|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 0:59:56 GMT
And this is why it will forever be pointless to talk about Revelation. And yet many people do. It's a great book, just not one worth arguing over. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 1:05:48 GMT
It's a great book, just not one worth arguing over. surely then the same could be said about any biblical book? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 1:14:30 GMT
It's a great book, just not one worth arguing over. surely then the same could be said about any biblical book? Not at all. Like most books, the Bible is meant to be understood excerpt by ones who insist "It's all interpretation" which is not even remotely true unless one works hard or not at all to make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 1:16:43 GMT
surely then the same could be said about any biblical book? Not at all. Like most books, the Bible is meant to be understood excerpt by ones who insist "It's all interpretation" which is not even remotely true unless one works hard or not at all to make it so. not sure I am parsing your sentence, are you saying there is no interpretation of the bible? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 1:23:24 GMT
Not at all. Like most books, the Bible is meant to be understood excerpt by ones who insist "It's all interpretation" which is not even remotely true unless one works hard or not at all to make it so. not sure I am parsing your sentence, are you saying there is no interpretation of the bible? On the contrary, I'm saying it's at least as easy to read as any other classical literature. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 1:39:08 GMT
not sure I am parsing your sentence, are you saying there is no interpretation of the bible? On the contrary, I'm saying it's at least as easy to read as any other classical literature. So you accept interpretational views of the bible? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 1:52:23 GMT
On the contrary, I'm saying it's at least as easy to read as any other classical literature. So you accept interpretational views of the bible? You like talking like that don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 1:55:52 GMT
So you accept interpretational views of the bible? You like talking like that don't you? I am just not getting what you are saying which may be my fault, I am jsut asking for a clear answer though, Do you think the bible is open to interpretation? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 1:59:00 GMT
You like talking like that don't you? I am just not getting what you are saying which may be my fault, I am jsut asking for a clear answer though, Do you think the bible is open to interpretation? It is your fault. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 2:00:21 GMT
I am just not getting what you are saying which may be my fault, I am jsut asking for a clear answer though, Do you think the bible is open to interpretation? It is your fault. Marvelous. Now can you answer the question, yes or no is the bible open to interpretation? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 2:05:19 GMT
Marvelous. Now can you answer the question, yes or no is the bible open to interpretation? I don't do yes or no since I can't control you interpreting whatever you feel like. However, you are mistaking thinking that because you don't understand something, or probably more likely, there's something you don;t like, then that means the Bible is expecting you to interpret however you feel which makes no sense. If anything the burden is on you to prove the Bible is 100% completely open to interpretation and thus meaningless. I don't think you can do t except for the purpose of being stubborn such as with the omniscience foolishness. Bring up something you are having trouble with in scripture |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 2:11:24 GMT
Marvelous. Now can you answer the question, yes or no is the bible open to interpretation? I don't do yes or no since I can't control you interpreting whatever you feel like. However, you are mistaking thinking that because you don't understand something, or probably more likely, there's something you don;t like, then that means the Bible is expecting you to interpret however you feel which makes no sense. If anything the burden is on you to prove the Bible is 100% completely open to interpretation and thus meaningless. I don't think you can do t except for the purpose of being stubborn such as with the omniscience foolishness. Bring up something you are having trouble with in scripture No I was asking for your opinion, but nice dodge. See if you were honest you would have given your opinion, but all you did was obfuscate for four posts and then attempt to blame me for you not having a backbone. You sadden me. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 2:14:21 GMT
I don't do yes or no since I can't control you interpreting whatever you feel like. However, you are mistaking thinking that because you don't understand something, or probably more likely, there's something you don;t like, then that means the Bible is expecting you to interpret however you feel which makes no sense. If anything the burden is on you to prove the Bible is 100% completely open to interpretation and thus meaningless. I don't think you can do t except for the purpose of being stubborn such as with the omniscience foolishness. Bring up something you are having trouble with in scripture No I was asking for your opinion, but nice dodge. See if you were honest you would have given your opinion, but all you did was obfuscate for four posts and then attempt to blame me for you not having a backbone. You sadden me. My opinion was so obvious as to not require a yes or no question. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2018 2:16:03 GMT
No I was asking for your opinion, but nice dodge. See if you were honest you would have given your opinion, but all you did was obfuscate for four posts and then attempt to blame me for you not having a backbone. You sadden me. My opinion was so obvious as to not require a yes or no question. To be fair your opinion is obvious, the answer is no, you do not think the bible is open to interpretation, but since you know what kind of an untenable position that puts you in you are avoiding actually saying it. You still sadden me. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 22, 2018 2:18:36 GMT
My opinion was so obvious as to not require a yes or no question. To be fair your opinion is obvious, the answer is no, you do not think the bible is open to interpretation, but since you know what kind of an untenable position that puts you in you are avoiding actually saying it. You still sadden me. I'm glad you admit to playing games for post count. Anyway...Why would it put me in any position at all? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 22, 2018 2:45:57 GMT
Straight over my privileged white head, right? Exactly! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 16:06:05 GMT
Well, I think you're a lovely person but I guess I was wrong.    OK. Let us pedantarily (yes I make up good words) analyse this latest postulation on your part. You accused me of 'liking choir boys'. This phrase is open to interpretation. In what way are you asserting that I 'like choir boys'? Do I think that they look cute in their little surplices and have nice immature voices? Tend to sing nicely? ...or do you assert that I like them in a sexual way? You then propose that you thought that I was a nice person and now because of the sexual way that you propose that I 'like' choir boys, that through your INTERPRETATION of my liking choir boys that way, you have changed your mind. Despite your INTERPRETATION of my proclivities towards choir boys you have made a binding decision, without any relevant facts, that I am NOT a nice person. I could say to you... 'I don't 'know' any choir boys' and in your INTERPRETATION that could either mean that I have never met a choir boy in my life OR that I have never 'known' in the Biblical sense a choir boy ie that I claim not to have had sexual relations with a choir boy. So, I either am a good person or not on the basis of me liking or not...choir boys, in your view. What are the known facts.....?That this most recent post of yours is terrific, specifically your witty treatment of "known." Take heart in two more facts: I think you're a lovely person and I don't care if you think I'm wrong about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 16:12:54 GMT
Okay, good, see, we're getting somewhere. I am not claiming against radical inclusion. I believe there is radical inclusion during the Age of Grace, which is the period we live in now and have been living in since Christ came to earth as Jesus. I am not in any way saying that Christ's message was exclusionary. I am saying there will come a time when there will not be any Christians left on earth who are saved by Grace. There will only be unredeemed sinners and Jews. It will be at this point that God will rebuke the rest of the world in favor of the Jews. It is at this point (and it only lasts seven years or less) that God will once again only deal with humanity through the conduit of the Jews, much like the period of time before the Age of Grace. He always has and He always will provide the method of salvation to people on earth who want it. It's just that in the seven year period of Tribulation, nobody will seek that salvation except the Jews. Jesus is the only salvation and his salvation extends to people born prior to his first coming on earth every bit as those who came after. If you think there are alternate paths to heaven other than Christ, there is a vast difference in our interpretation of scripture. How can that be if they have never heard of him? But they had heard of him. From the moment of Adam and Eve's "fall from grace" moment in Eden, God prophesied about the coming Messiah. It was faith in this coming Messiah that will save those who came before Jesus. The OT is chock full of examples of this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 16:15:43 GMT
Straight over my privileged white head, right? Exactly! If excuses make you feel better, more power to you! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 22, 2018 16:17:36 GMT
tpfkar It's definitely not a recounting of the fall of the first temple. In fact, what Paul, Revelation, & Jesus teach are all in pretty good harmony that the blog link might miss. I couldn't read it all, but the title did not foretell good results. Indeed, many events described in Revelation provably did not happen in 70 AD. Boyhowdy is that a bit of an understatement.
Joe the Father |
|
