any idea different from your own." I feel like if I have a persuasive position, which I believe I've arrived at through the Spirit's guidance, if it's different from your own ideas, you'll immediately dismiss it as being a "mine" or "booby trap" instead of thoughtfully and respectfully considering its validity. I have absolutely no desire to trap or trick anyone, and to be frank, being accused of doing that feels like an attack. I think you genuinely do seek the guidance of the Spirit, but I also think people should be able to enter into a discussion with you without being accused of having an "agenda," setting traps, engaging in heresy or disagreeing with God because they disagree with your understanding of scripture.

That being said, I am still willing to discuss any matter with you. I feel like I've been civil and respectful toward you. If you feel attacked in any way, please point out where this has happened so I can remedy it (the "ignoring" incident you mentioned wasn't something that happened between us); I don't want you to feel attacked. If you feel I've laid "mines and booby traps along the trail," please point out specific places where this has happened. I have no desire to discuss anything in a way that traps people, and I don't want you to feel trapped when we talk. If that's really what's happened, I'm unaware of it, and I'd like to address it so it doesn't happen again.

Have I really tried to "dissuade you with science and now with philosophy"? Let's talk about that. I've argued that science isn't inherently an enemy to the authority of scripture, but that it's misguided to use it to try building a new "tower of babel." You yourself used a scientific observation in your opening post to give evidence that "God has given everything He created a certain rhythm" (readers should refer to the opening post for context). When you say "philosophy," are you talking about my reference to Barthes? Doesn't what I said about Barthes' argument support what you've said about scripture's uniqueness compared to human speech and writing? I wasn't trying to "dissuade" you at all, I was agreeing with you.

As for your statement about my alleged "preference for the things of this world, over the wisdom of scripture," if I ever use any argument to discredit the authority of scripture, let's talk about it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true. I do my best to allow the authority of scripture inform my perspective on all things.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Let's work through some of these things.

Firstly, let me just be blunt, not to attack you in any way, but I just want to talk about how things feel from my perspective. It feels like in this entire discussion, I've had to discuss not the issues in your opening post, which is what I wanted to do, but defend my right to discuss those issues with you. It feels, to me, like when you use the word "agenda," you mean "any idea different from your own." I feel like if I have a persuasive position, which I believe I've arrived at through the Spirit's guidance, if it's different from your own ideas, you'll immediately dismiss it as being a "mine" or "booby trap" instead of thoughtfully and respectfully considering its validity. I have absolutely no desire to trap or trick anyone, and to be frank, being accused of doing that feels like an attack. I think you genuinely do seek the guidance of the Spirit, but I also think people should be able to enter into a discussion with you without being accused of having an "agenda," setting traps, engaging in heresy or disagreeing with God because they disagree with your understanding of scripture.

That being said, I am still willing to discuss any matter with you. I feel like I've been civil and respectful toward you. If you feel attacked in any way, please point out where this has happened so I can remedy it (the "ignoring" incident you mentioned wasn't something that happened between us); I don't want you to feel attacked. If you feel I've laid "mines and booby traps along the trail," please point out specific places where this has happened. I have no desire to discuss anything in a way that traps people, and I don't want you to feel trapped when we talk. If that's really what's happened, I'm unaware of it, and I'd like to address it so it doesn't happen again.

Have I really tried to "dissuade you with science and now with philosophy"? Let's talk about that. I've argued that science isn't inherently an enemy to the authority of scripture, but that it's misguided to use it to try building a new "tower of babel." You yourself used a scientific observation in your opening post to give evidence that "God has given everything He created a certain rhythm" (readers should refer to the opening post for context). When you say "philosophy," are you talking about my reference to Barthes? Doesn't what I said about Barthes' argument support what you've said about scripture's uniqueness compared to human speech and writing? I wasn't trying to "dissuade" you at all, I was agreeing with you.

As for your statement about my alleged "preference for the things of this world, over the wisdom of scripture," if I ever use any argument to discredit the authority of scripture, let's talk about it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true. I do my best to allow the authority of scripture inform my perspective on all things.
Roads,
I have repeatedly, in this forum and in this string, stated that I will not seek to deal with the Word of God on the ¨Natural¨ level and I continue to deal with and will continue to deal with the scriptures, only, on the Spiritual Level. You will not pull me into the arena you seek to confront me in.

When I was an atheist, I was a good follower/servant of Satan. I did not acknowledge it but I was. One of my favorite and most often used methods was to drag the conversation into the Natural Realm. Doing that there was never a Christian, Preacher. Pastor nor a Priest I confronted that I did not force them to crawfish back into their Mud Hole. Just as you are seeking to do here, I refused to meet them in God's Arena and embarrassed them in Satan's field of choice.

As for the ignore incident, I just researched and found that was someone called Rusty so let's dismiss that one with me repenting of it. That being said and with an open acceptance of what you claim about agendas, I still, will not wade off into the swamp you are building. The Bible is unlike any other manuscript and must be discussed on it's own merrits and that through faith alone.
 
THE SECOND ABODE: THE MINERAL GARDEN OF EDEN

It is known from Job 38:4-7 that all of the angelic beings were already created prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth. Satan was created and dwelling in his first abode at the Throne of God and, chronologically speaking, after an unknown duration of time comes God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. When God created the heavens and the earth, He gave different portions of the universe to the authority of certain angelic beings. When God created this particular planet, He gave authority over this planet to Satan, and it served as his second abode.

This is described in Ezekiel 28:13a: You were in Eden, the garden of God. The Eden of Ezekiel 28 is not the same Eden of Genesis 2-3. The Eden of Genesis 2-3is a vegetable garden, but the Eden of verse 13a is a mineral garden. Verse 13b describes how this planet looked when it was originally created. There were no oceans or seas. It was a beautiful mineral garden covered by the precious stones listed in verse 13b. Satan walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire according to verse 14. For that reason, Satan's second abode can be called the “Mineral Garden of Eden” as over against the “Vegetable Garden of Eden” of Genesis.

It was during his second abode that Satan's fall occurred according to Ezekiel 28:16-17: By the abundance of your traffic they filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore have I cast you as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I have cast you to the ground; I have laid you before kings, that they may behold you. As the prince of Tyre would do centuries later, the king of Tyre did centuries earlier. He began to meditate in a wrong manner upon his beauty, his wisdom, his power, and his authority. Rather than remaining in humble submission to God who gave him all these things by pure grace, pride welled up within him, and this pride led to his fall. The problem was clearly stated as pride in verse 17a: Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness.

Paul warned strongly against placing a new believer in a position of authority in a local church in I Timothy 3:6. Among the qualifications Paul writes about is the statement: not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. A novice or new believer must never be placed in the position of authority in the local church, because by virtue of being a new believer, he is automatically in a state of spiritual immaturity. It takes time to mature spiritually just as it takes time to mature physically. If a new believer is placed in a position of authority before he is mature enough, this might well him up with pride, and he will fall into the same sin as Satan. The first sinner ever was Satan, and the first sin ever was the sin of pride.

The content of Satan's pride was his declaration of five “I wills” found in Isaiah 14:12-14: How are you fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the ground, that did lay low the nations! And you said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. When Satan was welled up with pride, this pride led to the declaration of these five “I wills.” Each I will has a specific significance.

First, I will ascend into heaven. He was not satisfied with the very high position that had already been given him as the guardian of God's Throne and authority over the Mineral Garden of Eden. He desired the higher position, a higher estate than he already had. There was no higher position than God's own Throne. With the first I will, he declared a desire to usurp God's own authority. Instead of being the one overshadowing the Throne, he now wished to become the throne sitter.

Secondly, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. Whenever the word stars is used symbolically, it is always a symbol of angels with one possible exception. With the second I will, Satan declared his desire to become the sole authority over all the angels that God had created. By so doing, he intended to depose Michael from his position and become the Archangel all by himself.

Thirdly, I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north. These are expressions used elsewhere by the prophets in describing the Millennial or Messianic Kingdom. Satan knew quite well that God's program for the Jewish people is for the Messiah to rule over the nation of Israel during the Kingdom. The third I will declared his desire to make himself the Messianic ruler over Israel.

Fourthly, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. Whenever the word “cloud” is used symbolically, it is always a symbol of God's glory, that unique glory called the Shechinah Glory. It is a glory that belongs to God alone and something that Satan desired all for himself.

And fifth, I will make myself like the Most High. According to Genesis 14:18-20, whenever God is referred to as the Most High, it emphasizes God as the possessor of the heavens and the earth. With this fifth I will, Satan declared his desire to become the sole possessor of all that God created in Genesis 1:1.

These five I wills resulted from Satan's pride and caused him to lead a revolt against God's authority in which he was followed by one third of the entire angelic host (Rev 12:3-4). In this way, the day-star, son of the morning, became Satan, the adversary. At that point, judgment came upon him.

Both the corruption of his person and his deeds are described in Ezekiel 28:16-19. Verse 16 states: By the abundance of your traffic they filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore have I cast you as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Verse 16a spells out the content of his wrongdoings: By the abundance of your traffic. For the king of Tyre, Satan, this figure meant going from angel to angel slandering God in order to win their allegiance. The corruption of his being led to his wrong deed, lying about God. In this way, Satan became the father of lies (Jn 8:44).

