- Topic
This comment was originally posted on Zahng Gil Jah's Ex-Husband's Side Of The Story? on 01/23/13:
keshab Dhungel Ithari church, Nepal says:
i believe she is our mother. without dought i am saying she is our heavenly mother.if we want to get salvation then really we should have to believe god the mother.
Rule #1 where did you get that from? Is that in the bible? NO! Elie you can try anything you'd like to. Please go ahead and "discuss" ^^
Rule #1 where did you get that from? Is that in the bible? NO! Elie you can try anything you'd like to. Please go ahead and "discuss" ^^
Clearly stated fulfilled the throne of David, Hos 3:5
Restored the Passover Isa 55:3
Has given eternal life! Isa 25:6
Clearly stated fulfilled the throne of David, Hos 3:5
Restored the Passover Isa 55:3
Has given eternal life! Isa 25:6
how can you restore what never left
how can you restore what never left
If you read a book, do you try to understand what the author says or do you put your own interpretation on what you are reading?
Hosea 3:5 is talking particularly about the Israelites. I am not sure what do you mean by this verse, care to explain?
Isaiah 55:3 is not talking about "restoring" the Passover. If you read it by context, it just plainly says that God has made an everlasting covenant. The Passover that you are talking about was not abolished because many religions still practice it until now and even before the coming of the wmscog.
Isaiah 25:6. If I am not mistaken, this mountain is Mt. Zion. The bible is talking about this being the place where eternal life will happen, so it is synonymous to Heaven. Therefore, it is Heaven or some place where God dwells. As I have understand, there are many "synonyms" for Heaven in the bible, these words being Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, Mt. Sinai if you consider them in a spiritual sense.
If you read a book, do you try to understand what the author says or do you put your own interpretation on what you are reading?
Hosea 3:5 is talking particularly about the Israelites. I am not sure what do you mean by this verse, care to explain?
Isaiah 55:3 is not talking about "restoring" the Passover. If you read it by context, it just plainly says that God has made an everlasting covenant. The Passover that you are talking about was not abolished because many religions still practice it until now and even before the coming of the wmscog.
Isaiah 25:6. If I am not mistaken, this mountain is Mt. Zion. The bible is talking about this being the place where eternal life will happen, so it is synonymous to Heaven. Therefore, it is Heaven or some place where God dwells. As I have understand, there are many "synonyms" for Heaven in the bible, these words being Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, Mt. Sinai if you consider them in a spiritual sense.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Rule #1 where did you get that from? Is that in the bible? NO! Elie you can try anything you'd like to. Please go ahead and "discuss" ^^
We have a term for "Interpretation of the Bible", it is called Hermeneutics (http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible). Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. Since many people misunderstands the bible, theologian experts develop a way on how to interpret the bible to avoid confusions and the misuse of the scripture. Here are some of those rules, you can read the explanation of it in this site (http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm):
I. FOLLOW THE CUSTOMARY USAGES OF THE LANGUAGE.
II. COMMIT NO HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL BLUNDERS.
III. MAKE CHRIST CENTRAL IN ALL INTERPRETATIONS.
IV. BE CONSCIOUS OF CONTEXT.
V. INTERPRET BY THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH.
VI. RECOGNIZE THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION.
VII. GRANT ONE INTERPRETATION TO EACH PASSAGE.
VIII. CHOOSE THE SIMPLEST ALTERNATIVE
IX. NEVER INVENT EXPLANATIONS TO SILENT AREAS OF SCRIPTURE.
X. NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OF RELIGION OR MODERN SCIENCE.
XI. NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.
This is the more formal stuff. I think the wmscog has not followed 6 (I, II IV, IX,X, XI) out of this 11 Rules. There are also other websites (E.g http://www.watchman.org/reltop/8rules.htm, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html, http://www.inplainsite.org/html/biblical_interpretation.html, http://www.bridgeway.org.au/books/BibleSpeak.pdf) that states it more simply. Some only have 8 rules for interpretation but all of them contains the same thought as the one stated above.
It is in their belief that you must follow these rules to guide you when you are reading the Bible so that you won't misunderstand or be confused with what you read.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Rule #1 where did you get that from? Is that in the bible? NO! Elie you can try anything you'd like to. Please go ahead and "discuss" ^^
We have a term for "Interpretation of the Bible", it is called Hermeneutics (http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible). Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. Since many people misunderstands the bible, theologian experts develop a way on how to interpret the bible to avoid confusions and the misuse of the scripture. Here are some of those rules, you can read the explanation of it in this site (http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm):
I. FOLLOW THE CUSTOMARY USAGES OF THE LANGUAGE.
II. COMMIT NO HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL BLUNDERS.
III. MAKE CHRIST CENTRAL IN ALL INTERPRETATIONS.
IV. BE CONSCIOUS OF CONTEXT.
V. INTERPRET BY THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH.
VI. RECOGNIZE THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION.
VII. GRANT ONE INTERPRETATION TO EACH PASSAGE.
VIII. CHOOSE THE SIMPLEST ALTERNATIVE
IX. NEVER INVENT EXPLANATIONS TO SILENT AREAS OF SCRIPTURE.
X. NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OF RELIGION OR MODERN SCIENCE.
XI. NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.
This is the more formal stuff. I think the wmscog has not followed 6 (I, II IV, IX,X, XI) out of this 11 Rules. There are also other websites (E.g http://www.watchman.org/reltop/8rules.htm, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html, http://www.inplainsite.org/html/biblical_interpretation.html, http://www.bridgeway.org.au/books/BibleSpeak.pdf) that states it more simply. Some only have 8 rules for interpretation but all of them contains the same thought as the one stated above.
It is in their belief that you must follow these rules to guide you when you are reading the Bible so that you won't misunderstand or be confused with what you read.
Hermeneutics is no more valid than any other methodology, also it’s origins aren’t exactly kosher
Hermeneutics is no more valid than any other methodology, also it’s origins aren’t exactly kosher
But it is more acceptable than trying to interpret the bible on your own. Or are you saying you can just say anything you want quoting the scriptures even though it is not related to what the author was trying to say? It may not be kosher but it's use predates back to ancient Greek, it is believed to be crucial in biblical studies and IF you try to read and understand its rules, you will agree that it can be use as a valid method for interpretation.
But it is more acceptable than trying to interpret the bible on your own. Or are you saying you can just say anything you want quoting the scriptures even though it is not related to what the author was trying to say? It may not be kosher but it's use predates back to ancient Greek, it is believed to be crucial in biblical studies and IF you try to read and understand its rules, you will agree that it can be use as a valid method for interpretation.
believed by some.
and the fact it comes from Greece is why it isn’t kosher
believed by some.
and the fact it comes from Greece is why it isn’t kosher
So you're trying to say that everything must come from kosher then?
So you're trying to say that everything must come from kosher then?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.