Aletheiophile
New member
The meaning is Christ. Christ is the subject matter of all scripture. But the modern denominations have completely corrupted the simplicity that is in Christ.
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
The meaning is Christ. Christ is the subject matter of all scripture. But the modern denominations have completely corrupted the simplicity that is in Christ.
I'm pointing this out objectively.
RD's was obviously not a question, rather; a challenge to you and your kind to put up or shut up.
The irony of your reply here - you lost RD's intended meaning in your translation.
Or rather, you "corrupted" RD's intended sense in your own mind - you read what you concluded RD meant into what RD meant. You then concluded that was what RD meant, and then responded to it as what RD meant.
One could refer to your result there as Bias Projected - Bias Confirmed.
I suggest you admit this. If it gets no one's respect (a rare event on TOL) you will at least do yourself the favor of freeing yourself just a bit more from such biases going in (another rare event on TOL).
Aletheiophile
New member
Popularity does not translate into credibility or likeability. Remember Christ? He wasn't very popular. Bullies are popular. You talk like a middle school bully. If you profess to be a Christian, your behavior is entirely unChristian.
(Phil 3:14) I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
There's nothing objective in anything you post.
You are only interested in defending the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.
Therefore, every post you make is biased, not objective.
Aletheiophile
New member
No, I understand what PPS was trying to argue, and RD missed the boat. You want me to admit I'm wrong, yet you won't even admit that dispensationalism does not confrom to 1800 years of Christian history. When I am wrong, I will admit it. I am not going to submit to your subjective "objectivity."
No. The problem is that the English of the KJV is, and always had been, its' own English.
But the fact that it "looks like English" continues to throw off many a reader of its "English."
Add to that the downward spiral of intended sense the average English speaker has continued English down the road of, whether North American or otherwise.
As a result, when one hears or reads some one assert "it means what it says, and says what it means," it is often the case that what such are actually asserting unaware, is the old error "what it means to me..."
Avoiding that kind of a thing requires training in.
Because reading into a thing and then taking said reading as the one to be desired to make one wise...is the natural man's...natural inclination.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Aletheiophile
New member
Exactly. Which is why it is important to study the text in the original languages. There's no arguing with the Greek and Hebrew. The reformations of the renaissance came from study of the Greek and Hebrew, in contrast to a tradition that would not let go of the imperfect Latin. But when you study the theology of those that prioritize the Greek, there is very little difference. But the theology between those that rely on English? The differences are endless, because of exactly what you said.
That's why it's not about translation, but about accessing the meaning via the Greek and Hebrew.
You and I are still not on the same page.
The original language is often still left without actually intended sense with out the proper hermeneutic.
Likewise the KJB.
And Scholasticism is not where that hermeneutic is to be found.
Rather, it is found by the same means by which many keys to one thing or another are found - by one's own being in the trenches one on one with the passages until they shed their intended light on the eyes of one's own understanding.
Case in point; the following passage...
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
At first glance (first impression, surface level reading) it appears to question whether or not they had believed.
And many a fool has taken it as referring to that.
In reality; his point is "unless what you believed - that Christ rose from the dead - is in vain; is empty or devoid of any basis in fact, is not true."
The original language is often still left without actually intended sense with out the proper hermeneutic.
Likewise the KJB.
And Scholasticism is not where that hermeneutic is to be found.
Rather, it is found by the same means by which many keys to one thing or another are found - by one's own being in the trenches one on one with the passages until they shed their intended light on the eyes of one's own understanding.
Case in point; the following passage...
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
At first glance (first impression, surface level reading) it appears to question whether or not they had believed.
And many a fool has taken it as referring to that.
In reality; his point is "unless what you believed - that Christ rose from the dead - is in vain; is empty or devoid of any basis in fact, is not true."
Interplanner
Well-known member
The problem with the original is not the hermeneutic (by which I think you mean a theology system like MAD), but uses of a vocab item that are not in a concrete setting. The lexicons are best for that when they provide other literature references and usages. Then an abstract meaning will settle.
Oh. I did not know that, condescending one. As usual, you missed the point. Sit.
Drop dead, Preterist moron.
Luke 19:44
Drop dead, and get off this site, you greasy AD 70/Preterist moron, cult member.
Look how angry the Darby followers get when they can't defend Darby's false teachings.
That's rich, you weasel, cry baby.....Crying about how we are "angry." Did we hurt your feelings, you satanic, Preterist child of the devil? Boo, hoo.....Poor "little" Craigie.....
I will go slower-drop dead, and get off this site. You are a barbituate, a real "downer," greasy, slick one, as the majority of TOL is tired of your "Darby" spam, and spam "posts," and laughs at you, and your weasel-ness/spineless-ness-all from the pits of hell.
And get a job, infidel.
Aletheiophile
New member
I simply do not understand why you have to resort to "more people have visited my page than yours. Nanny nanny boo boo." If I missed the point, then what was your point in attacking Tet with ad hominem?
Ok, so your bias about that passage proves your a Preterist moron; what about it - you've already proven that.
And you forgot to deride Darby :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Then why use the word 'hermeneutic' to summarize? Only a hermeneutic would make a person think Rom 11 was about a restored state and theocracy of the ethne Israel.