|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 10:25:01 GMT -5
They teach comparing scripture to scripture. They teach the Bible using the Bible. Any words said in between the passages compared are the personal interpretations of the speaker. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 10:32:29 GMT -5
Well they don't do that. They use the Bible and a little common sense, as I've stated before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 10:35:46 GMT -5
Well they don't do that. They use the Bible and a little common sense, as I've stated before. Common sense according to whom? See what you just said? You said that "They use the Bible and...". That's proof that they don't use just The Bible alone, but add what they believe to be "common sense".  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 10:39:49 GMT -5
Only if their common sense lines up with what the Bible says. They can say "I think...." but if it doesn't line up, it's false.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 10:41:52 GMT -5
Only if their common sense lines up with what the Bible says. They can say "I think...." but if it doesn't line up, it's false. But that's "personal interpretation" as to whether or not it lines up with what The Bible says. For example, some Christians used The Bible to justify slavery and pologamy. Right? To them, it made common sense. But it was wrong. The only diference between them and me and you is how we interpret what The Bible says. All interpretation is personal interprestation. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 10:46:16 GMT -5
We are not to privatly interpret the Word of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 10:51:12 GMT -5
We are not to privatly interpret the Word of God. Then what you're saying is that the Bible is to be taken literally and not symbollically (where personal interpretation is needed to distinguish what that particular symbolism is to be)? |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 10:54:29 GMT -5
Symbolism can be defined by using other verses. At least thats what my pastor did in our Revelation study. Most stuff was literal, but the things that were symbolic were explained in other Bible verses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 11:04:27 GMT -5
Symbolism can be defined by using other verses. At least thats what my pastor did in our Revelation study. Most stuff was literal, but the things that were symbolic were explained in other Bible verses. Satan does that too when he tried to tempt Jesus in The Desert. The Word of God needs no human translation or support. It stands on it's own. If one needs to have it confirmed by another verse, then is the first verse is lacking? Never, the person's ability and capability to understand the first verse is lacking. One doesn't fix the verse by using another verse, one fixes themselves by bending their minds to the scripture, not bending the scripture to their minds. My opinion is that if you can't understand the verse on it's own, then you should focus all your prayer and concentration on it until you can. Once one begins to combine verses from different passages that are out of the context of the original verse sought to be understood, then new beleifs are created. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 15:54:43 GMT -5
There's a verse that says something about "rightly dividing the Word of God"...that's talking about comparing scripture to scripture to figure out what a verse means.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 17, 2008 19:15:57 GMT -5
Men can mess things up...I know I do. I'll be taught something really interesting in school, then go to tell my hubby about it and mess it all up. So yes, I'll take the Word of God over what men teach Good point Emily! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 20:06:26 GMT -5
There's a verse that says something about "rightly dividing the Word of God"...that's talking about comparing scripture to scripture to figure out what a verse means. Does the Bible teach us to do that? I couldn't find that verse in Scripture. It is the title of a Protestant book by C. I. Scofield. I believe you meant the word of "truth", not God. Honest mistake. I make tons of them. And that verse that uses the word "dividing" didn't appear until the 16th Century. The Holy Bible has always said 2 Timothy 2:15 "Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."The Protestant bible says "dividing". The universal Christian Bible says "handling". The Holy Bible has said "handling for 1,600 years. But those are semantics. Even if you replace the word "handling" with "dividing", it doesn't talk about scripture. It doesn't say "The Word of God" (AKA The Holy Bible). It says "truth". Since The New Testament didn't exist yet, they couldn't have been talking about The New Testament. They would have to be talking about OT to OT comparisons (if they were). |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 17, 2008 20:31:42 GMT -5
The word of truth is the Word of God, Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 17, 2008 21:25:46 GMT -5
The word of truth is the Word of God, Bible. Does it say that "in" The Bible (that the 'word of truth' is The Holy Bible)? If it doesn't, then isn't that your personal interpretation of what 'the word of truth' means? |
|
