[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:55:01 +1000
Dear Allen. Though you were addresing Nick and Dan, I am sure you will not
object to me asking a question in to this debate. You said,
"Scripture defines itself! It will correlates its meaning with itself! It can
be easily understood without reading into the text or its meaning, it requires
nothing more than acceptance of plain text external of anyone's interpretation
or Ideas or Reasoning! "
This saying is in keeping with what you have been espousing throughout your
posts.
However I find it not only difficult to comprehend, but even irrational to make
such a claim. I raise the following simple objections, which in light of , you
may be pleased to re explain your position.
!st Objection:
Which Bible ? For our case, lets compare the extremes of the version Neville
prefers, to the one which I prefer, which is the lesser adulterated Douay
Rheims. ... (yes the modern DR is quite adulterated in its simple TEXT and
omissions)
2nd Objection:
All of todays texts have their modern interpretation based upon the earlier 1st
millenium hand written COPIES of COPIES of COPIES of interpretations of
original handwritten script, of which only fragments remain with us today. But
sufficient do remain to tell us that the words of scripture then, were
continuous script, without spaces between words, or any punctuation whatsoever.
There were no numbered verses or paragraphs as such.
Someone, specialised men, scholars have come along and translated this scrip
and given it the EX-PRESSION necessary for comprehension, who being fallible
men will bias it according to their own reading of it. Catholic Scholars had
their work censored, (checked and approved, Catholic bias if you like) before
release. Wycliffe, and all the others are quite personal...un censored, all
free, helped of course by their friends. Luther removed many books, but his
friends restored some after he was gone. Again which text?
3rd Objection:
This is the most important, because I select individual verses standing alone.
This you may object to on the grounds that from todays post, I get the
impression (perhaps wrongly) that you do not allow people to take any text out
of context, insisting that they must include it with a full understanding and
memory of the complete Bible. If you insist on this then I find such a position
extremely unreasonable. Rock and stone are subtly different, especially in the
context used. Adulterers were not Petered with peters. ???
When Jesus said: Luke 23
33 And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, they
crucified him there: and the robbers, one on the right hand, and the other on
the
left.
34 And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. But
they, dividing his garments, cast lots.
To whom is it "plainly obvious" that Jesus was referring? Given that the verses
and numbers are man made, and were never in the Divinely inspired Script
(original). I find it impossible just from the text alone.
I see it could be a number of possibilities. They who crucified him? They who
ordered or demanded it? The robbere? or those who divided His garments and cast
lots. Perhaps all of them. Even perhaps, because it sounds reasonable, He
referred to all of us sinners who are responsible.
There is no obviously explainable person being referred to plainly in the text.
Of course we could cross refer to the other Gospels, but that requires
"reasoning" which according to yours above is forbidden.
Further, "for they know not what they do." This is an important saying. It
exempts responsibility. The good and perfect loving God will not blame or
punish any for what they are not responsible.
#note below.
Thus once again it is most important that we know to"whom" does the "they"
refer?
Allen, both you and I may arrive at a personal preference here, which may even
be the same. Originally I always assumed that He meant the JEWS, who called for
His blood. Yet upon this analysis I am not so sure. I was given this view by
other men. But even if we both had the same interpretation, that does not make
us right.
The point I make is: there is no plainly obvious explanation in the text. This
may be a mystery which God puts before us, which only His Church if He desires
it can answer.
Thank you for your attention. I want to thank Neville as well for allowing this
debate, and also for allowing the new HTML format. I only regret this was not
available for our scientific geocentric cosmology discusions.
Philip.
# Contra-indication: If I allowed my flights of fancy I would doubt that
statement. From historical/Biblical evidence, God does indeed curse and punish
the descendents who cannot be personally responsible .. Children are indeed
punished for the sins of the parents. A mystery??
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick, I accept your response to mine and Dan's invitation for this
discussion. However, I would like to use this opportunity to address the REAL
issue "How and how not to address/use scripture"...I am not trying to draw you
out here but Dan already accepts the Premises that Peter was not the rock then
this example will be the most strait forward for me to make to him.
Dan, Please hear me out.....Your premise that Peter was not the rock is
correct! ..However, the method of argument in your posting for reaching that
conclusion is based on similar methodology that is used to maintain that Peter
was the rock...Namely it is a philosophical argument or
methodology(Interpretative of the scriptures that you use to make the
argument)..This is the same methodology used in all the previous
debates..Scripture defines itself! It will correlates its meaning with itself!
It can be easily understood without reading into the text or its meaning, it
requires nothing more than acceptance of plain text external of anyone's
interpretation or Ideas or Reasoning! ..Let me demonstrate this with the "Peter
and the Rock" issue. First note the context of OT & NT STATMENTS...in all cases
it is SALVATION,ROCK, STONE, AND THE WORK OF GOD.
with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Other related posts:
