|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/14/2008 9:17:22 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
WOAH! I had no idea this conversation was still in full throttle! I just HAVE to say one more thing. I don't consider theo_book's opinions of time and God as heretical, but I must question this...
quote:
What a nasty spirited thing to say. Are you telling me that all you have to offer God is your ignorance, and that you worship that which you do not know? Your own words testify against you. You continually tell me we "cannot know" anything about God. I say that is nonsense. If you will get away from the safety of "doctrines" and start accepting what the scriptures say, without placing everything into categories (like "metaphor" and "poetry") and just accept what they teach, you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
Too many Christians plead ignorance and humility, when they ought to be learning all there is to know and offer their best to God, in humility. Instead, they offer a voluntary humility characterised by ignorance. And seem to be proud of how humble they can sound through insisting they are more ignorant than their neighbor. And, perish forbid, let not one claim to understand, lest he be labeled "arrogant" for his claims.
I'm sorry TB (actually I'm not), but you CAN NOT understand God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is AMPLE, CLEAR Scriptural evidence (which I laid out very easy for you to see in a previous post) that tells us FINITE human beings that there are aspects of God which are incomprehensible and IMPOSSIBLE to know. The best you can give is a passage in the OT wich was taken WAY out of context. God commands us to study to know what we CAN know, but NOWHERE does Scripture say we can know EVERYTHING. To think you have the capability, let alone the RIGHT, to understand God fully is at BEST heretical, at worse blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I'm not a fan of name calling, but your arrogance in your so-called "knowledge" is sickening. You make it sound as though humility is a bad thing! If I were you, I'd get on my knees and BEG God for forgiveness of my arrogance, and ask God to show me some humility.
Look, I know you are frustrated, and I know you are probably finished with this conversation. You will most likely walk away from this debate, thinking "I was right, and those who debated with me (who were wrong) became angry (becasue they were wrong) which means I'm right. This is what happens when people become trapped in a corner and have been proven wrong. They start name calling and become very bitter. Thank God I'm right!" Don't fool yourself. God is not the author of confusion. If you are right, He has been confusing the majority of His children. hmm...
quote:
I'm sorry, theo_book, but it's become painfully obvious that I have nothing further to discuss with someone who distorts my posts, misunderstands even simple scientific facts, and redefines words to satisfy whatever argument is he currently making.
Hey Dr. Mark! This is pretty much where I left him. There are WAY too many misunderstandings, too much trying to act "smart." I applaud you for you patience...at least what is left of it! (whatever that is supposed to mean  )
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/15/2008 9:03:32 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
TO THEO'S REMARK: What a nasty spirited thing to say. Are you telling me that all you have to offer God is your ignorance, and that you worship that which you do not know? Your own words testify against you.
You continually tell me we "cannot know" anything about God. I say that is nonsense. If you will get away from the safety of "doctrines" and start accepting what the scriptures say, without placing everything into categories (like "metaphor" and "poetry") and just accept what they teach, you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
Too many Christians plead ignorance and humility, when they ought to be learning all there is to know and offer their best to God, in humility. Instead, they offer a voluntary humility characterised by ignorance. And seem to be proud of how humble they can sound through insisting they are more ignorant than their neighbor. And, perish forbid, let not one claim to understand, lest he be labeled "arrogant" for his claims.
EING RESPONDED: I'm sorry TB (actually I'm not), but you CAN NOT understand God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is AMPLE, CLEAR Scriptural evidence (which I laid out very easy for you to see in a previous post) that tells us FINITE human beings that there are aspects of God which are incomprehensible and IMPOSSIBLE to know.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Let me see, o.k., I think I've got it...
Change "you will begin to "know the Lord" to "I can understand God," and you will have an accusation that will stick.
Change "I have no problem comprehending the enormous, not the tiniest, of God's creative efforts," to "I have no problem comprehending all there is to know about God." Voila, we have another accusation that will stick.
Change "Nor do I have any problem whatsoever understanding that God and time exist within the same frame of reference as regards 'when,"" to "I think I have the capability and right to know EVERYTHING (emphasis YOURS) to understand God fully," and bingo! you have another accusation that will stick.
For after all, have we not just seen the readers on the board interpret what Theo MUST HAVE MEANT, in spite of what Theo actually SAID?
E1NG WROTE: The best you can give is a passage in the OT which was taken WAY out of context. God commands us to study to know what we CAN know, but NOWHERE does Scripture say we can know EVERYTHING. To think you have the capability, let alone the RIGHT, to understand God fully is at BEST heretical, at worse blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
THEO'S RESPONSE: And this is in response to what? Which claim that we can know "EVERYTHING?" Please give the post # in which I said ANY of the garbage attributed to me, and I will apologize.
And the popular concept that we cannot "know God" makes a lie out of God's own instructions "Be still and Know that I am God," and Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
E1NG WROTE: I'm not a fan of name calling, but your arrogance in your so-called "knowledge" is sickening.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Now go back and read what it is I actually SAID, and you will find no such arrogance in my post. And take a spiritual aspirin.
E1NG WROTE: You make it sound as though humility is a bad thing!
THEO'S REPSONSE (NEW): And you make it sound like the ONLY thing. God wants us to be humble both in our approach to Him, and in our dealing with our fellow man. He does not expect us to grovel and outdo each other in "voluntary humility" [Col 2:18]. Nor does he expect us to hide our God-Given abilities in order to appear humble, robbing him of the glory that is his from his creation. And THAT is not arrogance, it is God's gift, appreciated and aknowledged to his glory.
E1NG WROTE: If I were you, I'd get on my knees and BEG God for forgiveness of my arrogance, and ask God to show me some humility.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): That is not the limit of what I ask God to forgive me for. If you want to see real humility, take a hand held mirror outside at night look to the stars and side by side with your reflection, and know true humility. Humility is not found in groveling and denial, it is found in aknowledgment and appreciation.
E1NG WROTE: Look, I know you are frustrated, and I know you are probably finished with this conversation. You will most likely walk away from this debate, thinking "I was right, and those who debated with me (who were wrong) became angry (because they were wrong) which means I'm right. This is what happens when people become trapped in a corner and have been proven wrong.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Frustrated? Why? I do not believe anyone on this board deliberately tries to dishonor me. I believe all who have posted here honestly believe what they have said. It would be frustrating if I believed they were lying or simply mischief making. But I do not believe such things.
I do detect some frustration in that I have not been able to articulate my position without raising animosity, but that is for God to judge, not me. I detect some frustration from aknowledgment not all men are my friends, but what is more frustrating is to know that some become my enemies because they do not properly read what I SAY. They let others persuade them that my remarks were other than what they actually were.
And no, I do not think "I am right" in the sense that all others are wrong, but maybe in the sense that I do try to correctly present my position, and at the same time represent to others, what I think glorifies God. I do feel frustration however, when I give my best effort and it comes back at me as "arrogant." However, I realize others also feel the crunch of seeing their best efforts brutalized. So I try to find another scripture that will better illustrate the point, or sometimes I just reiterate what has already been said, thinking in my hubris, someone will read it this time and see it for what I intended for it to convey. THAT is frustration.
And no my friend, I do not think others are angry because they are wrong. I think others get angry because they try, and do their best to get accross to me, a point that I just simply do not agree with. And they do not understand why. THEY find it easy to understand, Why do I not understand it? THAT makes people frustrated and angry.
But mostly I do not feel trapped "in a corner" other than my inability to communicate with what I consider intelligent beings. I see the frustration of which you speak, begin to build, sometimes to the point of animosity, sometimes to the point of hostility, but always to the point of "Inspire me Lord, I can't seem to find the right way to do it on my own."
E1NG WROTE: They start name calling and become very bitter. Thank God I'm right!" Don't fool yourself. God is not the author of confusion. If you are right, He has been confusing the majority of His children. hmm...
