I agree, but I believe and reserve the word ‘scriptures’ to the physical texts and the word ‘word’ for the Holy Spirit speaking it to our hearts, above any language.
It is the Word written on our hearts that we want, it is God’s word spoken to us personally.
There is a passage that comes to mind that God had me translate word for word from the Hebrew Lexicon, Ps 107, particularly vs 3 (though He had me do the whole thing) to speak to me. The verse reads:
From my translation I got
Those He gathered from the nearby nations, all lands from sunrise to sunset, to the underword to the sea.
The translation He had me do is much more inclusive, and He has shown me the underworld and what is mean by people on the sea, so it made perfect sense to me, though the common translation in scriptures makes more sense without that revelation.
It is the guidance by God in what to read and what translation, that I believe gives glory to God.
I believe what was shown to me is if I didn’t go then one of the party would have been pulled over, arrested and it would have possibly broken up this group. This was from bad will from someone who has a competing ‘club’ who has expressed wanting to take membership away from other groups.
This particular person seemed to have a history of competing groups she got involved with experienced great difficulty. This gets into spiritual warfare, but the short of it is God prevented that and the group still helps many to this day.
The discourse between you two seems as bizarre to me as throwing bones, reading tea leaves, the Tarot…except the same exercise could take place with a copy of Moby Dick, the pained efforts of William Blake, Milton… or any other allegorical work.
Here, watch me: kanicbird, Melville says we aren’t persecuting you or testing your faith, we are merely attempting to help you order the voices in your head so that your mind can form cohesive arguments and rest. “ I have no objection to any person’s religion, be it what it may, so long as that person does not kill or insult any other person, because that other person don’t believe it also. But when a man’s religion becomes really frantic; when it is a positive torment to him; and, in fine, makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him. (Moby Dick, chap 17 p85)”
― Herman Melville
David42, In “The Everlasting Gospel”, William Blake examined the multiple interpretations possible among those who study The Bible. " Both read the Bible day and night, but thou read black where I read white. " So you two aren’t the first blind men to examine the elephant and come away with differing relative truths. Imagine that.
kanicbird: You can continue to shout your assertions into the whistling wind, or you can take Milton’s words to heart: “I will not deny but that the best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words." -John Milton, from Paradise Lost
A scholarly examination of the Bible (as a literary work) with multiple sources and cites is far less contentious and something both believers and non-believers can take part in. But this trippy allegorical stuff you two are arguing makes that impossible. It doesn’t help that David42 continues to use unfamiliar monikers for the characters in his play. I’m scrapping any questions I had and bowing out of this one so you two can continue lording superior enlightenment over one another.
Oscar Hernandez, the guy who shot up the white house in an attempt to kill Obama claims he is Jesus and god told him to kill the anti-christ. How is his claims any more or less believable than others who claim a direct connection to god?
Hmmm, Well, if the biblical Yehushua is true, he said his second coming will be from on high, in glory, that everyone will see.
He told us not to believe it if someone said, “The messiah is come, he is in the desert, come and see him.” He won’t come again as an earthly man born of a woman.
Therefore, if Hernandez claims to be the same biblical Yehushua, he is false, because he would have been a liar before and not worthy to be called “blameless” if he would deceive me as to the nature of His return.
Blake isn’t wrong, per se. However, if you insist an elephant is a snake and you make your argument, I’ll come over and feel the snake. And if I argue it’s a tree, and you refuse to come feel, for yourself, I won’t have a high opinion of your wilful ignorance since I have some evidence the elephant is a tree.
Blake said this in a different day; when he said this, copies of the bible were not common, and people who could study the scripture in the original languages were even fewer.
I have a few contentions, not least among which is the proposition that if we study with an eye toward the original language, many variances of interpretation go away, because these vagaries of interpretation are most often caused by translation and study without consideration of the problems translation can cause. In short, far fewer reasonable interpretations can be drawn by looking at the orignal language.
The other big reason for differences in interpretation is caused by cherry picking.
If we look at all the scriptures and try to find consistency, rather than reading one verse alone, many more vagaries of interpretation disappear.
Still without cherry picking and using the original languages, some difference in interpretation is possible. I do not have a closed minded view that only my current interpretation is possible. Indeed, I have no interest in debating it if there is no possibility of improving my view of the meaning of scripture.
