|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 19, 2010 10:22:28 GMT -5
You're half right. You interpret Scripture in light of the immediate context, the context of the Bible as a whole, etc... When a statement is made you examine who it was being said to, what was the reason it was being said, and who was the person speaking. This becomes very important when viewing what skeptics call "Contradictions" because God deals with different people differently over the thousands of years of human history. This is why He will give one people a set of commands and another people a different set of commands. And you do interpret Scripture with Scripture. When you see a statement you examine in light of what the rest of the Word of God says. You don't pick and choose the verses you like or that fit your worldview and completely ignore the rest of them. So your accusation would be valid if I were saying Satan didn't say that. But I don't deny its there, I just deny your interpretation of it. Exactly. So all the words above essentially repeat what I just said but do not address the substance of my statement. Let's try again. When scripture appears to be paradoxical, we must invalidate the interpretation of one scripture in order to validate the other. We interpret one set of verses differently in order to accommodate the interpretation of the other. You are doing this right now with Luke 4. Of course, we all do the same thing in our scriptural studies. Every student of The Bible does. You accept this and do not consider your conclusions even remotely biased. Yet when I do the same thing, you claim that I am prejudicial. When you employ this method against Luke 4, it is valid. When I use the same method in other areas to support my position, it is invalid. Hmmm. |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 19, 2010 12:40:06 GMT -5
You're half right. You interpret Scripture in light of the immediate context, the context of the Bible as a whole, etc... When a statement is made you examine who it was being said to, what was the reason it was being said, and who was the person speaking. This becomes very important when viewing what skeptics call "Contradictions" because God deals with different people differently over the thousands of years of human history. This is why He will give one people a set of commands and another people a different set of commands. And you do interpret Scripture with Scripture. When you see a statement you examine in light of what the rest of the Word of God says. You don't pick and choose the verses you like or that fit your worldview and completely ignore the rest of them. So your accusation would be valid if I were saying Satan didn't say that. But I don't deny its there, I just deny your interpretation of it. Exactly. So all the words above essentially repeat what I just said but do not address the substance of my statement. Let's try again. When scripture appears to be paradoxical, we must invalidate the interpretation of one scripture in order to validate the other. We interpret one set of verses differently in order to accommodate the interpretation of the other. You are doing this right now with Luke 4. Of course, we all do the same thing in our scriptural studies. Every student of The Bible does. You accept this and do not consider your conclusions even remotely biased. Yet when I do the same thing, you claim that I am prejudicial. When you employ this method against Luke 4, it is valid. When I use the same method in other areas to support my position, it is invalid. Hmmm. No. You must first understand what it means literally before attempting to interpret the verse. What you are doing is known as Eisegesis and Hermeneutics. Both are not necessarily bad things, but should be done under the umbrella of Exegesis. Instead of going in with a preconceived notion of "All government is evil" and then trying to find verses that you think support that view your goal should be what does the WHOLE of Scripture teach in relation to law and government. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Jesus repealed ALL of the commandments? |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 19, 2010 12:40:56 GMT -5
All Scripture is valid. This is an erroneous statement. It was not a statement. It was a question. I will repeat it. How many times must scripture make a statement before it is valid? Please answer. I already did in a couple of different ways in the posts that followed and in the one I just typed. |
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2010 13:52:29 GMT -5
If it was under Christ I'd be all for it. That wasn't my question. Your position appeared to be that since "government" was the English word chosen by the translators to represent the original Hebrew while describing a prophesy concerning Christ, that therefore, government was innately righteous and acceptable at a global level. My question remains. Would you then support the immediate formation of a one-world government? If it was under Christ yes. But I know that the antichrist will rule a one world government, if that's what you were getting at. |
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 19, 2010 14:28:03 GMT -5
Jesus' two commandments replace the Jewish commandments with utter simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 12:15:08 GMT -5
