Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | kalos | 126121 | ||
se·man·tics : the study of meanings Since semantics is defined as the study of meanings, then the entire Bible is about semantics, isn't it? That's what we do when we study the Bible -- we study meanings. |
||||||
2 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126123 | ||
Grrrr, kalos! *laugh* semantics over semantics. I'm just going to laugh and leave this be. Thanks for the spelling correction (I didn't actually know how to spell it). Theo-Minor |
||||||
3 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Morant61 | 126126 | ||
Greetings Theo-Minor! Kalos jokingly makes an excellent point though! There is an old saying, 'The devil is in the details!'. 'Devil' probably isn't the best choice of words in this particular context! :-) But, the meaning of a sentence is determined by the meaning of it's parts. I know you realize this, but you would be surprised at how many people come to this forum to push a pet theory, but want us to completely ignore what Scripture actually says. :-) I hope you keep your sense of humor, and stick around the forum. While everyone may not always agree with you, I know I have enjoyed your posts thus far. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126132 | ||
I really am sorry guys. At present, my friend and I are in a debate with some head-strong "elders" that refuse to see reason after sending him a horribly ugly letter that had no hint of love whatsoever. They'll argue over pronouns and turn off their heart radars. SOMEtimes, semantics can be a bad thing. It is definitely important to understand exactly what is being said in a passage, but sometimes arguing semantics ends up being nothing more than splitting hairs, fostering the continuation of an argument that someone can't win (no direct implication intended to anyone here). For example, there was once a discussion with a fellow that insisted we still can't eat pork. We showed him Mark 7:19: "... because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" Now, it's clear as day that Jesus declared all foods clean, so it's okay to eat pork. He wouldn't hear it. Instead of answering what was plain, he found a way to spiritualize it, defy it, ignore it, and ultimately walk away from it because he didn't WANT to agree with what it said. It defied his opinion. Semantics, while good if used properly, has perverted a great number of passages and derived meanings that were never intended. The 1st John 3:6 passage (which I'm not trying to bring back up and argue) is a prime example. Does it say "habitually" or any other such word? Or is that a matter of semantic scrutiny to make a plain passage suit a doctrine because they can't understand the mystery? This is my problem with semantics. I use them to seek truth, not to argue a doctrine. My doctrine has changed a number of times because I refuse to be right (if that makes any sense). I WANT someone to prove me wrong (key word being PROVE). If someone has a more sound argument than I do, fantastic. I'm more interested in becoming wiser, smarter, better informed, and more completely built upon the rock than I am in being right. As you say, "everyone may not always agree with me ..." I'm really not seeking agreement, but acknowledgment if I make a valid point. Know what I mean? I'm not so full of myself as to leave no room for God. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. But by the same token, if we are practicing humility, if I'm right, I expect it to be acknowledged. I guess, in short, what I'm getting at is that knit picking over individual words when it doesn't really change the meaning of the passage when read in context and continuity with the Bible as a whole is derisive. It just creates confusion. I don't really WANT to leave. I want to share the hard years, months, weeks, days, and hours of study and knowledge I have. But there has to be fruit in the discussions. I've already seen two discussions get restricted because it got touchy, and no resolution was ever made. Why in the world would we want to kill the thread before all those observing can see the outcome based upon solid discussion by people with good, credible knowledge? That seems silly to me, however controversial the topics. Additionally, I was harsh to someone. It was wrong. Someone corrected me. I stopped, apologized, corrected my behavior, examined myself, and recognized my own hypocrisy. I'm grateful for the correction. kalos is good about that sort of thing, but others have had more pride than I think a single individual can swallow. How can we have good, edifying, Christian conversations that lead to the furthering of the Kingdom of Christ if we aren't able to examine ourselves? I guess I'm just too critical. I'll try harder to be understanding, patient, and longsuffering. Theo-Minor |
||||||