Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
09-10-2017, 06:07 AM,
#21
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
I would have thunk that your proposed method requires an in-depth knowledge of scripture, as well as the subject under examination. How would an individual know, for example, that certain relevant scriptures were being ignored? A person may assume that all the relevant scriptures have been presented, and may not be aware that there are any missing.
Galatians 6:14  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Reply
09-10-2017, 11:32 AM,
#22
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
Consider too that the aforementioned documents are solely the thoughts of the author. As I mentioned, this site and forum is not affiliated with The Herald or Pastoral Bible Institute, so it not matters not hat they believe or publish.
Reply
09-10-2017, 11:36 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017, 03:55 PM by gungadout. Edit Reason: The word "used" added to one sentence for clarity. )
#23
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
StvAce in Post 21:
Quote:I would have thunk that your proposed method requires an in-depth knowledge of scripture, as well as the subject under examination. How would an individual know, for example, that certain relevant scriptures were being ignored? A person may assume that all the relevant scriptures have been presented, and may not be aware that there are any missing.

You know, it might be as simple as listing the Scriptures tendered by both sides, and noting from those, the ones that each side has avoided. Does that make sense?  (Post 5 tenders Scripture, for example.)

Wouldn’t that be a simple, sensible, yet powerful start for anyone and everyone, irrespective of their depth of Scriptural knowledge or lack of it?

(Wouldn’t that approach even be a good general foot in the door for a babe in Biblical knowledge?)

A person who has a little more depth could also check the actual physical context of each Scripture verse or portion tendered, to see how honestly it was used. A fraction more depth, and one can check the logical context as well. And let’s not forget straight relevance to the topic. (All three can be enlightening.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another, possibly related, topic: “Yes But” (as revealed in the book ‘Games People Play’ by Eric Berne), is a ‘life game’ employed by people when they wish to avoid facing an issue, avoid the truth of something, or avoid responsibility.

Each “Yes But” dismissively acknowledges the truth of something that has just been presented in support of a larger concept, then jumps to some other point or question.

Each response that puts the last “Yes But” to bed, is followed by another “Yes But”. The process is potentially endless.

The process is employed in the hope of finally finding a reason to invalidate the overall concept in some way.

It can also be easy to identify by its repetitive nature.

Could the identification of a “Yes But” sequence be another criterion to add (with respect to interactive discussions) when comparing conflicting doctrinal issues?
The High Calling - First of all you Gunga Din. Afterwards you gungadout.
Reply
09-12-2017, 11:20 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-12-2017, 11:28 PM by gungadout.)
#24
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
I am not sure if RR has sent 'permission to publish' requests and is awaiting responses. (But it would seem not.)

Until the permission is obtained, only a few examples and some general comments will be made.

They may well be spread over a few posts.

(More detail can be given if there are any questions about the examples.)

For a start, let’s look at “Time Elements of the Passover in Type and Antitype” by George Tabac.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The author chose to (was forced to) suppress Scripture.

The author spends time building an argument that there were only seven days of unleavened bread, not eight. (As opposed to the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” lasting 7 days, and the “days of unleavened bread” numbering 8.) He presents the argument as both central to and critical to his overall proposition that the Passover meal had always been partaken on the evening of the 15th Nisan (Abib), never the 14th. (The lamb  was supposedly killed on the afternoon of the 14th.)

But he knew that Scripture existed that totally invalidated his argument. So he chose (was forced) to suppress it.

Deuteronomy 16:4 (as quoted in the document): “For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory” (NAS)

Deuteronomy 16:4 (as recorded in the Bible - emphasis added): “For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning.” (NAS)

So the days of unleavened bread numbered 8 after all, even using his own propositions of when things took place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The author invokes Strong’s Hebrew definitions when convenient, but ignores Strong’s when he wants to make a particular verse mean something that he knows (so concluded because he demonstrates that he always looks at Strong’s) it doesn’t mean.

For example (underlining added; bolding retained from the original):
“At midnight (of that same night when they ate the Passover) the firstborn were slain (Exodus 12:12,13). In Exodus 12:31-33 we are told the Egyptians then called for Moses that night and urged them to leave Egypt in haste. In Deuteronomy 16:1 we are told they left Egypt “by night,” and in Numbers 33:3 (Rotherham) we are told they left Rameses (where Israel lived in Egypt, Genesis 47:11) on the fifteenth, on the morrow of the Passover. All of this follows logically only if the Passover lamb was slain at 3 P.M. near the end of the Jewish fourteenth day.”

Elsewhere in the text he emphasises that the word “morrow” means the hours of darkness after midnight (i.e. the hours of darkness before dawn on the same night that the Passover meal was eaten and the firstborn were slain).

However, God actually said (Exodus 12:22, emphasis added):
“You shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and the two doorposts; and none of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning.”

The Hebrew word for “morning” here is H1242 בּוֹקֶר boqer. It means: Strong’s 1. (properly) dawn (as the break of day); 2. (generally) morning; Brown-Driver-Briggs 1. morning, break of day; a.  morning; a1. of end of night; a2. of coming of daylight; a3. of coming of sunrise; a4. of beginning of day; a5. of bright joy after night of distress (fig.); b. morrow, next day, next morning.

The meaning is daylight hours, beginning with dawn.


So once again, Scripture is being misrepresented.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here we have just two examples of Scripture being mishandled. Such mishandling can be reasonably construed as a tacit admission that the author knows his position is weak but that he feels emotionally constrained to uphold it by whatever means he can avail himself of.

Therefore, without even investigating much further, it can be concluded that that stance being promoted is without proper foundation. There is no need to exhaustively review his other “proof texts” and arguments.

People play with (misrepresent) Scripture only because they feel the need to. They feel the need to, only when they know their position is weak.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The strength and simplicity of the method I have been advocating, are thus demonstrated.

Anyone with a reasonable Bible program such as TheWord or E-Sword, has the power to identify and demolish dishonest, supposedly “Scripture-based” arguments. (TheWord and E-Sword are free to download and use, and have many free commentaries, language dictionaries, etc. Both can also be used on Linux.)

Of course, as stated in a former post, the person setting out to do so must be willing to realise that even arguments that he or she is accustomed to using, may be proven false.

That is one reason why this method is shied away from. Better to remain in ignorance than risk having to give up one's own cherished beliefs.
The High Calling - First of all you Gunga Din. Afterwards you gungadout.
Reply
09-16-2017, 01:43 AM,
#25
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
Hi,

Yes, this is a good example.

However, I'd like to see you tackle the New Covenant issue based on what has been said so far and your own knowledge of the subject - if you are able/willing.
Galatians 6:14  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Reply
09-17-2017, 03:42 PM,
#26
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
StvAce, Post 25:
Quote:Hi,

Yes, this is a good example.

However, I'd like to see you tackle the New Covenant issue based on what has been said so far and your own knowledge of the subject - if you are able/willing.

OK. But rather than adopt a position based on my knowledge of the subject, let me tackle the New Covenant issue based on what has been said so far. I guess that means homing in on Post 5. Here goes.

The author of Post 5:
Quote:This subject of the New Covenant is quite interesting. However, personally I am convinced that the Church is *not* under the New Covenant arrangement.

Let’s look at selections from the information presented in that Post, and check for relevance, etc.

A few comments of attempted clarification will also be offered.

The comments may be less than comprehensive, to conserve space.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 John 2:1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [παράκλητον - paraklétos - Strong's 3875] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…

As was stated in Post 5 in slightly different words:

A mediator stands between two parties in dispute, until a formal agreement (covenant) is enacted between those parties. As soon as that covenant is in place, the mediator is out of a job (the mediation process has been completed). Examples of mediation are Theodore Roosevelt’s acting a mediator in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, and Moses’ mediatorship between God and Israel until the Law covenant was agreed.

A mediatorial function cannot commence until all parties (people) involved are in a position to make a conscious decision to accept a proposed covenant or not. In the case of Israel, the covenant was with the nation, but the people as individuals had to accept it. (See Exodus 24:7 for instance.) In the case of Russia and Japan, the governments acted on behalf of the people.

