Archive through June 27, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » What Your Church Doesnít Want You to Know about the Sabbath: » Archive through June 27, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
djconklin
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>I find it very interesting that those who tell us that we must be able to read Hebrew and Greek before we can understand the Scripture are usually promoting an interpretation of text that goes quite contrary to the plain statements of the Bible. In other words, if I don't like what a certain text or passage says, I can merely claim that it really doesn't mean what it says and if you only could read and understand Greek, you would see why one cannot take the words at face value. In SDA circles, the passages that are most often said to be non-understandable without the original texts are Colossians 2:16, 17, and Romans 14. Because these texts clearly state that the sabbath is a disputable matter, and that we should not judge anyone on the basis of sabbath-keeping or non-sabbath-keeping.

1) I never ever said that you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek--this is a straw man argument.
2) I have not promoted any interpretation that is contrary to the Word. Nor have you proven that I have done so.
3) Colossian 2:16-17 says no such thing--see my study and deal with it.
djconklin
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 4:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>I find it very interesting that those who tell us that we must be able to read Hebrew and Greek before we can understand the Scripture are usually promoting an interpretation of text that goes quite contrary to the plain statements of the Bible. In other words, if I don't like what a certain text or passage says, I can merely claim that it really doesn't mean what it says and if you only could read and understand Greek, you would see why one cannot take the words at face value. In SDA circles, the passages that are most often said to be non-understandable without the original texts are Colossians 2:16, 17, and Romans 14. Because these texts clearly state that the sabbath is a disputable matter, and that we should not judge anyone on the basis of sabbath-keeping or non-sabbath-keeping.

1) I never ever said that you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek--this is a straw man argument.
2) I have not promoted any interpretation that is contrary to the Word. Nor have you proven that I have done so.
3) I never "merely claim" something--I find out what the answer is and deal constructively with the objective evidence at hand--rather than making things up and casting aspersions on other people's efforts.
4) Colossian 2:16-17 says no such thing--see my study and deal with it.
Steve
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DJConklin,

Your point on the Isaiah passage regarding "young woman" versus "virgin" is moot. Mary was both a young woman and a virgin. Either reading does not rule out the other. I've heard arguments on this passage. It can get way out of hand. Just because someone prefers "young woman" over "virgin" doesn't meant thay we have to throw out the Biblical belief that Mary was a virgin.

You say "2) I have not promoted any interpretation that is contrary to the Word. Nor have
you proven that I have done so."

WHOA!!!

Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture? Do we have to "prove" that you are not?

So far your posts have uplifted the benefits of reading Biblical texts in Greek and Hebrew OVER the English. I agree that you never said that "you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek", but even you must admit that your statements can be easily read that way. It's not hard to see your bias on this matter.

You mention problems with the KJV translation. Most folks would agree with that. It doesn't even take a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to know that.

You also say that you "never 'merely claim' something--I find out what the answer is and deal constructively with the objective evidence at hand--rather than making things up and casting aspersions on other people's efforts."

In saying that, it APPEARS that you are casting aspersions on our efforts. Are you saying that those of us who post here are not objective and constructive, or that we "make things up?" It sure sounds like you're saying that.

Who are you and what is your purpose here?

In a Subjective Christ, who has revealed Himself to me,

Steve
djconklin
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 7:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>Your point on the Isaiah passage regarding "young woman" versus "virgin" is moot. Mary was both a young woman and a virgin. Either reading does not rule out the other. I've heard arguments on this passage. It can get way out of hand. Just because someone prefers "young woman" over "virgin" doesn't meant thay we have to throw out the Biblical belief that Mary was a virgin.

Ah, but Bible critics do claim 1) that she (in Isa. 7:14) was merely a young woman and thus this was not a prophecy about Christ and that 2) Mary was also merely a young woman with no evidence that she was a virgin nor that the conception was anything other than a natural one--as one put it "either a miracle or fornication, what are the odds?".

>>You say "2) I have not promoted any interpretation that is contrary to the Word. Nor have you proven that I have done so."

WHOA!!!

Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture?

No more than any translator is infallible.
===
>>Do we have to "prove" that you are not?

Do you have evidence or do you just assume it?
===
>>So far your posts have uplifted the benefits of reading Biblical texts in Greek and Hebrew OVER the English. I agree that you never said that "you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek", but even you must admit that your statements can be easily read that way. It's not hard to see your bias on this matter.

I have no bias except against the easy believism in translations. There is simply no translations that is without error at some point--why else do you think we keep having new one's being created? Because each thought they could do better, period.

>>You mention problems with the KJV translation. Most folks would agree with that. It doesn't even take a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to know that.

There are also problems with other translations as well; see Sakae Kubo's books on the matter.

>>You also say that you "never 'merely claim' something--I find out what the answer is and deal constructively with the objective evidence at hand--rather than making things up and casting aspersions on other people's efforts."

In saying that, it APPEARS that you are casting aspersions on our efforts. Are you saying that those of us who post here are not objective and constructive, or that we "make things up?" It sure sounds like you're saying that.

I was responding to a very particular post that cast aspersion on me without offering any prrof whatsoever that Iwas wrong on any single point.

>>Who are you and what is your purpose here?

Likewise, as well--I'll let you start.
===
In a Subjective Christ, who has revealed Himself to me,

In an Objective, Rational, and Reasonable Christ who constantly reveals Himself to me.
Allenette
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, Steve, that is part of the coolness of the internet. You CAN set up your own little virtual Gulag "wherever" you want. :-)

Seems to me that the only prerequisite here for acceptance is being a FormerSDA...(duh). After that, you join the Official Church-of-believe-what-you-want-as-long-as-it-"inspires"-Everyone-on-here. :-)

Hey, what a welcome relief from our past associations!! and I know whereof I speak :-)
but....(here it comes...)