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): You may be right but I do not think so. I think they are frustrated from honest effort that seems to go nowhere.
As for "confusing the majority of God's children," What do you think has caused denominationalism? "Some say I am of Paul, some say I am of Apollis, some say I am of Cephas, and some say I am of Christ." ALL of the people mentioned by Paul were corrected INCLUDING those who say "I am of Christ." Have you ever wondered why? Why did Paul fail to say that only those who claim to follow Christ are correct? Because they were as divisive as all the others. THER is real humility, my friend, to be able to convince others not only of the correctness of a position, but to be able to allow them to think that they would have come to the same conclusion on their own if given enough time. They certainly already possess the knowledge, they just have to see the application.
DRMARK WROTE: I'm sorry, theo_book, but it's become painfully obvious that I have nothing further to discuss with someone who distorts my posts, misunderstands even simple scientific facts, and redefines words to satisfy whatever argument is he currently making.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I sincerely apologize my friend, if it is true that I have "distorted" your position. I thought I had quoted it directly, and did not intend to offend. As for misunderstanding scientific facts, maybe. I don't think so, but maybe. As for redefineing words, I think it is allowable to say what scripture teaches "in many other words" (Acts 2:40], in any honest effort to explain oneself.
E1NG WROTE: Hey Dr. Mark! This is pretty much where I left him. There are WAY too many misunderstandings, too much trying to act "smart." I applaud you for you patience...at least what is left of it! (whatever that is supposed to mean )
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Please, go back and read what I actually said in those posts in which you think I claim to understand all there is to know about God. It is not my remarks that you are debating, but your reaction to what DRMARK thought about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/15/2008 2:33:11 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
Theo:
You don't need to worry about us misunderstanding your positions. You have CLEARLY stated in your posts that you believe God is subjected to something (which means He is limited by it) and you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY, which is utterly wrong and un-Scriptural. These things have been clearly said by YOU, and no one here has misunderstood that. Perhaps you are finally realizing how RIDICULOUS these claims are, and are now regretting and denying them, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just forgot your opinions. These are things you have said throughout this thread, and there is no way around them. You are seriously the first and ONLY Christian I know who believes God is limited by something (time), and that you are capable of understanding God beyond what has been revealed in Scripture. You make Christianity out to be a Buddhist style religion...that is, we are all given a life which we are supposedly "commanded by God" to use in hopes to understand EVERYTHING about God. Maybe, just maybe, we will reach that ultimate state of mind "enlightenment" where we FINALLY understand and can comprehend God PERFECTLY. NON-SENSE! THAT, sir, is blasphemy. If that isn't, then I have NO idea what is.
p.s. Are you a professional at taking Scripture out of context? consider the following...
"Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."
How is that verse commanding us to know everything about God? Here is a great explanation of that verse by Barnes.
quote:
Psa 46:10
Be still - The word used here - from רפה râphâh - means properly to cast down; to let fall; to let hang down; then, to be relaxed, slackened, especially the hands: It is also employed in the sense of not making an effort; not putting forth exertion; and then would express the idea of leaving matters with God, or of being without anxiety about the issue. Compare Exo_14:13, “Stand still, and see the salvation of God.” In this place the word seems to be used as meaning that there was to be no anxiety; that there was to be a calm, confiding, trustful state of mind in view of the displays of the divine presence and power. The mind was to be calm, in view of the fact that God had interposed, and had shown that he was able to defend his people when surrounded by dangers. If this the divine interposition when Jerusalem was threatened by the armies of the Assyrians under Sennacherib, the force and beauty of the expression will be most clearly seen.
And know that I am God - See, in what I have done, the evidence that I am God. See a work accomplished which none “but” God could effect.
(emphasis mine)
Note the bold. Again, God is not commanding you to completely understand Him! He is actually doing the opposite. He is telling you to basically relax, take a chill pill, stop thinking, and be happy that "I AM that I AM." Not "I am something." God just IS, no explanation, no understanding, just "I AM." That is all we need to know. God is just God, and we are not commanded by Him to understand what we CAN NOT understand. But, again, you believe there is nothing we can't understand about God.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
You have taken this verse out of context and used it unjustly. Here are the previous verses to undersatnd the context of v 11.
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
First off, the beginning of verse 11 tells us that they WON'T tell their neighbor and brother to know the Lord. Why? Because "for all shall know me" meaning they will already know Him. Know what? NOT that aspects of God, which we are arguing. Verse 10 explains what will be known and how they will be learned. "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Conclusion: This verse is speaking of the law (not theology) which they will already know (not learning) because it was put into their minds and written on their hearts. You see, verse 11 is speaking of a covenant made by God, and NOT what you have used it for.
Neither of the verse you have given tell us to understand God in every aspect, nor do they hint we have the CAPABILITY or RIGHT to!!!!! With all due respect, you should get out of your theology books and into your Bible. This is the 3rd time you have taken verses out of context and used them to prove an unsubstantial, foundation-less ideology. You need to stop using verses that have NOTHING to do with your beliefs to prove yourself right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/15/2008 2:38:58 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
btw - does anyone know why this is in the "Science and Origins" folder? This is more of a doctrinal and theological debate than a scientific one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/15/2008 5:13:22 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Half the stuff that shows up in the S&O threads is directly related to doctrine and theology. However, the agno-atheists will not generally post in any other forums, but that does not apply to theo_book, of course.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/16/2008 8:04:45 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
every1needsgod WROTE: Theo: You don't need to worry about us misunderstanding your positions. You have CLEARLY stated in your posts that you believe God is subjected to something (which means He is limited by it) and you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY, which is utterly wrong and un-Scriptural. These things have been clearly said by YOU, and no one here has misunderstood that.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW):
Please give the post #. I don't believe it.
In fact, here is a list of my remarks on the subject. Please show which remark you reference by post number. Where have I stated that "I have the capability to understand God and all of his aspects COMPLETELY" (emphasis YOURS).
As a further matter of fact, I have repeatedly LIMITED my understanding to that which God has revealed about himself. And if you think men are not to understand THAT, who is the heretic?
(Theo_Book)(Page 4)(Post # 85) "I try to understand EVERYTHING God reveals in his word to us. And I try to limit my understanding to what God reveals in his word to us. ALL ELSE IS CONJECTURE AND DOCTRINES OF MEN.
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post #137) "we can "KNOW" the things about God that he Has chosen to reveal to us, AND UNDERSTAND THEM."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post # 140)"But if God expresses himself to us in revelation ("Search the scriptures"), in prophecies, in dreams, in confrontations, any of the many ways God communicated to men through history, then we can certainly understand those things about God for which he punishes us for not understanding and doing. " "I can and DO understand God as he revealed himself to me in his word."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post # 147)"I DO understand that which I worship. And I DO understand that which God has revealed about himself."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 7)(Post #172) "Before God I declare, I have no problem comprehending the enormous, nor the tiniest, of God's creative effort." Nor do I have any problem whatsoever, understanding that God and Time exist within the same frame of reference as regards "when."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 7)(Post # 174) "Before God I declare, I have no problem comprehending the enormous, nor the tiniest, of God's creative effort." " Nor do I have any problem whatsoever, understanding that God and Time exist within the same frame of reference as regards "when."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
(Theo_Book)(Page 8)(Post # 177)"you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
"Be still and Know that I am God," and Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"
every1needsgod CONTINUED: Perhaps you are finally realizing how RIDICULOUS these claims are, and are now regretting and denying them, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just forgot your opinions. These are things you have said throughout this thread, and there is no way around them.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Sure there is a way around them. Find out the source of such garbage and you will see who lies. The first post I see it in is YOURS.
What is ridiculous is the charge you make. Give the post number where I made such a claim.
every1needsgod WROTE: You are seriously the first and ONLY Christian I know who believes God is limited by something (time), and that you are capable of understanding God beyond what has been revealed in Scripture.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Are you serious? Do you really think God did not limit himself when he made a covenant dealing with time issues? If man is punished for not keeping the sabbath covenant with God do you seriously think God is not bound by that same covenant? Now THAT is ridiculous.
every1needsgod WROTE: You make Christianity out to be a Buddhist style religion...that is, we are all given a life which we are supposedly "commanded by God" to use in hopes to understand EVERYTHING about God. Maybe, just maybe, we will reach that ultimate state of mind "enlightenment" where we FINALLY understand and can comprehend God PERFECTLY. NON-SENSE! THAT, sir, is blasphemy. If that isn't, then I have NO idea what is.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I do. It is not blasphemy, it is a LIE. I made no such nonsensical blabberishment. Try reading what it was I actually SAID. Again, the first place I do find this nonsense is in YOUR post. Who then is the real blasphemer and heretic?
every1needsgod WROTE: p.s. Are you a professional at taking Scripture out of context? consider the following...
"Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."
How is that verse commanding us to know everything about God? Here is a great explanation of that verse by Barnes.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I care nothing for commentaries, spare me.
every1needsgod CONTINUED: Again, God is not commanding you to completely understand Him! He is actually doing the opposite. He is telling you to basically relax, take a chill pill, stop thinking, and be happy that "I AM that I AM." Not "I am something." God just IS, no explanation, no understanding, just "I AM." That is all we need to know. God is just God, and we are not commanded by Him to understand what we CAN NOT understand. But, again, you believe there is nothing we can't understand about God.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Not true. God did explain, and say "I am..." and continued with the explanation.
Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
BUT, God's instruction did not end with that statement, but continued to say... 15 AND GOD SAID MOREOVER (God continued to say) unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: THIS IS MY NAME for ever, and THIS IS MY MEMORIAL unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah GOD OF YOUR FATHERS, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, OF ISAAC, AND OF JACOB, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
Moses did NOT tell the children of Israel "I AM" is God's name. Contrary to your understanding, He DID say "I am (something."
TO THEO'S REMARK: Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
E1NG RESPONDED: You have taken this verse out of context and used it unjustly. Here are the previous verses to undersatnd the context of v 11.
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
First off, the beginning of verse 11 tells us that they WON'T tell their neighbor and brother to know the Lord. Why? Because "for all shall know me" meaning they will already know Him. Know what? NOT that aspects of God, which we are arguing. Verse 10 explains what will be known and how they will be learned. "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Conclusion: This verse is speaking of the law (not theology) which they will already know (not learning) because it was put into their minds and written on their hearts. You see, verse 11 is speaking of a covenant made by God, and NOT what you have used it for.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Too bad you never learned to read scripture. Verse 11 did not begin with "so they will not teach..." it begins with
"AND they will not teach..." it is an addendum, not a conclusion. God will put his laws in their hearts, AND they will not teach every man his neighbor.
And I did not use it out of context. My context was what God expects of us as far as "knowing him" is concerned. We will know him because we will have already learned about him prior to accepting him by Baptism into Christ. Under the Hebrew dispensation, one was born a Hebrew and had to learn as they grew up, all the laws and regulations and commitments of their religion, And their God. Being Mature, Christians already "know the Lord" upon becoming babes in Christ. They already have the milk of the word and continue on to strong meat.
E1NG WROTE: Neither of the verse you have given tell us to understand God in every aspect, nor do they hint we have the CAPABILITY or RIGHT to!!!!!
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Correct! And I made no such claim, and if you claim I did, you are a liar.
E1NG CONTINUED WITH INUENDO, ACCUSATION, AND INSULT: With all due respect,
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Respect? Surely you jest.
E1NG CONTINUED: you should get out of your theology books and into your Bible. This is the 3rd time you have taken verses out of context and used them to prove an unsubstantial, foundation-less ideology. You need to stop using verses that have NOTHING to do with your beliefs to prove yourself right.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): You need to start several things; and quit one. You need to start reading what is written. You need to start making accurate quotes. You need to START taking verses at their face value and understand what the scriptures teach. And you need to quit being DRMARK'S attack dog.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 6/16/2008 8:42:29 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/16/2008 6:52:46 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Half the stuff that shows up in the S&O threads is directly related to doctrine and theology. However, the agno-atheists will not generally post in any other forums, but that does not apply to theo_book, of course.
Even you are not that dumb Dr. Mark. The discussion of time and its scientific application is most certainly a subject for the S&O threads.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 3:06:08 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Color me stupid, but I cannot get a grasp on the merry-go-round rung. 
Just a quick question (or 4): when will God be born (since He is within time)?
Or, if He was already born, at what point in time did that happen? Was it after time started? If His birth marks the beginning of time, then logically He has not been born yet to my way of thinking. Can someone clear up this quandry for me? Thanks!
That's no quandry. It's a simple lack of grasping the reality of language. Consider for example, the simple verb; any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in most languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things, and that when inflected, may be inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with their subject or object.
The actual word "Time" is a noun describing the system of sequential relations of any event to any other event, , as past, present, and future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
"Event;" another noun, describing something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, in a certain place and during a particular interval of time.
The word "verb" is itself a noun, used to combine the functions of action and time, so that it is understood there is no function of one apart from the other.
Look at a simple verb "to be." Does it require time to have function? How can something, or someone "be," with no time in which to do so? Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Consider, my friend, all verbs are word-indicators of action. Action requires time in which to act. "I am" is the present tense of the verb concept "to be." "Was" is the past tense, and will be is the future tense of the verb "to be." Time is REQUIRED for any of the tenses of "to be" to influence what is, or what was, or what could be, to function in any capacity whatsoever.
To say God existed "outside of time" contradicts the meaning of language itself. It has nothing to do with placing limits on God. That is tantamamount to saying God is not expressed in language because language cannot do God justice. There are no limits placed on God by appropriately placing his "being" in its proper "event circumstance" which is time and place. That is simple theological nonsense; speculation at its worst, for the purpose of making God so far above men that he literrally become "out of reach." It is an exercise in voluntary humility, which is condemned in scripture.
Look my friend, God chose to communicate to men. And he chose the medium of language. And language has rules and functions, of which God is the master, and man is only the student. When God spoke to men, he spoke to certain men, but not to all men. For example Moses in Egypt, but not to Pharoah.
Paul tells us men are "earthen vessels" imperfect, but made fit for the master's use by the master himself. And the language he utilizes for communication is precise and unambiguous, and to the point.
When language describes what a noun and verb are, and their functions, and God uses nouns and verbs to communicate, who is man that he can modify the meaning inherent within the confines of the words themselves, to build a concept of God that goes outside the boundaries of those very words God used to communicate?
When God says he created the heavens and the earth, and THEN created light, AND says he "made everything beautiful IN his own TIME," who is man to come along and modify that to mean "He was outside of time, and created outside of time, until he created light which is time."
Anyway, that is the crux of the disagreement that is on these pages, and the continued exercise of misquoting that is going on in order to build strawman dummies for the purpose of defeating an opponent in debate.
But the record remains on the board for any reader to go back and see if any of the claims and accusations are true.
There is no scripture reference anywhere that says God created time. None. Nada. Zilch. But there has built up quite a theology about God that requires him to expand beyond time itself to express his ultimateness, and his grandeur, that goes WAAAY beyond what God tells us about hinself.
It would be kinda like a debate about what "race" God represents, or which race of men most expresses the image of God. It is pointless, nonsense, and silly. The debate would melt down to its most simple possibilities, and the conclusion would modify according to which race was most numerous at any given point. Then, let men put it to the vote, and which ever race is most numerous, voila, That becomes the race God most likely resembles.
THAT is exactly how denominations get started. Someone comes up with a concept, tests it for "can it be proven wrong" and proceeds to publsih it as though, because it cannot be proven wrong, it must be right.
That pretty well describes the process of thought that came up with the concept that God exists outside of time. Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
< Message edited by theo_book -- 6/18/2008 3:14:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 3:17:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be." WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 3:28:41 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2333
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
It would be kinda like a debate about what "race" God represents, or which race of men most expresses the image of God. It is pointless, nonsense, and silly. The debate would melt down to its most simple possibilities, and the conclusion would modify according to which race was most numerous at any given point. Then, let men put it to the vote, and which ever race is most numerous, voila, That becomes the race God most likely resembles.
Just out of curiousity, what group holds the most acceptable amount of time at the present? I guess I am not in that group! 
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 3:54:02 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be." WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.
And DRMARK confuses language with theology. How do you define "being" DR Mark? Without the concept of Time, of course. Use your superior language and tell us how one can "be" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of action within time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 4:36:38 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be." WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.
And DRMARK confuses language with theology. How do you define "being" DR Mark? Without the concept of Time, of course. Use your superior language and tell us how one can "be" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of action within time.
theo,
The problem is that God is not a physical being existing in the same plane as us. He does not need time to "be."
What makes you think the laws of physics apply only to material? Spirits need time to "be" just as much as bodies. It is not the substance of the one being that is under consideration, it is the fact of "being."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 4:56:13 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Hmm,
I am generally puzzled by this running debate.
Perhaps your concern hinges on the phrase "I am." Now, linguists may tell us that some statements have parts which are implied. theo_book, it sounds that you feel there is no understanding of the copula apart from an attachment to an adjective, adverb, or other modifier. Thus, "I am," would mean "I am now," or "I am always," displaying either way a reference to time.
However, I am struck that the phrase "I am" has, in fact, no implicit modifier for the subject I. What's wrong with that? Rather than a statement, you see, I have taken it to be a paradox: "I am" means that reference to being cannot be made apart from reference to God. And thus, those who deny God, are not in fact a part of anything considered "being" as God is using the word -- and that the sense of "I never knew you" would be precise, since one coudl be said to have never existed. For, God cannot look on sin -- and for sin to exist, is for it to be under God's omniscience -- a contradiction. That is why I would say that God trumps time. I don't think He is a character in a narrative, for instance, which is what placing Him in time would sound like to me.
What do you think about these ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 5:09:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Let me think on this one a bit. I'll get back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 6:16:29 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
cool, looking forward to it
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 6:42:50 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
hellohellohi WROTE: Hmm, I am generally puzzled by this running debate.
Perhaps your concern hinges on the phrase "I am." Now, linguists may tell us that some statements have parts which are implied. theo_book, it sounds that you feel there is no understanding of the copula apart from an attachment to an adjective, adverb, or other modifier. Thus, "I am," would mean "I am now," or "I am always," displaying either way a reference to time.
THEO'S RESPONSE: Not necessarily the point I seek to make. "I am" is the present tense of the verb "to be." That is the only use I have for the phrase "I am." I am not tied up in the concept that God said "I am" without saying "I am (something)." He did not do such without continuing with modifiers to the statement.
In fact, the entire context in which God used the term, so often misapplied to Jesus allegedly "quoting Jehovah, making himself God," is God explaining to Moses exactly who it is that is sending him to Pharoah and to Israel. "I am who am" did not end the instruction God gave to Moses.
He expanded on the premise, from "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," to include "And God said moreover unto Moses,(IN OTHER WORDS, GOD CONTINUED TO INSTRUCT MOSES) Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:" [Exo 3:14-16]
hellohellohi CONTINUED: However, I am struck that the phrase "I am" has, in fact, no implicit modifier for the subject I. What's wrong with that?
THEO'S RESPONSE: I think the 15th through the 16th verse serve to modify the 14th verse and all it's ramifications. And that would indeed modify the concept promulgated in verse 14. Try doing a word search in which the words "I am" stand alone. You will find that it shows up ONLY in commentaries. It is not scripture. I will aknowledge however, that there is instance in which the modifier is implied within the question itself, rather than expressed in the response. "I am he" as translated in Acts 10:21 for example, "he" is not in the text, but is implied in the context.
In Exod 3:14 God does not say "egw eimi" (I am) but rather he says "egw eimi 'o 'wn; "I am the being" or "I am that I am" and in the latter case, "I am" become the object modifier answering "Who or what is it you are?"
hellohellohi CONTINUED: Rather than a statement, you see, I have taken it to be a paradox: "I am" means that reference to being cannot be made apart from reference to God. And thus, those who deny God, are not in fact a part of anything considered "being" as God is using the word -- and that the sense of "I never knew you" would be precise, since one could be said to have never existed.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I do not think "I am" is ever used in the sense of "I never knew you." There is no such sense or meaning in the phrase "I am."
I think you are attributing to God, absolutes of language God does not grasp for himself. Allow me to expand on the theme for a moment.
If in fact God did say simply "I am" in Exo 3:14, and if Jesus did in fact simply "quote Exo 3:14" to prove he is God, Then it would follow that everyone else who "quoted Exo 3:14" would also qualify to be God.
This is of course qualified on the premise "quoting Exo 3:14" serves as proof one is God.
Look for example at the claim made, and how it is worded. God said in Exo 3:14 "I am." Jesus said in John 8:58 "I am." Therefore, Jesus is God.
Look however, at another example;
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, WHOM YE SEEK, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." [Mal 3:1]
"Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, behold, "I AM [HE] WHOM YE SEEK; What is the cause wherefore ye have come?" [Acts 10:21]["He" is not in the text]
So, Peter "quotes" Jehovah's "I AM" of Exo 3:14 and also "whom ye seek," of Mal 3:1; so does that make Peter God?
Some very important issues have been developed from such little evidence.
hellohellohi CONTINUED: For, God cannot look on sin -- and for sin to exist, is for it to be under God's omniscience -- a contradiction. That is why I would say that God trumps time.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I think the idea is "God cannot look upon sin" with a view toward ignoring it. He certainly "looks upon" it or how can he judge the deeds of men? As for it being "under God's omniscience" I do not understand your application. What does that mean?
And what does it mean "God trumps time." They are not in a contest, nor yet a game. And they are not in a competition with each other. How is it understood God "trumps time?"
hellohellohi CONTINUED: I don't think He is a character in a narrative, for instance, which is what placing Him in time would sound like to me. What do you think about these ideas?
THEO'S RESPONSE: I do not place God in time. It is God who says "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time..." [Ecc 3:11]
And it is God who said "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good:"
And all this BEFORE light was separated from darkness. I think the effort to define light as time falls by the strength of scripture. In fact, the very next phrase in scripture is, "And God separated the light from the darkness." So it seems light existed prior to its separation from darkness, thus negating any tie to E=mc2 as postulated by some. What is the square of the speed of light when it is still mixed inexorably with darkness? Is its acceleration slowed by darkness? Or is its acceleration enhanced by darkness?
Yet I am castigated for the language. What "language" factors are affected by this exchange? Where is the "confusion over language" referenced by DR Mark?
As for God being a character in a narrative, how else would you describe God's narrative account of the creation, in which he is the principal character?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/18/2008 7:08:08 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
something like that.
I dunno, I think "I am that I am," is simply a longer and more precise way to express the paradox that I was referring to. I didn't really follow everything that you said, because it kind of sounded oblique to my thoughts, no offense -- I'm just interested in what I'm interested in, and lazy when it comes to other things sometimes. Basically, I was bemused by your discussion of verses modifying "I am that I am." It's nice to place things in context, but it seems like your point might have been too fine (fo | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