An advocate stands beside another person or group and speaks on that person’s or group’s behalf, much like a lawyer representing someone before a magistrate.


Continued in the next post.
The High Calling - First of all you Gunga Din. Afterwards you gungadout.
Reply
09-17-2017, 03:45 PM,
#27
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
Continued from the previous post.


Thoughts then offered (in Post 5) were:

“Currently, the Church are reckonedly justified before God, and therefore are not at odds with Him - having been reconciled to God through Christ.” Romans 5:1-2

“Whereas, the world at large is still at enmity with God, alienated, and in need of full reconciliation.” Ephesians 4:17-18. “This is where the mediator comes in.”

“Still, St. Paul writes of the previous state, before justification through Christ:” Ephesians 2:12-20

[[gungadout: Advocates of the “Jesus mediates on behalf of the Church, and the Church is under the New Covenant” perspective (maybe expressed slightly differently) state that Jesus initially mediates between each person individually and God, until the covenant relationship between God and that individual is established.]]

“These 'covenants of promise', what are they? Turning to Galatians, it reads:” Galatians 3:8-29

“Here we see that God made certain promises to Abraham. In fact, he made a covenant with Abraham that apparently needed no mediator.

Is not -- Believers are under a Covenant which needs no mediator. R4368:4”

[[gungadout: Did God make a one-sided covenant with Abraham (which therefore needed no mediator), meaning God had committed Himself without any performance requirement from Abraham and his descendants)? What was the nature of that covenant? Did God make a promise (or promises) to Abraham that was different in nature from that covenant? Do the answers to those questions help clarify what Paul means in Verse 29 “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”? If (consecrated) Christians are Children of Promise, what covenant are they actually under? And if under a covenant, how did they get there without a mediator of some description?]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Let's add Hebrews into the mix:” Hebrews 6:13-20

“Made promise -- The promise, particular and special above all promises; also called a covenant thirteen times in Genesis alone. R4496:3”

[[gungadout: Care must be taken here with terminology. Any statement of intent that God makes, that is turned into a covenant, cannot accurately be termed a promise. Statements of intent can be found in (for instance) Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis 18:18 and Genesis 22:17,18; which of the items within those statements represent a formal covenant that God would make (or had made) with Abraham, and which of them represent a promise (or promises)? When a covenanted future outcome accompanies a promised future outcome in a proclamation, that does not mean that the two concepts can be blended or used interchangeably.

Might not the blending of the two concepts, or their interchangeable use, actually lead to confusion?

And could that confusion possibly lead to false doctrine?]]


Continued in the next post.
The High Calling - First of all you Gunga Din. Afterwards you gungadout.
Reply
09-18-2017, 04:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-18-2017, 04:26 AM by StvAce.)
#28
Question  RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
Hi 'gungadout',

I'm reading you comments with interest, but am wondering if I should respond to any of the points you raised, questions asked, or wait until your have completed your analysis before saying too much?
Galatians 6:14  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Reply
09-18-2017, 11:55 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-18-2017, 11:59 AM by gungadout.)
#29
RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
In response to StvAce’s question in Post 28, re responding: It will take two more posts to complete the review – in order to keep the posts to a reasonable size.

Hopefully those posts will contain no hint of combativeness.

StvAce should offer comments as and when he thinks appropriate.
The High Calling - First of all you Gunga Din. Afterwards you gungadout.
Reply
Yesterday, 04:47 AM,
#30
Thumbs Up  RE: Muddled Thinking and The Problems It Causes
(09-18-2017, 11:55 AM)gungadout Wrote: In response to StvAce’s question in Post 28, re responding: It will take two more posts to complete the review – in order to keep the posts to a reasonable size.

Hopefully those posts will contain no hint of combativeness.

StvAce should offer comments as and when he thinks appropriate.

Thanks for the clarification. I will wait for you to finish posting, and see what the end result is before commenting further.
Galatians 6:14  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)