PARABLES

[robycop3]

As Dr. Bob said about another thread, this one now has lotsa heat & no light. It's gone off into a CCM discussion, of all things, with the remainder lately being a trade of barbs.

CCM? David danced so hard in the street in ecstasy at the return of the ark that he EXPOSED HIMSELF. And ACCORDING TO GOD, he was a great musician. And Saul kept him around to SING AND PLAY for him, not just because he whacked Goliath.

Let the HOLY SPIRIT guide you in the matter of music(as well as everything else) & don't look down upon where He may have led another into music.

 

[Precepts]

Cranston, that was 13 posts ago that anyone said anything in regards to ccm. So you are just digging up bones. I made one comment towards tiny and got allsorts of responses in the attempt a mode of defense to something so contrary to the Word of God. I've been told that "sensual" applies to the senses, duh!

The Bible is Spiritual, not sensual, maybe those need to disxcern the difference and spend a little while in I & II Corinthians and see what the Spirit has for them?

David's dancing BEFORE THE LORD would not have been sexually provacative now would it? Little David's music to soothe Saul's angry spirit would not have had a "driving beat" now would it?Also if you'll do a little investigation into David's little "shuffle", he was in an ephod, that garment of a priest, not some hippie guru running around in his underwear.

Man, Cranston, get REAL!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I haven't disagreed with John's word choice , I haven't questioned the inspiration by the Holy Spirit. I simply looked at the passage and easily deduced the compassionate weeping of Jesus and the nearly extreme level of unbelief in John 11.

Which is contradictory to the word that John wrote through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You have to agree that the normal definition for dakruo isn't to wail, yet you want to circumvent that meaning to make your own presupposition fit.

Why are you having such a hard time in doing so? Is your knowledge of Greek become a stumblingblock to you?

Knowledge of Greek is not a stumblingblock - it helps to illuminate the Scriptures. It is a lack of knowledge of Greek that has become one, where our own belief on what the Bible SHOULD say trumps the natural meanings of the words that the Holy Spirit inspires.

I would have to say so, since it is your defintion that is gone astray to the theme and consistency according to the flow of the passage. That is why I have asked why you remain in leftfield? Maybe you do need an mv, your understanding of Elizabethan English is in dire straits.

My knowledge of Elizabethan English is fair enough, to be honest, as it was my chosen literary field in college, but that is not the point. You cannot find anywhere, in any published lexicon or dictionary, a place where dakruo means to wail uncontrollably. The facts go squarely against what you are saying.

PURE LUNACY! Literacy gone awol. Rules of literature trashed by dogmatic defining of words and passages when the entire Bible has multitudes, and the Spirit's use thereof, of metaphors.

So now you are saying that Christ's crying was a metaphor? I don't think that you've had much experience in learning literary methods and ways of understanding, because there isn't a single one out there, religious or otherwise, that authorizes changing the meaning of a word to fit what one's presuppostion of what the story SHOULD say.

Those of us who are literate in Greek are trying to help those who are not, but it's not working very well. Some people just won't listen.

 

[Precepts]

Knowledge of Greek is not a stumblingblock - it helps to illuminate the Scriptures. It is a lack of knowledge of Greek that has become one, where our own belief on what the Bible SHOULD say trumps the natural meanings of the words that the Holy Spirit inspires.

That's debatable and just your promoting your opinion. I've dealt solely with the context and you nitpick one little word. I have never denied the simplistic definition of "dakruo", but explained the obvious context. You're banging your head against the wall.

My knowledge of Elizabethan English is fair enough, to be honest, as it was my chosen literary field in college, but that is not the point. You cannot find anywhere, in any published lexicon or dictionary, a place where dakruo means to wail uncontrollably. The facts go squarely against what you are saying.

You're adding to the discussion a false premise. I never said Jesus "wailed uncontrolably"

So now you are saying that Christ's crying was a metaphor? I don't think that you've had much experience in learning literary methods and ways of understanding, because there isn't a single one out there, religious or otherwise, that authorizes changing the meaning of a word to fit what one's presuppostion of what the story SHOULD say.

Those of us who are literate in Greek are trying to help those who are not, but it's not working very well. Some people just won't listen.

Ditto

I have shown the context doesn't agree with the use of "dakruo", it deviates from the context and flow of the passage. Yet you still avoid the question of how it is you wish others to look at why Jesus wept as to allude His weeping over unbelief that sends a man to hell as b nothing more than a passing thing.

Again, I tell you the reason WHY He wept, you still hold to the definition of one little word and disallusion is rampant all the while.


All I have tried to say for about 12 pages here is that the word "dakruo" doesn't fit.