Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Nephi believed Lehi, but still wanted to see the vision for himself. When he did, he learned more than his Father had learned, and noticed some details his father hadn't greasped. Nephi then included his own new version of the vision. His dad's scriptural account wasn't the definitive version.Let's be careful about making assumptions. Lehi could have seen and learned the same as, if not more, than Nephi from his own dream and it could be that he just couldn't convey all he understood and saw to his son, even though he may have really wanted to. Kinda like how I can't share every minute detail that God has shared with me through his personal revelations to me, even when I include a lot of detail. Which is why it works best for each of us to get personal revelation directly from God.Scripture should lead to asking God what message he had intended the author to get across, and even proposing some thoughts.Yep. And yes sometimes we can learn more than what we have learned from others, even when those others saw and heard the same things we saw and heard for ourselves.
David T Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) They are defintitely not 9,000 years old as that goes back before Adam and the temporal age of the earth. "A chronology, a chronology. We have a chronology and need no more chronology." Edited March 13, 2014 by David T 1
Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 "A chronology, a chronology. We have a chronology and need no more chronology."I don't see the time factor as the problem. The problem is that some people don't understand where babies come from.
USU78 Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 We are all free to believe in God or become as the world believes Anybody else smell a false dichotomy? Yuk. 4
bcuzbcuz Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Thats fine, I understand your position. Some believe in Gods words and some believe in how man has interpreted the world.I would agree with your statement completely if you just removed one letter from the sentence. "And some believe in how man has interpreted the WORD." Rob, you put too much store in some men's interpretations of what the scriptures do or don't say.
Rob Osborn Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I would agree with your statement completely if you just removed one letter from the sentence. "And some believe in how man has interpreted the WORD." Rob, you put too much store in some men's interpretations of what the scriptures do or don't say.Man interprets the word of God according God or, man interprets the world through man. Ultimately, man must learn to interpret the world through the scriptures. Its not the other way around.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Man interprets the word of God according God or, man interprets the world through man. Ultimately, man must learn to interpret the world through the scriptures. Its not the other way around.I would posit that interpretations by men claimmig access to greater understanding of scriptures have caused many troubles, not to say several thousand Christian faiths.
thesometimesaint Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I would posit that interpretations by men claimmig access to greater understanding of scriptures have caused many troubles, not to say several thousand Christian faiths.A good example is Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno For better or worse it is other faiths as well.SEE Sunni V Shiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations
Rob Osborn Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I would posit that interpretations by men claimmig access to greater understanding of scriptures have caused many troubles, not to say several thousand Christian faiths.We can and should interpret the scriptures through the discenment of th espirit (through God). The problem is that man has tried to discern the truths of the scriptures through the lens of mans understanding. This has thus caused many troubles.
David T Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 We can and should interpret the scriptures through the discenment of th espirit (through God). The problem is that man has tried to discern the truths of the scriptures through the lens of mans understanding. This has thus caused many troubles. Since the scriptures were crafted and composed through a partnership of a particular lens of man's understanding and spiritual insight, it would not be wrong to approach them aware of and consciously taking into consideration both lenses. 1
Ron Beron Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Getting back to the masks I find it interesting that they are all ostensibly male. Now, why would that be? Were they used in a hunting, and therefore female exclusive, ritual or were they used as in a death ritual as they seem to represent skulls and other ghostly figures. Females were constructed of figurines and represented birth. I have yet to see an ancient figuring of a female.
thesometimesaint Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Getting back to the masks I find it interesting that they are all ostensibly male. Now, why would that be? Were they used in a hunting, and therefore female exclusive, ritual or were they used as in a death ritual as they seem to represent skulls and other ghostly figures. Females were constructed of figurines and represented birth. I have yet to see an ancient figuring of a female. Female fetishes are quite common in antiquity.
Ahab Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Getting back to the masks I find it interesting that they are all ostensibly male. Now, why would that be? Were they used in a hunting, and therefore female exclusive, ritual or were they used as in a death ritual as they seem to represent skulls and other ghostly figures. Females were constructed of figurines and represented birth. I have yet to see an ancient figuring of a female.Let's follow Rob's counsel and interpret the meaning of those masks (which are part of this world) in the light of what God has told us, or will tell us, about them.Okay, now whoever feels like sharing what God has revealed to them can go ahead and share what God has revealed to them, if they want to.I don't feel like sharing what I know of them right now but I am interested in hearing from others, after which I will then talk with God about them some more if anyone says anything God hasn't already told me.
Rob Osborn Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Since the scriptures were crafted and composed through a partnership of a particular lens of man's understanding and spiritual insight, it would not be wrong to approach them aware of and consciously taking into consideration both lenses. As long as we can regognize and discern the truth then it all works. It doesn't work though when God says i will destroy the whole earth with a flood and then he follows up and really floods the earth and then later man says- well he didnt really mean the "whole" earth.
Ahab Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 As long as we can regognize and discern the truth then it all works. It doesn't work though when God says i will destroy the whole earth with a flood and then he follows up and really floods the earth and then later man says- well he didnt really mean the "whole" earth.What do you mean it doesn't work? You can still see through both lenses. It's just that we don't always agree with God about what really happened.And I mean "we" as in all of us on this planet, generally. I know some of us agree with him, at least on some issues.
Rob Osborn Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 What do you mean it doesn't work? You can still see through both lenses. It's just that we don't always agree with God about what really happened.And I mean "we" as in all of us on this planet, generally. I know some of us agree with him, at least on some issues.It doesnt work. The scriptures are clear on certain things regardless of what or how man trys to bend those truths. Like the flood for instance, we are told specifically it was the whole earth that was flooded. So when man comes along and says "its not really the whole earth" its looking through the lens of man to interpret truth and not through the lens of scripture.
katherine the great Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Don't even bother, I have heard they think God is "mythical".So all archaeologists are godless?
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 So all archaeologists are godless? No, dont be ridiculous.
katherine the great Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 No, dont be ridiculous.I'm clarifying your "ridiculous" generalization of my colleagues. 3
bcuzbcuz Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 We can and should interpret the scriptures through the discenment of th espirit (through God). The problem is that man has tried to discern the truths of the scriptures through the lens of mans understanding. This has thus caused many troubles.Which makes me wonder how/why you put so much faith in the interpretations of men like Ken Ham, who, though popular in some circles, is so way off base when trying to provide logical, consequential and well researched ideas to reinforce his claims of understanding God's word better than others.
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Which makes me wonder how/why you put so much faith in the interpretations of men like Ken Ham, who, though popular in some circles, is so way off base when trying to provide logical, consequential and well researched ideas to reinforce his claims of understanding God's word better than others. Ken Ham did win the debate with Nye so not really get where you are coming from.
Ahab Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 It doesnt work. The scriptures are clear on certain things regardless of what or how man trys to bend those truths. Like the flood for instance, we are told specifically it was the whole earth that was flooded. So when man comes along and says "its not really the whole earth" its looking through the lens of man to interpret truth and not through the lens of scripture.The lens of man you're referring to is the lens man sees through when not looking through the lens of scripture, and it does work if all you want to see is what man can see without scripture. It just doesn't work when trying to through the lens of scripture. But it does work for that more limited vision. And for some people that is all they want to see through. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Ken Ham did win the debate with Nye so not really get where you are coming from.Regardless of who you think won the debate, "Biil Nye, the science TV guy" wouldn't be my favourite candiidate in a debate, anyway (TV notariety doesn't make one a great debater). Ken Ham, with misrepresentations of science in his "Creation Museum" and his building a full size replica of Noah's Ark and entertainment fun park..How are those coming along, by the way?, shouldn't be anyone's choice for the strongest debate from the creation side, either. Ham may have won the debate, but that's like coming in second in a 100 meter race run backwards. Apart from the novelty, Who cares. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Let's follow Rob's counsel and interpret the meaning of those masks (which are part of this world) in the light of what God has told us, or will tell us, about them.Okay, now whoever feels like sharing what God has revealed to them can go ahead and share what God has revealed to them, if they want to.I don't feel like sharing what I know of them right now but I am interested in hearing from others, after which I will then talk with God about them some more if anyone says anything God hasn't already told me.Thank you , Ahab, for your willingness to share. I await your words.
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Regardless of who you think won the debate, "Biil Nye, the science TV guy" wouldn't be my favourite candiidate in a debate, anyway (TV notariety doesn't make one a great debater). Ken Ham, with misrepresentations of science in his "Creation Museum" and his building a full size replica of Noah's Ark and entertainment fun park..How are those coming along, by the way?, shouldn't be anyone's choice for the strongest debate from the creation side, either. Ham may have won the debate, but that's like coming in second in a 100 meter race run backwards. Apart from the novelty, Who cares. Hum, let me get this straight- Ham debates a science guy with science and sends Nye packing and you think Ham knows nothing about science...
Recommended Posts