Verse 16b describes the twofold judgment of Satan. First, therefore have I cast you as profane out of the mountain of God; he lost the high position as the guardian of God's Throne. Secondly: I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. The word destroyed does not mean “destroyed in his being,” but “destroyed in his position.

Verse 17 states: Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I have cast you to the ground; I have laid you before kings, that they may behold you. Verse 17b decrees the punishment of the king of Tyre: I have cast you to the ground; I have laid you before kings that they may behold you.

Verse 18 states: By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your traffic, you have profaned your sanctuaries; therefore have I brought forth a fire from the midst of you; it has devoured you, and I have turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold you. Verse 18a further reveals his sinful deeds. First: By the multitude of your iniquities. The word iniquities refers to his internal corruption. Secondly: in the unrighteousness of your traffic. The corruption of his character led to deeds of corruption, and he, in turn, corrupted other angels by slandering God. Thirdly: you have profaned your sanctuaries. Because Satan sinned while he was still in Heaven, he brought corruption to Heaven. This necessitated cleansing by the blood of the Messiah (Heb 9:23-26). Furthermore, three things come by way of punishment in verse 18b. First, therefore have I brought forth a fire from the midst of you. Secondly, it has devoured you. And thirdly, I have turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold you.

And verse 19 states: All they that know you among the peoples shall be astonished at you: you are become a terror, and you shall nevermore have any being. Verse 19 gives three results. First: All they that know you among the peoples shall be astonished at you. The angels and those among humanity that followed him will be astonished at his demise. Secondly: you are become a terror. Thirdly: you shall nevermore have any being. Although Satan is an eternal being, he will no longer exist on this earth and he will no longer be active. In that sense, he will no longer have any being.

When God judged Satan, He also judged everything that was under Satan's authority , which meant judgment on the original earth. The conditions of Genesis 1:2 came into being as a result of this judgment. Although it was not originally created that way, the earth became waste and void (Is 45:18). The beautiful mineral garden that the planet once was became totally covered by oceans. Some time after this judgment came the six days of creation recorded in Genesis 1. It is quite clear that Genesis 1:2 describes a state of chaos. The issue comes down to this question: Did God create it in a chaotic state and then bring order to it, or did it become chaotic? It is hard to believe that God created chaos because, when God creates something, He creates it perfect. The author believes it became chaotic because of Satan's fall. Therefore, he does not believe that Genesis 1:2 describes an original chaotic creation. Furthermore, a certain Hebrew expression, tohu vavohu, is used which, when used elsewhere throughout the Hebrew Old Testament, spells the concept of divine judgment. Even water on a global scale is a picture of a worldwide, divine judgment. Therefore, a gap of time needs to seen between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

It is evident, then, that this author places the fall of Satan between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This position is often referred to as the “gap theory.” But many people who hold to this theory do so merely for “dinosaur space.” They attempt to fit the fossil and geological ages into the gap and are forced to make the gap millions, if not billions, of years long. Many have put a gap there only to adapt their interpretation of Scripture to certain scientific theories, making it a convenient place to put the geological ages and the fossil record. Doing this to accommodate certain scientific theories is totally unnecessary. This is not the position of the author at all since, scripturally, it would be impossible for death to exist before the Fall of man (Rom 5:12). There is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 only for the Fall of Satan, and this need not be a very long period of time at all.

On the sixth day of creation, God created man and gave him authority over the planet. But when man fell, Satan usurped authority over the earth, setting the stage for his activities in this third abode.

Dr Fruchtenbaum
http://www.ariel.org/mbsnit.htm

The Six Abodes of Satan
Doing a word by word study of the first 4 chapters of Genesis in Hebrew has been nothing been short of fascinating. I believe Genesis 1:1 is an absolute statement and everything was perfect and was at this time the heavens and earth in all their glory. However, between Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2 was the corruption of the earth by the fall of hasatan. Thus necessitating God having to restore the earth to it's glory. He did this by moving the Spirit over the darkness (sound familiar?) Does it make sense that God would have created something that was void and without life in Genesis 1:1? I say no as everything was perfect at this time, then the subsequent verses are about restoring his creation with the Spirit moving through the darkness which is a perfect picture of our own lives once being in darkness and a thematic picture of the first baptism.

I believe that yes, the above post was true and the fall of hasatan was the time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Please keep in mind Bill that looking at the nature, we can understand the spiritual things. You cannot just have the spiritual things, without it being displayed in the natural.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (KJV) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Is saying if we want to understand the spiritual, let's look first at what is happening in the natural world. I look outside and see pine cones producing pine trees, eagles producing eagles, wheat producing wheat, etc...

Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Science and religion meeting together. How fascinating
 
Roads,
I have repeatedly, in this forum and in this string, stated that I will not seek to deal with the Word of God on the ¨Natural¨ level and I continue to deal with and will continue to deal with the scriptures, only, on the Spiritual Level. You will not pull me into the arena you seek to confront me in.

When I was an atheist, I was a good follower/servant of Satan. I did not acknowledge it but I was. One of my favorite and most often used methods was to drag the conversation into the Natural Realm. Doing that there was never a Christian, Preacher. Pastor nor a Priest I confronted that I did not force them to crawfish back into their Mud Hole. Just as you are seeking to do here, I refused to meet them in God's Arena and embarrassed them in Satan's field of choice.

As for the ignore incident, I just researched and found that was someone called Rusty so let's dismiss that one with me repenting of it. That being said and with an open acceptance of what you claim about agendas, I still, will not wade off into the swamp you are building. The Bible is unlike any other manuscript and must be discussed on it's own merrits and that through faith alone.

I've been reading what you've been saying in other threads about the situation with Syria. You know a lot more about politics and current events than I do. Many people discuss current events and politics from various perspectives, wherever their own wisdom guides them. When you discuss politics and current events, it's clear that the scriptures are your authority, and your understanding of scripture guides your perspective on politics, and it's to your credit. I agree with you in most of what you say about the current situation with Syria. Politics is a thing of the world, but you've informed yourself in that subject, it's clearly important to you, and since your perspective is guided by your understanding of scripture, when you discuss politics, you can use those discussions to honour God: to witness to the unsaved and disciple and encourage believers. I respect and appreciate the way you discuss politics, a thing of the world, from a Christian perspective; if I seek to discuss ideas from science or philosophy from a Christian perspective, why should anyone object?

I can't say I'm particularly interested in science myself, but I understand how Christians who are scientists can discuss their work with the scriptures as their authority, and use those discussions to honour God, and advocate for the Truth as taught in scripture. Philosophy is the same. The anecdote I shared about how I came to terms with Barthes' ideas was a revelation I was able to use as a ministry tool. It's something I was able to discuss with my peers at the time to teach them about Christ and the validity and authority of scripture.

There isn't any swamp being built here. There isn't any dragging of conversation into the "Natural Realm." There isn't any attempt on my behalf to embarrass you on "Satan's field of choice." If I have said anything or ever do say anything that undermines the authority of scripture or goes against the teaching of scripture, then let's discuss those things. Have I argued somewhere that science, philosophy, or anything else has greater authority than scripture? I recognise the authority of scripture. If I've said something that goes against the teachings of scripture, then let's talk about it. I don't want to believe something that's incorrect.
 
I've been reading what you've been saying in other threads about the situation with Syria. You know a lot more about politics and current events than I do. Many people discuss current events and politics from various perspectives, wherever their own wisdom guides them. When you discuss politics and current events, it's clear that the scriptures are your authority, and your understanding of scripture guides your perspective on politics, and it's to your credit. I agree with you in most of what you say about the current situation with Syria. Politics is a thing of the world, but you've informed yourself in that subject, it's clearly important to you, and since your perspective is guided by your understanding of scripture, when you discuss politics, you can use those discussions to honour God: to witness to the unsaved and disciple and encourage believers. I respect and appreciate the way you discuss politics, a thing of the world, from a Christian perspective; if I seek to discuss ideas from science or philosophy from a Christian perspective, why should anyone object?

I can't say I'm particularly interested in science myself, but I understand how Christians who are scientists can discuss their work with the scriptures as their authority, and use those discussions to honour God, and advocate for the Truth as taught in scripture. Philosophy is the same. The anecdote I shared about how I came to terms with Barthes' ideas was a revelation I was able to use as a ministry tool. It's something I was able to discuss with my peers at the time to teach them about Christ and the validity and authority of scripture.

There isn't any swamp being built here. There isn't any dragging of conversation into the "Natural Realm." There isn't any attempt on my behalf to embarrass you on "Satan's field of choice." If I have said anything or ever do say anything that undermines the authority of scripture or goes against the teaching of scripture, then let's discuss those things. Have I argued somewhere that science, philosophy, or anything else has greater authority than scripture? I recognise the authority of scripture. If I've said something that goes against the teachings of scripture, then let's talk about it. I don't want to believe something that's incorrect.
And you have said all of this, hijacking the thread, no matter my refusal to follow you. At the very best. Pride and self control have taken over here and I'm still choosing to do the ministry the Father has given me and just as it is your God given right to choose to discuss science and philosophy, it is my God given right to refuse but you, foolishly insist the ace of Spades trumps the King of Heaven and it does not.

You will do well to learn when to let a sleeping dog sleep.
 
Top