Evidently

(heavily moderated)

Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:28 am

{I've bumped this thread in an effort to again encourage Fair and Real Consideration of Differing opinions of Bible prophecy held by others that are contrary to our own}


What is the criteria that we all use to Determine what is and is not Evidence?

EVIDENTLY

1: in an evident manner : clearly, obviously

2: on the basis of available evidence

The reason I'm starting this thread is to help us all Examine Honestly HOW we Allow or Disallow Evidence, and how Preconceived Ideas effect or determinations.

Let me begin by stating that when making determinations of prophetic truth, definition number two from above is Likely the better choice in describing what is Evidently True Support of Variant Ideas.

It has become much more apparent to me, and is why I've begun this thread, that many well meaning and well studied in eschatology confuse the word Proof with the word Evidence.

We all need to learn to acknowledge Evidence that is provided from another perspective other than our own.
Acknowledging contrary Evidence against our own Ideas is not a concession of Evidence that supports our own personal ideas.

We must learn to base Evidence upon it's OWN MERIT, and Not Refuse to Acknowledge Evidence simply because it Does Not AGREE with our Own Ideas.

The main emphasis of this thread, and the direction I hope we go with it is to focus on the PROCESS that each of us use to Gather and Evaluate Evidence. HOW it Must Be that we ALLOW other opinions to be Thoroughly, Fairly and Adequately examined in our Own Hearts and Minds.

What can we Do to Improve Ourselves from being so Adamantly BIAS in our Own Ideas that we Simply Refuse to Process other opinions correctly?

What are the Real steps that we can take to Improve in Our Own Processing of Evidential Truth?

What is the best Method or Methods to lay our Personal Ideas aside to be able to Perceive an Evidence or Proof On it's Own Merit
?
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:49 pm

Cool thread!

I'd like to add the notions of "Critical Reasoning" and "Logical Fallacies".

But wouldn't you say that when we're talking about the Bible, that evidence becomes proof due to the veracity of the source?

What I'm saying is that my statements in court are evidence, while God's statements in the same court would be proof, would they not?

So let me ask you . . . what constitutes "proof"?

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:52 pm

shorttribber wrote:We all need to learn to acknowledge Evidence that is provided from another perspective other than our own.
Acknowledging contrary Evidence against our own Ideas is not a concession of Evidence that supports our own personal ideas.

We must learn to base Evidence upon it's OWN MERIT, and Not Refuse to Acknowledge Evidence simply because it Does Not AGREE with our Own Ideas.


This, I would say, goes without saying. This would be one of those logical fallacies. "I don't believe that because no one has ever said that."

But would you grant that someone may disagree with you, while still having considered your evidence?

I think it would be good to ask also, what constitutes "evidence"?

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:18 pm

mark s wrote:Cool thread!

:lava: almost as cool as a Lava Lamp :mrgreen:
mark s wrote:I'd like to add the notions of "Critical Reasoning" and "Logical Fallacies".

great addition to the thread of course
mark s wrote:But wouldn't you say that when we're talking about the Bible, that evidence becomes proof due to the veracity of the source?

yes
mark s wrote:What I'm saying is that my statements in court are evidence, while God's statements in the same court would be proof, would they not?

It must be first determined what God is Actually saying.......Proper understanding of What He IS Truly Saying in any given text, so as to elevate Evidence to the Level of Proof.....and Proof to be further Elevated to that Absolutely and Ultimately PROVEN TRUE.
mark s wrote:So let me ask you . . . what constitutes "proof"?

Proof is an Element of what Eventually may Possibly be PROVEN Absolutely True, And Evidence is nearly Equivalent to Proof, but Poof itself is Not Absolute, although it should be understood that proof is of greater value than common evidence.
mark s wrote:This, I would say, goes without saying. This would be one of those logical fallacies. "I don't believe that because no one has ever said that."


I need for you to explain this further to me mark....not quite grasping your meaning.
mark s wrote:But would you grant that someone may disagree with you, while still having considered your evidence?

That may depend upon the Degree of Consideration of the evidence.
mark s wrote:I think it would be good to ask also, what constitutes "evidence"?

