Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's almost hysterical that quoting the scriptures puts us in the same league as that dreaded WL.
|
That is a cheap shot. You should be ashamed!
Quoting scripture is not the problem. Misusing scripture is. Where did anyone say otherwise? The comparison is not between quoting scripture and Lee. It is between quoting scripture and saying things that the scriptures do not say, which is very like Lee.
You have mis characterized my charge. And even that of awareness. I will agree that he is going to make a ridiculous fool of himself trying to prove that Job will make a buffoon of God.
And we like to take pot-shots at those ridiculous statements by awareness. But quote a verse and then say some things the verse does not say and taking exception is suddenly a bad thing.
If this is to be a discussion forum, then I guess it is for the cum bah yah discussers only. If someone makes a statement for which someone else does not see a valid basis, and just because they also quote a verse you cannot challenge the validity of the statement made, then there is no discussion. Each of us have become another Lee. "I say it so it is so." I ask how it is so and the answer is incredulity that I don't just see it. If you or ZNP think I am missing something in the verses in Job that should direct me to consider the One New Man, then please enlighten me. But continuing to just say it is so and refusing to provide the rational basis for the jump as both I and awareness have requested is a mockery of the very premise of a discussion.
I am willing to be shown where I have missed something. Or need to rethink. But just saying that it is so never rises to the basis for such a demonstration or need.
Do you see that I seldom tell anyone what verses actually mean? That I am asking for a reasonable link between verses and the statements made about them? That while I do care what they mean, it is not so important to me that I would assert those thoughts as "the way to read it" and shout down anyone who questions my thoughts. When I do make any kind of assertion about what the verses say, it is based on what is there in the verses and what is in the surrounding context. I am not dismissing the obvious issues with clearly metaphorical speaking. But even metaphors have bounds. No matter how you read Job, where is the evidence that any of it is reaching outside of the present (from Job's perspective) and into the NT and the One New Man? Even my little statements in response to ZNP about the verses he quotes are not designed to provide "the meaning" of the verses, but to return them to the context in which they are found, and request that better evidence be provided before taking them somewhere else again. You correctly note that I did not quote verses. ZNP did it for me. I gave them, and the whole of Job, the context that I believe that they have. I did not intend to say that any specific verse meant exactly any specific thing. But read the whole of it and what I said appears to me to be the jest of it. And the verses ZNP replies with do not undermine that assertion.