I take issue with your application of Melville to kanicbird. Has he made the earth an uncomfortable inn for you because you have chosen to click on this thread? Before I lecture kanicbird for pushing his torment on us, Shall I not ask you why you simply do not click on the thread and thereby make your world more comfortable?
And I also take issue with your last paragraph. I ahve given many citations to authority appropriate for the subject. If scripture isn’t a citation to you, then I don’t know what to tell you. I HAVE been taking the scholarly approach. If you’re complaining that I have no inherent respect for a scholar’s opinion on the subject, you must forget that we are discussing a subject wherein a teaching most adherants keep in mind is that the scripture and the holy spirit are the instructors. It’s cardinal to the religion that the teachings of mere men aren’t authority here. They still may be useful, or not.
For your convenience, Yah is used as you would use God, Yehushua as you would use Jesus. It’s my own personal conviction; I haven’t sought to compel others to the usages, it’s not too hard to figure out without explanation to begin with, and I would hope that anyone who respects the conviction of another wouldn’t be complaining. Obviously I am somehow “wrong” in my arguments because I use the names as they appear?
Why is that? I won’t argue your argument is wrong because you said “God” where I say “Yah.”
I don’t think either kanicbird or myself see ourselves as trying to gain glory over the other. In my opinion we are enjoying ourselves somewhat as we learn a little something, or teach, as the case may be.
I haven’t made any claims to my own glory. I’m here discussing a subject I enjoy. The point is to debate, is it not? The points aren’t personal.
Yeah, we don’t have to continue to speak in metaphors. I was offering an example of how any allegory can be imagined as a mystical message from the author if one is of such a mind. Your implication that those of us who don’t share your beliefs have never attempted or experienced religious epiphany is patronizing. God, please send Diogenes back long enough to provide testimony for David42, just long enough to dispel his erroneous notion that dissenters have no experience with faith. Church: I been there, and didn’t feel the snake. (Wrong denomination, maybe?) and still have the same opportunities to receive a message from God, should He be so inclined as to reach out to one who mistrusts his followers.
“…when it is a positive torment to him…” kanicbird has expressed in this thread and others that his feelings are hurt when people make fun of his passionate assertions. I cannot in good faith diagnose him with torment, but I can certainly credit his dogged determination to share his personal experience in nearly every thread regardless of the relevance to the topic.
“makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in” kanicbird’s tendency to derail rational discussions with mystical meanderings is frustrating, and after he gets rolling I do tend to abandon the thread.
Your insistence on applying your own obscure names to God and His minions is just as frustrating and appears to be an attempt to claim some mastery of the more ancient text, and it’s nothing but a stumbling block. If He takes issue with the title most use to describe the Christian God, His Omniscience has yet to make his displeasure known.
I find it far more obnoxious that you complain over the name I choose to use where I wouldn’t dream of telling you what name to use. In short, you’re complaining that I don’t meet your demand to use the words God and Jesus. That is an unreasonable demand.
You can imagine all the foul reasons you want for so doing. This doesn’t make it my reason. I have explained my reasons for this well enough, and if you don’t like it, tough, but it is with a contentious spirit that you say so.
I think you’re projecting yourself onto me; i.e., if you were to use such terms you would do it to seek glory and lord it over others.
He said to call upon his name. LORD and GOD are both generic titles in English. Enough said. If you don’t agree then fine, but don’t come and tell me I HAVE to use GOD and JESUS on the grounds I am pretentious.
I think your command to use GOD and JESUS is an attempt to lord it over me and that your attempt to disuade my use is self-glorification too; i.e., you’re more reasonable than me and therefore better.
I have no idea where you thought I said anything about the faith of others. I don’t think I’ve mentioned faith in the entire thread.
Religious Epiphany is one thing. Exegesis of scripture is entirely another. It’s the exegesis of others I’d complain of, not their lack of faith.
How could you saay such a thing? I am the dissenter from the mainstream, you’re sort of arguing I think only my own faith is invalid.
Furthermore, since you keep clicking on the thread, I’m definitely not buying your idea that you are victimized by tormented religious nuts. I think you are inviting it.
Why has this story never been talked about? Why aren’t the 5 of you shouting this proof of Arch Angel Micheal from the roof tops? I mean, they saw him too, right?
Angels stop traffic for me? God opens the bible to the page he wants me to use in arguments against my enemies? Jesus makes a cop ignore the open containers in my car?
Are we allowed to just call this a whoosh and be done with it now? Please?