No. You must first understand what it means literally before attempting to interpret the verse. What you are doing is known as Eisegesis and Hermeneutics. Both are not necessarily bad things, but should be done under the umbrella of Exegesis. Instead of going in with a preconceived notion of "All government is evil" and then trying to find verses that you think support that view your goal should be what does the WHOLE of Scripture teach in relation to law and government. Now, instead of addressing the fact that you do interpret competing texts and make choices just like I do, you are now explaining WHY and HOW you make those choices and claiming your method to be superior. The fact remains that we both have texts to support our positions, yet you refuse to accept that my subjective interpretation is as logical and well thought out as your own. Which commandments? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 12:19:24 GMT -5
How many times must scripture make a statement before it is valid? Please answer. I already did in a couple of different ways in the posts that followed and in the one I just typed. No, you did not. Let's revisit some basic debate conduct. "How many" is a reference to enumeration. It is a question of capacity or numerical sequence. When someone asks "how many" apples you ate, a proper response is not a review of apple types, the various color deviations among apple strains, or the manner in which apple trees are fertilized. A proper response would be, for instance, "3." If you had eaten 4 apples, a proper response would be "4." So I ask you yet again... How many times must scripture make a statement before it is valid? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 12:26:04 GMT -5
If it was under Christ yes. But Christ is not here to reign right now, is he? So if it were immediate, then it wouldn't be under Christ, would it? And Buddha isn't here right now either. Neither is Mohammed, George Armstrong Custer, Clark Kent, Elvis or Mona Lisa. Sooooooo.... let's try again. Would you support the immediate formation of a one-world government? HOLY MOTHER OF MARY, JERABOAM, RHEABOAM AND ALL THE OTHER BOAMS!!!!! What on earth do you have to do to get a bloody answer around here? SOMEONE BE A FREAKING MODERATOR!!! Whew. I feel better now.  |
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 12:31:32 GMT -5
If it was under Christ yes. But Christ is not here to reign right now, is he? So if it were immediate, then it wouldn't be under Christ, would it? And Buddha isn't here right now either. Neither is Mohammed, George Armstrong Custer, Clark Kent, Elvis or Mona Lisa. Sooooooo.... let's try again. Would you support the immediate formation of a one-world government? If it was under Christ, yes, if not, no. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 18:16:44 GMT -5
The question, and your answer above, it relevant in this sense: You offered a passage from Isaiah which prophesies that Christ will return as ruler of earth. You indicated that this passage validated modern government as a Godly, righteous creation, even going so far as to point out that this would be the equivalent of a one-world government. You have offered this passage repeatedly for this purpose. Yet you know very well that the growth of national governments and consolidation toward a world government is the Biblical foundation upon which Satan will build his kingdom and the tool by which the anti-Christ will come to power. And, as you stated in your response above, when the truth is known, you don't want a one-world government any more than I do. The passage from Isaiah has no relevance to the specific topic of this conversation. The passage does not justify your position, and you yourself reject it as justification for a one-world government. And if you will not accept it as relevant to modern national and international governments, please do not ask me to, either. |
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 19:03:33 GMT -5
The question, and your answer above, it relevant in this sense: You offered a passage from Isaiah which prophesies that Christ will return as ruler of earth. You indicated that this passage validated modern government as a Godly, righteous creation, even going so far as to point out that this would be the equivalent of a one-world government. You have offered this passage repeatedly for this purpose. That's not what I used it for at all. I quoted the passage to prove my point that all government is not evil, which is the position that you have advocated throughout these arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 21:16:05 GMT -5
I quoted the passage to prove my point that all government is not evil That passage does not prove your point. It refers to a futuristic world ruled by God and makes no attempt to validate or refute any position relative to the world in which we now live. |
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 21:46:20 GMT -5
I quoted the passage to prove my point that all government is not evil That passage does not prove your point. It refers to a futuristic world ruled by God and makes no attempt to validate or refute any position relative to the world in which we now live. It proves that government is not inherently evil. Does it not? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 21:55:47 GMT -5
It proves that government is not inherently evil. Does it not? No, it does not. A scripture passage referring to a futuristic world ruled by God can be used as a proof text for debates on a futuristic world ruled by God. It cannot be used as a proof text to demonstrate any point about modern governments. |
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Mar 20, 2010 21:56:41 GMT -5
That passage does not prove your point. It refers to a futuristic world ruled by God and makes no attempt to validate or refute any position relative to the world in which we now live. It proves that government is not inherently evil. Does it not? Not really. All it says is that we can look forward to a perfect kingdom. Any attempt to cite it as a tacit approval of any government NOT headed by Christ is inference at best. |
|