(quote)Are you saying that those of us who post here are not objective and constructive, or that we "make things up?"
Well, shoot, of course you do. So do/did your pastors/leaders! And most of you do it with best of intentions~~ at times, this website mimicks the public education system....in that, as long as you feel reeally great about your "insights", you must be right. Hey, I know the liberating feeling
but a word to the "wise"--->objective beats subjective just like paper beats stone, every time, ok?

Some times you may have to strain or re read and re read to "get" what someone is posting here, but it would be nice to keep the (self)-righteous indignation down (God knows I know that!--MaryAnn-- shut up LOL)maybe just maybe someone has a leetle bit more "technical info" (formal studies) than some on here, who are also as serious as a heart attack :-)

Just a thought :-)
Max
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Allenette,

Your wit and wisdom are always welcome here, at least as far as I am concerned. And I agree with what you just posted. Is that a first?

Really your bud if you only knew it,

Jude = Max
Steve
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Allenette and DJConklin,

OK. Definitely looks like I jumped in over my head. But I have serious problems with the idea that a subjective experiential relationship with a Person provides less objective truth than a critical objective approach on a scholastic level.

I'm not downplaying the intellectual approach. The problem is when someone begins to put others down for not having the same intellectual approach.

There are many individuals within SDAism and without who are incredibly educated. PhDs up the ying-yang. Many of them are wonderful people. But education does not make the man (or woman!)

As far as "objective beats subjective just like paper beats stone, every time, ok?" I can't say that I'm sure that's true.

But then, after SDAism, I can't say that I know anything that's true. Anything. And I sure don't trust people much, either. Especially educated religious people.

UstaB.

Steve
Bruce H
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 10:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DJCONKLIN

Do you feel the Sabbath is necessary for
Salvation?

Are you a Seventh-day Adventist?

What is the Gospel?

Tell us a little bit about yourself so we know who
we are talking to. There are a lot of wolves out
there and we would like to know your intent is it
to get other to obey the Sabbath or is it to have
a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
From your posts this far I would say you are more
interested in the Sabbath then you are of the
Gospel. Are you not interested wheather we are in
Christ or are you more interested that we are
under Law, Which is it?

Bruce Heinrich

BH
Del Star
Posted on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 10:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow!! Someone in here makes me think that, just like the Catholics say, we cannot understand our Bibles and need someone to interpret. Has nobody read I Corinthians 1:20? "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

Praise God that He "hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" I Corinthians 1:27

Jesus Is Enough
djconklin
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 3:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>Do you feel the Sabbath is necessary for
Salvation?

Yes and no. It is part of the law of God that defines sin. So do you feel that violating that law is any less better than say the 6th or 7th?
===
Are you a Seventh-day Adventist?

Sort of.
===
What is the Gospel?

I'll let you go first.
====
Tell us a little bit about yourself so we know who we are talking to. There are a lot of wolves out there and we would like to know your intent is it to get other to obey the Sabbath or is it to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Both. Jesus said "If ye love me keep my commandments." And to paraphrase James "by your works you prove who you really love."
===
From your posts this far I would say you are more
interested in the Sabbath then you are of the
Gospel.

See above--who do you love?
===
Are you not interested wheather we are in
Christ or are you more interested that we are
under Law, Which is it?

To be "under law" in the Bible means under the condemnation of the law. So you could say that my interest is in straightening out people's mis-conceptions.
djconklin
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 3:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>Someone in here makes me think that, just like the Catholics say, we cannot understand our Bibles and need someone to interpret.

Well, I never said that. The only way I found out what Col. 2:167-17 meant was by digging deep to find out what it meant--as we are admonished to dso in the first place. Perhaps instead of trying to put me down you'd like to explain it to me?
Pat Darnell
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 9:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, Del, 1 John 2:27!
Steve
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 11:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry.

I have a preconceived opinion about who David (DJConklin) is and what his mission is.

Therefore I should probably drop out of this discussion.
Max
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 11:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If we don't treat DJConklin with the love and respect with which we would treat Jesus, then something is seriously wrong. Agreed?
Patti
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 11:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I know him from another forum.
We reached an impasse in conversation on that board. There is no need constantly rehashing irreconcilable differences, and there are certainly irreconcilable differences between reformed theology and the theology of any SDA apologist.
djconklin
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>I know him from another forum.
We reached an impasse in conversation on that board. There is no need constantly rehashing irreconcilable differences, and there are certainly irreconcilable differences between reformed theology and the theology of any SDA apologist.

I know you too _Dr._ (alleged) Patti.
If I'm an SDA apologist then you are a reformed theology apologist. Actually, tho' I prefer to think for myself. If you had bothered to check out what I have said about Col. 2:16-17 you would have seen that I disagree with the SDA commentary on this issue--some "apologist" eh?
Patti
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting, David, that you would post immediately after our "overseer" friend.

And why the "alleged" Dr.? Does that intimidate you somehow?
djconklin
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>Interesting, David, that you would post immediately after our "overseer" friend.

How so? Are you trying to imply that we are one and the same?
===
And why the "alleged" Dr.? Does that intimidate you somehow?

I'm never intimidated by anyone at anytime. Did you ever know or meet Dr. Gerhard Hasel?
djconklin
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>I have a preconceived opinion about who David (DJConklin) is and what his mission is.


Who am I? And what is my "mission"? Mind telling me so I know?
Patti
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 2:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I apologize for the implications.
It was wrong of me.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration