Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
You said, "the first use of a word determines its meaning throughout scripture."canadyjd said:I find it unseemly, and somewhat arrogant, to link to yourself as a source or authority. You have not proven yourself to be an authority on this subject, in my view anyway.
I commented on what you have posted on this board. You, again, have not addressed my comments. It must be that you cannot answer.
You are not laying a good foundation as an authority on this issue when you can't answer questions directly.I don't care how much you write. Just write it here on the BB. You obviously know how to use a computer.The passage is not referring to a "sin offering". God is warning Cain. God personifies sin in the passage as someone ready to overpower and rule Cain through his anger. That cannot be referring to a "sin offering".I criticized your "methodology" based on your statements on this board concerning the "golden rule of hermenutics" and your statement that the first use of a word determines its meaning throughout scripture.
Neither statement lays a solid foundation of hermenutics. The golden rule of hermenutics is that context determines meaning. "Any text out of context is a pretext for a prooftext" (D.A. Carson)
Since context determines meaning, your second statement concerning first use is plainly flawed.
I know of no serious scholar that does not acknoweldge the wide range of semantic meaning of words, according to use at the time of the writing.
To assume that Moses's first use of a word like "chose" (in Hebrew) determines every meaning of the word, through various authors and over many centuries, is plainly flawed.
BTW: As JArthur pointed out above, you can't even accurately find the first use of the word you claim determines the meaning for the rest of scripture. You built your entire argument on a mistake. How embarassing.
How embarassing for a man claiming to be a scholar and arrogantly declaring that others don't know what they are talking about, to make an error common to lazy freshmen.If you are making so many errors here, where we babes in Christ only desire milk and cookies, I can only imagine the horror and embarassment (for you) that I will find should I follow the link. No thank you.If that is the best you can do when "trying to be kind", you don't do "kind" very well. Nevertheless...
peace to youraying:
This is not at all what the Principle of First Mention refers to and is certainly not anything I said. Why to you continually and unethically twist these things to mean something I have not said (and you do not know that I even might have said it because you never read the article).
The very first Chapter is The Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Of course, you have not read that either.
The quote from C.I. Scofield is from Chapter Seven (you have not read that either).
You demean and ridicule what you have not read (does doing that actually make any sense to you?). Then, without offering ANY exegesis of Scripture to support your suppositions, you rant on. You are extremely arrogent, rude, and unkind and yet have the gall to call me unkind for rebuking you for it.
I never claimed to be an "authority" on anything. However I, like you, are a "source." Whether I am a reliable "source" must determinined by those who read the articles and the substance of the exegesis. You can't determine that because you have not (and will not) read the articles. You may not agree with what I have said, but at least provide equal exegesis to show why.
Obviously, you do not want to discuss these issues. You just want to antagonize those who oppose your position (which I have no idea what it is). Since you admittedly have not read anything I posted, you must have just decided that since one of your comrades posted something against what I said, you must be against it too.
Why don't you put up some actual exegesis of the Word of God to tell us why you believe what you do instead of just mocking, ridiculing and making silly, juvenile accusations.
You have put up four posts here and have not really said anything yet about the subject of the thread.
I think I will start ignoring you like I do your comrades who practice the same kind of unethical tactics.
If you do not want to read the articles, that is up to you. I did not provide them for people who do not want to read them. I provided them for those that do (and there are many, many that do).
[FONT="]
Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election
[/FONT][FONT=Castellar,serif][FONT="] Refutation of Calvinism, Arminianism and, Covenant Theology[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
