Holding their feet to the fire ...

[klaus54]

I don't understand your reply.

Maybe you are not familiar with term "lost" from Bible.

It is about people who are not "saved" (Born-again) Christians.

...example: Bible verse that says "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost"

So, you're a Gnostic now?

Explanations of obvious phenomena - ya know like Plate Tectonics and that sort of jazz - aren't valid if they are given by the "Lost".

Whew! Lemme know what church you attend so I can avoid it like the plague.

Ah, don't bother -- I'll be able to detect it by the stench of their heretical ignorance.

K54

[Jorge]

I don't understand your reply.

Your puzzlement is understandable. My previous post 'explains' the source of his reply.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If you don't mean Jorge, I don't understand that.

Sorry to see that you've broken into the vodka cabinet again.

Jorge

[jordanriver]

If you don't mean Jorge, I don't understand that.

I don't understand your reply.

Maybe you are not familiar with term "lost" from Bible.

It is about people who are not "saved" (Born-again) Christians.

...example: Bible verse that says "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost"

[klaus54]

Can't speak for other Christians
...but if I'm having difficulties understanding Bible, I have Matthew Henry and John Gill and Adam Clarke and Jamieson, Faucet, Brown and Darby ' s Synopsis and Wesley ' s Explanatory Notes and the Scofield Reference Notes in my Bible.

....why would a Christian need some lost person to explain Scripture?

Well, because when scripture references nature, and if you believe nature is Creation, then you have to consider Creation itself in your interpretation.

But of course from my experience "discussing" issues with you, you don't care about physical reality. Just "history" --- or history as you interpret your Illustrated Chillens' Bahbel.

A sad, sad story indeed...

K54

[Truthseeker]

....why would a Christian need some lost person to explain Scripture?

If you don't mean Jorge, I don't understand that.

[jordanriver]

I guess an apt comment is this: The Christian uses, among other things, science to understand the Bible. The atheist uses his scientific knowledge to refute the Bible.

Can't speak for other Christians
...but if I'm having difficulties understanding Bible, I have Matthew Henry and John Gill and Adam Clarke and Jamieson, Faucet, Brown and Darby ' s Synopsis and Wesley ' s Explanatory Notes and the Scofield Reference Notes in my Bible.

....why would a Christian need some lost person to explain Scripture?

[Truthseeker]

And this is where you are on track to Hypocrisy Central. The only way you could know this was not a reference to a physical door is to introduce evidence from outside the Bible and allowing your experience and knowledge of the world around you to influence your understanding of the Bible. Of course you previously described how you implemented a circular argument for how and when to use evidence outside the Bible.



As I said before: In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage.

So much for a logically robust "time-and-tested" approach; it's easy to see now how you arrive at your interpretation of the Bible. But then coming from an individual who still cannot acknowledge he let his mouth run off before finding out whether scientific publications were actually refuting or supporting his position, I am not surprised to find you wallowing happily in mud.

I guess an apt comment is this: The Christian uses, among other things, science to understand the Bible. The atheist uses his scientific knowledge to refute the Bible.

[Truthseeker]

Okay ... so? It happens in a literal (24-hour) day - the duration is another matter.

Possibly you meant "starts" instead of "happens."

[Omega Red]

Christ said: I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9. Clearly He was using figurative language - e.g., Christ is not a literal door. Yet, those words do not convey their intended meaning unless the person reading them knows what a literal door is - it's function and what it provides. That is what takes place in Hosea 6:2. That is NOT what is going on in Genesis 1-2. Those that - in order to support their non-biblical beliefs - use the excuse that "figurative/allegorical/poetic language is used throughout Scripture", consistently fail to provide the full panorama.

And this is where you are on track to Hypocrisy Central. The only way you could know this was not a reference to a physical door is to introduce evidence from outside the Bible and allowing your experience and knowledge of the world around you to influence your understanding of the Bible. Of course you previously described how you implemented a circular argument for how and when to use evidence outside the Bible.

from here

...Setting aside those important questions, science (true science) is in my biblical exegesis/hermeneutic from the start and all throughout.

I do not allow science-falsely-so-called -- the speculations and vain, agenda-loaded imaginations of men -- to dictate how to read God's Word. I constantly remind myself of the difference between operational science and historical science just as I always keep in mind that, when there is conflict or doubt, the vote is cast for God's Word, not for theories and worldly philosophies. In this my logic is irrefutable - it's a win-win strategy (maybe you can figure out why - left as an exercise).

As I said before: In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage.

So much for a logically robust "time-and-tested" approach; it's easy to see now how you arrive at your interpretation of the Bible. But then coming from an individual who still cannot acknowledge he let his mouth run off before finding out whether scientific publications were actually refuting or supporting his position, I am not surprised to find you wallowing happily in mud.

[Jorge]

A form of insanity, however, which has been almost universally practiced here for years with no sign of ever letting up. I cannot recall a single thread where Jorge has made a claim he has backed up - and very few threads where he has not been asked to back it up, usually by multiple people.

I think you're exactly correct. As I wrote back in the old days, the religious approach to knowledge is to SAY something is true, and saying it twice makes it twice as true. And since nothing else counts (certainly not evidence as normal people understand the term), Jorge is our exemplar of this method. And give him credit, he exercises it without exception.

If lying were punishable by hanging, you'd be swinging in the wind long ago.

Oh well ... que sera, sera.

Jorge

[Jorge]

. . . and you guys persist in feeding the Troll and give him the key to the cage.

Is that your pic in the avatar space? If so, go see if you can get
your beard caught in a meat grinder. I'd pay good money to see that.

Jorge

[Jorge]

This is describing a future, eschatological "Day of The Lord", which it calls "one day". As the context shows, this "Day" is an extended time period during which people will behave differently. (Or do you think that the peaceful fellowship described in verse 10 lasts for only 24 hours?!?)

Okay ... so? It happens in a literal (24-hour) day - the duration is another matter.

The entirety of chapter 14 is again describing the future, eschatological "Day of The Lord", which it again calls "one day". As verse 9 states, The Lord will be king "in that day". Do you think this is only a 24-hour period, restricting Christ's kingship to a single 24-hour day? I believe that the "one day" spoken of here is what John calls the "millennium"; it will be a 1000 year long "day".

Same comment as above.

Exactly! This is figurative language; it is not literal. "Day" here is not a literal 24-hour period.

No one - certainly not I - has ever denied that figurative language is used throughout the Bible. That said, context is crucial for proper interpretation. Also critical is what I call "Global Context". By this I mean that not just proximate context but also context from the entire Bible's perspective. This is critical because one Book in Scripture cannot (and does not) contradict another. This is the essential part of the age-proven sound hermeneutic-exegesis for Bible interpretation (namely, grammatical-historical plus Scripture interprets Scripture).

Now you are engaging in inconsistent double-speak! Is "day" here figurative or literal? You seem to say one, then the other!

No, I am not "engaging in double-speak" - . To accuse me of this you are taking an isolated exegetical instance sans the complete hermeneutic/exegesis. That can give an appearance of double-speak, I'll kindly grant you that, but it's just appearance.

Christ said: I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9. Clearly He was using figurative language - e.g., Christ is not a literal door. Yet, those words do not convey their intended meaning unless the person reading them knows what a literal door is - it's function and what it provides. That is what takes place in Hosea 6:2. That is NOT what is going on in Genesis 1-2. Those that - in order to support their non-biblical beliefs - use the excuse that "figurative/allegorical/poetic language is used throughout Scripture", consistently fail to provide the full panorama.

You may accept or reject my explanation. Just be aware that not "double-speak".

Oops, sorry, I made a cut and paste error here. These are not examples of a figurative "day" used with "morning" and/or "evening". Rather, they are simply examples of "morning" and/or "evening" being used figuratively.

No problem - we all make mistakes. From the above you can see that each and every "counter-example" that you provided was refuted (again, you may choose to accept or reject what I provided but it is there and is not "double-speak" or illogical).

The third one (Ps. 90) is especially significant, in that it was authored by Moses himself. Moses clearly could use these terms in a figurative manner. And notice that the word "day" ("yom") does appear in this context (verse 4) in what may be a figurative sense.

What I've written above answers what you say here.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

Zechariah 3:9-10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. 10 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

Why you even present this verse is beyond me.

This is describing a future, eschatological "Day of The Lord", which it calls "one day". As the context shows, this "Day" is an extended time period during which people will behave differently. (Or do you think that the peaceful fellowship described in verse 10 lasts for only 24 hours?!?)

Zechariah 14:7-9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
7 but it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. 8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

I take it that you don't believe that ONE VERY SPECIFIC DAY the LORD will return to reign forever (?). It won't be an "undetermined / lengthy amount of time" but on a specific calendar date during one (24-hour) day.

The entirety of chapter 14 is again describing the future, eschatological "Day of The Lord", which it again calls "one day". As verse 9 states, The Lord will be king "in that day". Do you think this is only a 24-hour period, restricting Christ's kingship to a single 24-hour day? I believe that the "one day" spoken of here is what John calls the "millennium"; it will be a 1000 year long "day".

Hosea 6:2Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
2 After two days will he revive us:
in the third day he will raise us up,
and we shall live in his sight.

Figurative language is in use here!

Exactly! This is figurative language; it is not literal. "Day" here is not a literal 24-hour period.

The Hebrew idiomatic expression used, “After two days ... in the third day,” meaning “in a short time,” makes sense only if “day” is understood in its normal (24-hour .... short time) sense.

Now you are engaging in inconsistent double-speak! Is "day" here figurative or literal? You seem to say one, then the other!

Psalm 30:5Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life:
weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

???????????????????????????

Psalm 49:14-15Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them;
and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave:
for he shall receive me. Selah.

???????????????????????????????

Psalm 90:6Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up;
in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

??????????????????????

Are you well, KB? Had you taken your meds before you cited those verses?
I'd also guess that you're using one of the corrupted/distorted modern Bible translations.

Oops, sorry, I made a cut and paste error here. These are not examples of a figurative "day" used with "morning" and/or "evening". Rather, they are simply examples of "morning" and/or "evening" being used figuratively.

The third one (Ps. 90) is especially significant, in that it was authored by Moses himself. Moses clearly could use these terms in a figurative manner. And notice that the word "day" ("yom") does appear in this context (verse 4) in what may be a figurative sense.

[shunyadragon]

A form of insanity, however, which has been almost universally practiced here for years with no sign of ever letting up. I cannot recall a single thread where Jorge has made a claim he has backed up - and very few threads where he has not been asked to back it up, usually by multiple people.

I think you're exactly correct. As I wrote back in the old days, the religious approach to knowledge is to SAY something is true, and saying it twice makes it twice as true. And since nothing else counts (certainly not evidence as normal people understand the term), Jorge is our exemplar of this method. And give him credit, he exercises it without exception.

. . . and you guys persist in feeding the Troll and give him the key to the cage.