Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck

“What did God mean by this or that” is a different kind of question from “Did God say this or that at all?”

Spirited: The second is authoritative, high-minded. It’s the first that is after the heart of the devil who asked Eve, ‘did God really mean...?”


445 posted on 10/10/2013 3:03:26 AM PDT by spirited irish (we find Gilgamesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies ]


To: spirited irish

You’ve basically turned scripture itself on its head. Satan accused God of crafting a frank lie out of envy! When in fact Satan, the hypocrite, was the envying one! This is NOT a case of what of several possible meanings is intended, a question which must be answered to the best extent possible by bringing all possible good evidence to the table. And here, the observation of the natural world is being pooh-poohed as evidence because, even though it is perfectly in keeping with Romans 1:20, it has been made by some not an object to reflect upon the Lord but an object of direct worship (which is in keeping with Romans 1:21ff and the consequences exactly that).


446 posted on 10/10/2013 7:01:57 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies ]

To: spirited irish

And I’m sorry for the injury to your ego to tell you, the high minded approach DOES require figuring out meanings which might not all be what an English speaker views as literal when the Hebrew is rendered into English per the KJV or whatever your favorite translation is. To assert what you do is to engage in the famous fallacy known as “begging the question.” Isaiah 53 is one of the chief Old Testament chapters about Christ. One thing it says is that He was with a rich man in His death. We know that as being fulfilled by being placed in a tomb donated (as it turns out, lent) by a rich man. Would an English literalist have come up with this a priori, without other evidence to bring to the table? Why of course not.

You’re full of yourself and in that state can bring virtually no light but certainly a lot of heat.


447 posted on 10/10/2013 7:09:12 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies ]

To: spirited irish

By the way, speaking of oneself in the third person (as you consistently have been doing) is a sign of considering oneself loftily elevated. Be careful up there — you can get nosebleed as well as a nasty set of bruises when you fall. I speak personally and it’s because I have found I have no need of pretentiousness to be powerful.


448 posted on 10/10/2013 7:14:29 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson