Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[angie]

Hi lightseeker

hope you had a productive day in the jail!

I wonder if I got you mixed up with someone else? [you not getting my teasing] Will check it out an send you a PM since to explain what I meant if you aren't who I thought you were since it would be convoluted and rather long otherwise.    But for now I need my bed. Soz. but I'm soooooo tired!

Angie

[hillsbororiver]

Joe Post #5,

“Did the speaker have any scriptural witnesses for his opinion that Adam spoke this first? It seems that this would constitute "a secondary word" wouldn't it?”

I really don’t remember him giving any other scripture for the statement.  Where does it say scripture has to be the second witness.  For Pharoah it was two different dreams.

Lightseeker,

My reply was in response to your statement.

Joe

[Lightseeker]

 
Joe,

Biblically speaking, does the bible say two scriptural references for doctrine? 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation
 
Is this verse saying you need two verses to make a doctrine?  To me this verse is saying that the person who receives the personal inspiration from God to write scripture, doesn’t necessarily have the total understanding to preach his interpretation of that scripture. An example of this principle is Paul scriptural teaching on marriage:  He doesn’t know, for sure, if he is even giving correct advice concerning that scripture which he wrote (verse below) .  Am I reading it correctly?  I know for me personally, scripture that meant one thing years ago, as far as life application, means something else today.  But both understandings met my need at the time.  Does that make sense?  Have you had that experience?
.
1CO 7:40  But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

This is the application that comes to me with regard to 2 Peter 1:20.  If I get a revelation, as to some truth that is in the bible, and I share that with someone else, whose spirit also bears witness to that truth, isn't it possible that God is speaking things that are pertinent for us today?  Things which may not have been pertinent for those living before today.  Didn’t Jesus even say He would send the Holy Spirit to teach things the apostles which they couldn’t bear at that particular time? (Joh 16:12-13)

Why can’t we be getting a fresh word today which isn’t even in the bible!!!  Who said the bible is the ‘closed’ word of God?….Man did…not scripture! If I’m wrong correct me....with two verses     As far as I know, scripture only closed one book/vision in the NT and that was The Revelation.  And one OT vision was sealed...Daniel 8:26.

TRUTH NUMBER 6

“[A] "…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).”
(B) "…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).

Aren't both of these references talking about judging someone for sin…and not for establishing doctrine.  Doesn't the scripture have to be read in context to make doctrine out of it?   
 

[C] "And I will give power unto my TWO WITNESSES…" (Rev. 11:3).

What is God giving the two witnesses?  According to scripture it is prophesy.

REV 11:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy...

4395 propheteuo: to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office

Do you believe we have prophets today?  Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture?  And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?

Joe, I’m not wanting to argue, but I do challenge all…including my pastor.  Believe me, I’ve challenged him to the point of angry frustration (him not me).  But you know why I’m still in that church?  Because God hasn’t called me out of it, and pastor hasn’t kicked me out.  Why hasn’t he?  He’s admitted to me, “Dee you love God and you’re used of God.”  He says it as the final word concerning our admitted differences.  I love and respect him for that, and have the same feeling toward him. 

[hillsbororiver]

Do you believe we have prophets today?  Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture?  And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?

Dee,

I believe your statement pretty much sums up our differences, perhaps I have not reached your level of enlightenment. Maybe you see some guy at a retreat spouting unscriptural supposition as prophetic, I see it as heresy.

Here is what that "2000 + year old" scripture has to say in regard to your statement;

Deu 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2Th 1:10  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

You have demonstrated that the articles on Bible Truths do not carry much weight with you and your beliefs, it begs the question; Why are you here?

Please give us an honest answer,

Joe
 

[angie]

Hi Joe

Deu 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

I believe that brings us full circle to the original question of why would Eve the use the additional words "...NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT"

Maybe it was a shadow? 

Angie

[angie]

Lightseeker

Hi Dee

Who said the bible is the ‘closed’ word of God?….Man did…not scripture!

think you got 'man' and 'scripture' in your statement the wrong way round.
uummm...I believe God did mean that His mind doesn't change, He knew the end from the beginning, so why wait till now to add anything else?
Have you ever heard the expression, 'there is nothing new under the sun' ? Well, take out all the physical stuff, [since God is Spirit and we are to match spirit with spirit] then tell me exactly what has changed.

Mal 3:6  "For I am the LORD, I change not;..."

Rev. 1:8 "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty

Do you believe we have prophets today?  Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture?  And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?

No, yes and absolutely.

Mar 13:6   For many shall come in my name saying, [that] I [Jesus] am Christ; and [they] shall deceive many.

Mat 24:5  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Hold on though, God has a lot more to say on this subject.

Eze 13:3  Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Eze 13:4  O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Eze 13:6  They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.

Eze 13:7  Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken?

Eze 13: 8   Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze 13:9   And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

2Pe 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

To me this verse is saying that the person who receives the personal inspiration from God to write scripture, doesn’t necessarily have the total understanding to preach his interpretation of that scripture

Dee, this is not right. If you look at strong's definition of the words 'of any private' you may see what this scripture is really saying:

G2398
ἴδιος
idios
id'-ee-os
pertaining to self, that is, one's own; by implication private or separate:

This isn't talking about an idividual reading the scripture who may interpret it wrong [which is guaranteed to happen in the carnal minds of man] It's telling us that no scripture, on it's own, interprets itself. So, that was why it needs to be:

2 Cori 13:1 "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

Do you honestly think God would leave his word open to such misinterpretations of mere men? I don't. He has it watertight, book-ended between these two scriptures.

And what about this one?


Mat 18:20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Think of it this way:
Q: What are the scriptures? A: They are the inspired Word of God
Q:What is another name for the Word? Answer: Jesus.
Q:What else is Jesus? He is the truth [amongst other things]
Q:So where did He say He was? A: In the midst of them!

This is confirmation scripture that the truth of the Word is in the presence [midst]of two or three witnesses [scriptures] There are loads of scriptures that back up my wee questions/answers too, but if I spend all day looking for them and listing them, will it become any clearer than it should be already?

Angie

[Lightseeker]

Joe,
 

Deu 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2Th 1:10  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Here is what that "2000 + year old" scripture has to say in regard to your statement;

Are you sure that's what 2000+ year old scripture is saying?  Please reason with me here.  If Deuteronomy 4 meant no more words were to be forthcoming then do you still consider the later words of  Isaiah as the 'word of God'?   How can they be if Deut. says "No more!"?   Or, based upon Deut/Isaiah is the OT the only 'word from God'?  If yes, then your Thessolonians quote...along with the rest of the NT isn't scripture?  Do you follow my reasoning?  Do you see why I think your scriptural view just isn't convincing to me?  So am I understanding something wrong, or are you?  If it's me please just tell me where.

Also, please go back to my last post and tell me where I messed up concerning the out of context scriptures (IMO) you stand on as the needed confirmation to prove a doctrine.  Are they out of context or not in your opinion?   I pointed out that none of those scriptures you used even related to doctrine and you never addressd my apparent wrong thinking.  Please address my questions.   I will listen.  It just looks very suspicious when you totally ignore my observations to present what appears to me as a side stepping attempt to further explain your position.  I'm not trying to be caddy here...just iron trying to sharpen iron.
 
And iron sharpening iron IS WHY I'M HERE Joe.  I am not seeking to win I am merely seeking the truth.  BT has a lot of truth IMO. 
 

[angie]

Lightseeker

The books of the bible were in chronological order? I read otherwise

Angie

[Lightseeker]

Bobby,

I believe there is a difference between what scripture calls 'the word of/from God' and the book of scriptures, which we call the bible.  A book which doesn't have a single copy of the one true original inspired word which was 'spoken' by God to 'a man' and written on a scroll.   Even Ray rightly says there isn't one true translation...so why exactly do you call the bible THE word of God?

I love this book called scripture and the bible,  but I'm not into what Webster's calls Bibliolotry.  That is merely worshiping the 'written letter' as though it were the 'living word' or the 'spoken word'.  But you/I are to be living epistles proving that Christ is within by the evidence of Him being lived out through us.

Hello Angie,  

Such a long post...where do I begin?

Mal 3:6  "For I am the LORD, I change not;..."

66 books over thousands of years...Did everyone get left out who lived before Moses wrote?  Or did God need a couple thousand more years to get His point accross?  Or is His spoken word still alive and spoken to those who walk with God as Enoch did....even though there's nothing written til Moses...as far as we know.

As far as prophets...I do believe there are prophets.  Scripture doesn't say anything about them disappearing.  As a matter of fact it is part of the fivefold ministry which was spoken of in  Ephesians as being needed til the end.

Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

As I read this list I can't help but say: "Are we there yet?" and the answer is: "NO!"  And since I don't believe in 'cut and paste' theology then I have to believe that they (fivefold ministry) are all here serving the same purpose they have since the beginning.

Your warning quotes of Matt and Mark concerning FALSE PROPHETS merely reinforces to me that Satan is an angel of light IMITATING the true.  Those scriptures don't say anything about not believing the true prophets do they?  It doesn't say there aren't any true ones it says watch out for the false ones. 

Your Eze. quotes about false prophets confirm what I said above.  It doesn't mean there weren't true prophets THEN either...right?  

Dee, this is not right. If you look at strong's definition of the words 'of any private' you may see what this scripture is really saying:

I don't have a problem with that definition.   But what has that verse got to do with proving two witnesses for doctrine, which is why I was addressing it???  It doesn't have anything to do with supporting the 'two bible verses as proof for doctrin'.  Does it?

2 Cori 13:1 "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

Do you honestly think God would leave his word open to such misinterpretations of mere men? I don't. He has it watertight, book-ended between these two scriptures.

 Angie, does 2 Cor say from two or three 'written verses' or does it say two or three "mouths"?  And as I said before, what was the context of that verse???  It wasn't establishing doctrine...it was confirming whether Christ was IN somone...or not.  And that was determined by whether or not they were sinning.  Read it in context 2 Co 13:1-6, and tell me where doctrine is even close to being mentioned.  

BTW I know the books aren't in chronological order.  That doesn't change the point that was being made.

Well it's late and I gotta go to the jail again at 7pm and I'm still at the office.

Seeya bye,

[Kat]

Dee,

I would like to know if you have read the rules to this forum?
If so, why do you keep posting here.

This forum is for people of like mind to fellowship.
Also to discuss what we learn at bible-truths.com.

If this is not you abjective,
you should take your teaching elsewhere.

Kat

[snorky]

This going back and forth between Lightseeker (Dee) and some of you all is wierd. I detect a bit of feeling annoyance here, what with claiming Dee needs to be of like mind (on every single issue, on every point Ray discerns? Heck, I don't think even I agree with everything Ray says completely, at least at this time) as everyone else. Funny this should be happening now, since according to the star rating system, Dee has posted enough times to be a junior member!

Just my two cents. It seems to me that this forum (as well as Ray's articles) are for us to learn from. I may be wrong but I don't detect that Lightseeker is just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I may be wrong. I just hope any criticism of Lightseeker (or me for bringing this up) is done in love and fellowship.--snorky

[Kat]

snorky,

What I am trying to say,
is that this is a bible-truth forum.
If someone continually disagrees with the basic beliefs held here,
are they trying to learn or teach?

Kat

[chuckusa]

Hello all,

I would like to make a few observations and comments.

First, Lightseeker...you say that we shouldn't treat the word of God, the ONLY word of God that we have...as the living word. That statement in itself, sets your views completely apart from mine, and I would venture to say apart from most of the people who post here...and most assuridly Rays view.

Secondly, by what authority,  or reference do you utilize in discerning a false prophet from a true prophet (assuming that they even do exist today) if NOT the word of God. I have tried to pinpoint what it is exactly that you feel we should use...our own opinions, someone elses opinions? If you feel this way, then would not any new words spoken by a "prophet" be subject to this same logic, and could they not also be declared irrelevant when they no longer seem useful or when they no longer make sense to you?

I think that this is an extremely dangerous view to hold, and one that I personally wouldn't associate with. In my opinion, trying to seperate from the written word of God, while insinuating that you follow that same God is nothing short of blasphemy.

I make these observations and statements with reservation because I know all too well that quite often what we mean to say, or what we are trying to convey can become quite muddled by the nature of this type of forum, and by the written word. I think this has been a problem with other threads where assumptions are made, and made again, and then misinterpereted because of a faulty quote, etc, etc...

Perhaps that was what you were trying to point out?

In my opinion, this type of discourse only confuses and causes resentment. I would suggest taking each single aspect of your argument to God in the form of study and comparison. In that I mean comparison with Rays teachings because that is what this forum is for...to express our understanding of his teachings. What you SEEM to be suggesting, in my opinion, does NOT follow Rays teachings.

Even if I am wrong, and am merely confused as to your intent, this thread, simply because of its tone, has become counterproductive. Do you agree?

There have been at least three witnesses to THAT, I feel.

I hope in the future that you, or anyone else will gently correct ME, should my writing skills or tone, or method of questioning (or whatever) cause any misunderstanding between brothers and sisters.

Remember lightseeker, I did say " what you SEEM to be suggesting". I am not accusing you, merely pointing out how what you say...could make someone feel. I assume you Love the Lord and are doing your best to follow him, as I am.

With Love, and respect,
Chuck



 

 

[angie]

lightseeker

High Dee

You said to Bobby

I believe there is a difference between what scripture calls 'the word of/from God' and the book of scriptures, which we call the bible.  A book which doesn't have a single copy of the one true original inspired word which was 'spoken' by God to 'a man' and written on a scroll.

The original writing were called signatures, of which there is not one scrap left. However, there were many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts made that were faithfully copied from those signatures [also a few that were not] These are not exactly what you see in your bible. So you see, the bible and the scriptures are two separate and distinct things. Ray was correct when he says there is not one true translation. You must study them, always referring back to the scriptures. Having said that, if you can't see because God has not opened your eyes to see, you can study till you are blue in the face and never see the true spiritual meaning.

66 books over thousands of years...Did everyone get left out who lived before Moses wrote?  Or did God need a couple thousand more years to get His point accross?  Or is His spoken word still alive and spoken to those who walk with God as Enoch did....even though there's nothing written til Moses...as far as we know.

I cant imagine how you think that everyone before moses wrote was left out, since we start with ' in the beginning',listing every generation from Adam. As far as it goes with regard to God needing

a couple thousand more years to get His point accross?

You will need to take that up with Him  [An while you're at it, ask why there was a 400 year gap between going down to Egypt an coming back out again]

As far as prophets...I do believe there are prophets.

Like who? Muhammed? Joseph Smith? The guy next door? If you have such a belief, why would you, unless you had someone or something in mind?
explain please.

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
Rev 22:19   And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

 I could be wrong here Dee but this is telling me that everything we need to know is contained in THIS book, that there is to be NOTHING added by any man. NO MORE PROPHESY.  I could not stretch it to get it to mean that there will be additional prophesy in future, either written or vocal. someone having a dream does not a prohesy make. In the scriptures, the stories about dreams are parables, It's all one giant parable!

Aren't both of these references talking about judging someone for sin…and not for establishing doctrine.  Doesn't the scripture have to be read in context to make doctrine out of it?

I wouldn't have thought so since we are clearly, and on may occasions told to 'JUDGE NOT'

Dee, you keep going on about context, and In every other book on the planet I would agree with you 100% But the truths of scriptures contained in the bible are to be spiritually discerned, we can't do it on our own. Yes, it will seem literal if you can't see anything else. That will only give rise to contradictions though. 

You obviously have many questions and issues you would like answers to, and it is great that you do  ask them. I have to say  that since you seem to want to debate every single word and train of thought, perhaps you need to continue this conversation with someone much more knowledgable than I [I have only been studying the word for about 9 months]
I can only answer you so far at this time and let you know what I know to date [check back in say, 12 years]    In the meantime, God would be your best port of call. I hope this doesn't put you off from asking questions and seeking answers [I'm sure it wont, you remind me of a dog with a bone] Lol

I really still have so much to learn and feel I have taken this topic as far as I can with you, and so now bow out to pursue other things. This has been interesting Dee and I thank you so much for taking the time your inpart your thoughts.

God bless you Dee, and may the Lord continue to enlighten you as you search for the truth 

Angie

[angie]

lightseeker

P.S saw this and thought of you! 

Col 2:  Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.

Take it easy 

Angie

[angie]

Lightseeker

PPS

Sorry, to clarify, I thought of it FOR you, not OF you!

Angie