Frames of Reference - Latest Comments

Re: The Heresy of Replacement Theology

RJ — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:18:16 -0000

He actually asked: "where did God break the Abrahamic covenant?" You asked your friend about the "Promise" to Abraham's Seed. (Christ) That was a "promise to Abraham's "seed" (singular and specific) dealt with blessing all the nations. (Salvation) Abraham received more than one "Promise" from God. We're referring to the Abrahamic land covenant. A "covenant" is different than a "promise" although covenants obviously include some promises.

Re: Which Bible Translation is Best?

Darrin Yeager — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:29:32 -0000

Glad it helped. Bible translation is one of those subjects causing many problems.

Re: Which Bible Translation is Best?

Kim — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:06:33 -0000

Thank you for this article it has cleared up so much for me. I read it prayerfully. I feel it was an inspired. And it was through inspiration that I even found it at all.

Re: Which Bible Translation is Best?

Kim — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:01:09 -0000

Karl, to say that one version is 100% accurate is 100% incorrect. This article clears up the confusion so well. It reinforces my testimony. It gives me another reason to read all things that I come across with prayer. Atheists threw out all texts long ago. This article helps me to keep from being one of them. The fact that anyone even bothered to translate them in the first place, proves a significance. Be wary of becoming an elitist or a moabite. Studying many versions has only served to cement Him into my heart. This article has validated my study habits. Don't forget God loves all of us. He wanted all of us to have an opportunity to understand His word. It was never meant for only the intelligent or highly educated. That opens up the possibility of Jim Joneses and Hitlers to flourish. We must do our own study. Never take another's interpretation as gospel unless you do your own study.

Re: Agnosticism

Darrin Yeager — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:06:15 -0000

Belief in something for which there is no proof doesn't make that belief illogical.

No it doesn't. Atheism is illogical because you can't make the statement without knowing everything. The statement itself makes no sense — it's a question for philosophy, not facts, because it's unknowable. On the other hand, religion, agnosticism, and alien abduction are logical, but may or may not have proof (or be true).

Logic is not proof. It's the difference between "the moon is happy" and "the moon is made of cheese". The first makes no sense as inanimate objects can't feel emotions, the second is logical, but false.

Re: Atheism

Darrin Yeager — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:04:41 -0000

Actually, neither statement assumes total knowledge if all that is being said is "I believe there is no god" or "I believe there is a god".

True.

If however what is being said is "There is no god" or "There is a god" then both are assuming total knowledge.

Sort of. There is no god assumes all knowledge, but the positive does not. If I find God exists in a church for example, I don't need to know what's on Mars. But if I'm claiming no god exists, I *do* need to know everything about Mars, because the only way to rule out existence is if I've searched the entire cosmos.

An ironic problem arises when atheists call religious people stupid and irrational, then turn around and say "there is no god" , and fail to miss the poor logic in that statement. I've generally found *very* few true atheists exist — most use the word atheism, but really mean agnostic (don't see evidence of god, or no reason to believe).

The idea is for both sides to calmly and rationally discuss the issue knowing they're on different sides. You can't prove god exists because by definition you can't prove the supernatural (if you can then it's natural), and you can't prove god doesn't exist unless you know everything.

I'd like everyone to get off the proof bandwagon, and move on to the "so what" question. We'll all have different ideas about that, but at least it's a discussion we can engage in, and then each person must decide for themselves, and be accountable for their choice.

Re: Agnosticism

Sennacherib — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:46:22 -0000

<<in and="" atheism="" illogical="" is="" nonsense="" short,="">>

Careful now Darrin. Belief in something for which there is no proof doesn't make that belief illogical. We wouldn't call Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Atheists or Alien-abduction-theorists illogical. All have a theory which fts the evidence of the world around them. We might argue with them about how well the theory fis the evidence and we might well draw different conclusions from their own but they are using logic. Sadly, you can't say it's nonsense either. For the very reasons you yourself hold to, that absolute certainty requires absolute knowledge, you can't tell if any of these theories is nonsense or is actually correct. It might be nonsense, but who can tell?</in>

Re: Atheism

Sennacherib — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:27:34 -0000

Just look at the diagram above and it’s obvious the statement “There is no God” assumes you have all knowledge in the cosmos, while “There is a God” does not make that assumption.

Actually, neither statement assumes total knowledge if all that is being said is "I believe there is no god" or "I believe there is a god". If however what is being said is "There is no god" or "There is a god" then both are assuming total knowledge. If there are unknowables "B" then making any statement about them "God exists" or "There is no god" both have the same quality of belief. Both are unfalsifiable. That does not mean that both of them are wrong. One of these statements of belief must be but it excludes the other from being true. The best you can get to is "There may, or may not be, a god.2 The immediate question that arises is "So what?"

Re: Atheism

Darrin Yeager — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:53:25 -0000

Instead of snarky comments which contribute nothing, why not explain where you think I'm wrong? You might want to read the whole series first, as it already responds to many common opinions.

Re: Atheism

Nelson Muntz — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:01:14 -0000

I hope you realize how painfully ignorant you come across in this 'article.'

Re: Markdown Color Syntax Highlighting in Kate

William Notowidagdo — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:47:59 -0000

Very useful. Thank you for sharing.

Re: Why the KJV is the Best Bible Translation

Jeremiah Mcgowan — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:33:35 -0000

your confusion is because of hebrew culture. to the ancient jews to be seperated from god was to be as good as dead. this is a from of poetry that is common to the hebrew scriptures.

Re: Why the KJV is the Best Bible Translation

Jeremiah Mcgowan — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:31:52 -0000

your understanding of hebrew is not very good. adam means man. adom means ruddy, or more correctly refers to blood, and red. adamah means ground. the verse in question is a good example of hebrew poetry. he was called adam because he was made from adamah. ish is the other word for man. the rabbis teach that adam was his name and the name of all mankind. understand if there is an all powerful god, then why would he need evolution. i think it's pointless to try to 'prove' that evolution is correct simply so that we can say 'see i know how god did it'. it's extremely pompous to claim that you understand the nature of god, and how he does things. shalom.

Re: The Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:49:33 -0000

I like it. I'll have to remember that if/when I write on this again.

Re: The Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis

Karl D Rhoads — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:23:09 -0000

Well, for all those who hold to the premise that there were two (or more) authors of the book of Isaiah, I suggest the following passage from the book of Isaiah that they agree IS authored by the prophet...

Isaiah 2:12-22
Key Verse 22: "Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?"

Re: The Trouble with "Scholarship" - Frames of Reference

Karl D Rhoads — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:29:59 -0000

As as wise person once said... "The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart"

I (ahem) heartily agree!

Re: The Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:13:44 -0000

In a sense you're right, but there's one other reason people promote various theories about questioned authorship, which I quoted in the article.

since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66)

The various theories like two Isaiah's reveal a bias among those promoting them. They've already rejected God (rather closed-minded), thus, when books of the Bible like Isaiah and Daniel clearly reveal future events they must find some other way to explain the prophecy (since they've already assumed God doesn't exist).

Enter the two-Isaiah theory to save the day for the skeptic.

Re: The Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis

Karl D Rhoads — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:52:52 -0000

All this back-and-forth regarding the authorship of Isaiah seems to me a complete waste of time. There is dissension among many 'scholars' as regards the authorship of several 'books' in the Bible. What benefit is gained by furthering the argument? How does that build up and encourage anyone's walk of faith? All it proves is how prideful and puffed we are and proves just how 'wicked' our hearts can be when we fail to 'abide' in Christ.

Much to the chagrin of some, I desire to point out some other biblical text that I feel is more imperative than who authored what.

Prov 10:19 When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.

Eccles 5:3 For the dream comes through much effort and the voice of a fool through many words.

Eccles 5:7 For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God.

Eccles 6:11 For there are many words which increase futility. What then is the advantage to a man?

1 Cor 3:3 For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

1 Tim 2:8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

cf Galatians 5

Re: The Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis

Chris — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:15:12 -0000

Seeker - completely agree. Couldn't have said it better my self.

Re: What is the Objective of Christianity?

Darrin Yeager — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:36:21 -0000

I'm just changing over to DISQUS because of spam. I'm getting about 100 spam comments a day, and even with 97-98% efficient filtering, enough got through to make it a pain. One of the nice things I do like about DISQUS is you can receive updates via email, and respond to comments from email.
I still have all the old comments, and I'm working on importing them back. It should take a day or so --- nothing is lost (as long as the import works. I've done a test and it worked fine, so now on to the rest).

Thanks for staying during the remodel ... I've almost completed it.

Re: What is the Objective of Christianity?

Joshua Daniel — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:24:41 -0000

Haven't been reading here for a couple months! I got a new laptop and hadn't bothered to set up my RSS feeds on this one yet. A new format, huh? I did notice that none of the old comments are visible (although the list view does claim that they're there.)

I would like to bolster what you've said about Jesus being the one who changes us into good people. Recently looking back on some old chat logs from 2009, I am quite frankly amazed at the person I have become since then (and I would be willing to bet most of that change is even more recent). Frankly, I was disgusted reading some of the things I'd said, seeing back through my old mindset. And it's not that I was crude or inappropriate or anything like that. It was much more subtle; I was focused on completely on myself, justifying every thought of pride floating through my head and arguing with anyone who made even my subconscious aware of what I was doing. And this from someone who thought he was close to God. But that's another story...What that person said is extremely disturbing from a gospel viewpoint. It is also blatant in how anti-gospel it really is. But it is worth pointing out that it is legitimately possible to make the same error from the other direction. Many people today believe that the burden of a genuine relationship with God is theirs and theirs alone. It is possible for a person to have "quiet times" every day, read their bible constantly, make it to every early morning prayer meeting, and still be relying on their own power to somehow "reach up" to a God that is beyond human reach. The formula is "do this, then be saved," while in reality there is no such thing. The only thing there is, is the "I Am" of Jesus the Messiah.

Re: Truth-Lies: Fact-Checking Obama&aposs Fiscal Speech

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:00:04 -0000

As a Republic or Democracy, we're accountable as stewards for what the government does, as the government acts in our name, and we defacto support it from votes.

Thus, if the government be Godly, it's because the people demand it, and if it slouches toward Gomorrah, it's because the people allow it.

Re: Debt Deal Disaster

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:57:26 -0000

I'm not worried about accumulation of wealth, but as the government spends money on MY credit card, it is of concern to citizens how much they spend, and what they spend it on — unless you let anyone have free reign with your credit card.

Re: Debt Deal Disaster

Karen Hanes — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:38:33 -0000

Give to Caesar what is Caesar. How is it that the citizens of the Kingdom of God are worried about there accumulation of wealth on earth? Give it all away and be satisfied with Grace.

Re: Truth-Lies: Fact-Checking Obama&aposs Fiscal Speech

Karen Hanes — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:35:37 -0000

I love my American brothers and sisters in Christ but wonder what the world would be like if we all focused on being a better church, loving one another in practical means rather than focusing on matters of government and the state.