True...and forward we go into the thread
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:37 pm

shorttribber wrote:Proof is an Element of what Eventually may Possibly be PROVEN Absolutely True, And Evidence is nearly Equivalent to Proof, but Poof itself is Not Absolute, although it should be understood that proof is of greater value than common evidence.


:humm:

I need for you to explain this further to me mark....not quite grasping your meaning.


Something should not be considered as true simply because it's the way it's always been taught/understood. That is not evidence or proof. Neither should something be considered false because it's new.

I can assert a propositional statement, "I am Venusian". The fact that this is a new idea has no bearing on whether or not it is true. My humanity and birthplace are what is relevant towards refuting this statement.

mark s wrote:But would you grant that someone may disagree with you, while still having considered your evidence?

That may depend upon the Degree of Consideration of the evidence.


And how shall that be judged?

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:01 pm

mark s wrote:shorttribber wrote:Proof is an Element of what Eventually may Possibly be PROVEN Absolutely True, And Evidence is nearly Equivalent to Proof, but Poof itself is Not Absolute, although it should be understood that proof is of greater value than common evidence.


I guess this makes more sense to me than it does to you :mrgreen: guess that's part of the reason for the thread.

mark s wrote:I need for you to explain this further to me mark....not quite grasping your meaning.Something should not be considered as true simply because it's the way it's always been taught/understood. That is not evidence or proof. Neither should something be considered false because it's new.I can assert a propositional statement, "I am Venusian". The fact that this is a new idea has no bearing on whether or not it is true. My humanity and birthplace are what is relevant towards refuting this statement.


ok, got it :mrgreen:

mark s wrote:mark s wrote:But would you grant that someone may disagree with you, while still having considered your evidence? ST Said:That may depend upon the Degree of Consideration of the evidence. Mrk answered:And how shall that be judged?


It can only be judged by the Person Giving Consideration to the Evidence.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Mark F on Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:45 am

We will never agree in eschatology until we agree in our understanding of the roles and nature of Israel and the Church.
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:36 pm

Mark F wrote:We will never agree in eschatology until we agree in our understanding of the roles and nature of Israel and the Church.


Hi Mark,

I completely agree. So then, this leads me to a questions.

Which evidence is first to be considered. How do we organize or "triage" our proofs?

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:58 pm

mark s wrote:Which evidence is first to be considered.


Can I answer this marks? But before I do I will wait on MarkF ok?
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Sanderson on Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:51 pm

mark s wrote:
Mark F wrote:We will never agree in eschatology until we agree in our understanding of the roles and nature of Israel and the Church.


Hi Mark,

I completely agree. So then, this leads me to a questions.

Which evidence is first to be considered. How do we organize or "triage" our proofs?

Love in Christ,
Mark


Agreed also. I think it also needs to be considered is if the evidence is to be
understood literally or spiritually? Without a common base to begin from, agreement will
never be reached.
Sanderson
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:04 pm

Sanderson wrote: I think it also needs to be considered is if the evidence is to beunderstood literally or spiritually? Without a common base to begin from, agreement willnever be reached.


Hi Sanderson,
That's' true Sanderson. It's very obvious that unless there does come an unprecedented miracle from God, that there will never be complete agreement in doctrine, TRUE Doctrine, among the saints. But, I believe there will be such a miracle occur before we are gathered to Christ at the rapture, but that's another subject for another thread.

The main emphasis of this thread, and the direction I hope we go with it is to focus on the PROCESS that each of us use to Gather and Evaluate Evidence. HOW it Must Be that we ALLOW other opinions to be Thoroughly, Fairly and Adequately examined in our Own Hearts and Minds.

What can we Do to Improve Ourselves from being so Adamantly BIAS in our Own Ideas that we Simply Refuse to Process other opinions correctly?

What are the Real steps that we can take to Improve in Our Own Processing of Evidential Truth?

What is the best Method or Methods to lay our Personal Ideas aside to be able to Perceive an Evidence or Proof On it's Own Merit?
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Mark F on Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:07 am

I've mulled this over in my mind as well and am not inclined to think I have the answer. Looking at the ebb and flow of the history of the church it is self evident that they didn't either.

Missler points out a very obvious but profound observation that all systematic studies and writings of theology basically ignore or miss the most voluminous and prolific subject not specifically addressed is the doctrine of Israel.

We have ecclesiology but isn't it obvious to us at least it is not Israel? There is a marked beginning of the Church and they are different in nature, location, promises, etc.?
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:42 am

mark s wrote:
Mark F wrote:We will never agree in eschatology until we agree in our understanding of the roles and nature of Israel and the Church.

Hi Mark,
I completely agree. So then, this leads me to a questions.
Which evidence is first to be considered. How do we organize or "triage" our proofs?

shorttribber wrote:Can I answer this marks? But before I do I will wait on MarkF ok?

Mark F wrote:I've mulled this over in my mind as well and am not inclined to think I have the answer. Looking at the ebb and flow of the history of the church it is self evident that they didn't either.
Missler points out a very obvious but profound observation that all systematic studies and writings of theology basically ignore or miss the most voluminous and prolific subject not specifically addressed is the doctrine of Israel.
We have ecclesiology but isn't it obvious to us at least it is not Israel? There is a marked beginning of the Church and they are different in nature, location, promises, etc.?

marks and Mark F,
Israel, the Church, and their Relationship to each other Are Undoubtedly one of the Primary Topics whereby Eschatology might ever be comprehended.
How shall we PROCEED to Consider Evidences of such Weight and Impact on Our PERSONAL Understanding of doctrine?

mark s's specific question has a twofold aspect within it.
first, his question could be, "which evidence", as in which Portion of Eschatology should be first Considered.

and secondly, the meaning could also be, "which evidence", as in which Evidence should be Considered FIRST, Our OWN Evidence, or the Evidence presented in Opposition to Our OWN.

Between the two variables of mark s's question, the latter is the Direction that I hope this thread will go.

What I mean is this, rather than making the focus of this thread evolve into this or that Eschatological Topic, we could and Should, I think, examine in our own hearts, minds, and on this open forum, Effective Methods whereby we may ALL Learn to TRULY and Diligently Examine Evidence that contradicts our Own opinions rather than to dismiss them either Intentionally or Unintentionally.
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:31 am

Hi ST,

Actually, I was more towards which portion of Scripture should be examined first.

I believe I am aware of the purposed underlying this thread. I would like to think that we would always set aside our preconceptions any time we study the Scripture, coming to it like new each time. That can be easier said than done.

But I'd have to say, that someone holds an opposing viewpoint does not mean they've not given reasonable consideration to yours.

One of the things I try to adhere to in my studies is to never allow myself to gloss over either difficult interpretations, or even the slightest of inconsistencies. Sometimes there is a tendency to do this. Let me give you an example.

At our men's prayer breakfast, the speaker cited Luke 21:36, "praying always that you be found worthy to escape all these things", and related it to the rapture. So I asked him afterwards, telling him that I've been having a difficulty with that interpretation, and, if we are worthy in Christ, by faith, then why are we to keep praying this? Not to mention that this is an active "flee/escape".

Halfway through my question he started to smile, and he knew where I was going with it, and then he told me he thought it related more towards that we are not always certain of our salvation, so we should always be praying to be certain.

But that doesn't work for me. I can point to several places in Scripture that tell us God's desire is that we know that we have eternal life. So why would Jesus be giving us instructions regarding continuing in uncertainty?

So I can't ignore any inconsistencies for the sake of an interpretation.

When I'm working on a particular topic, I try to line up all Scriptures that could possibly have bearing on my topic, and look at each one to see what they have to say on it. Usually at this point, I'll have a idea of what the overall message is. Then I'll go back through and look for any that support or refute my ideas. And I keep doing this until I think that I've given full consideration to all relevant passages. I'll also use other people's lists of verses, and their interpretations. Depending on the topic, this may require many months of study.

I know you are not looking for a study on a particular passage, but more of how do we go about studying the Scriptures, right?

I'll give some thought towards a list of steps for study. For now, I'm getting tired (I think I have the flu).

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:44 am

mark s wrote:I'll give some thought towards a list of steps for study. For now, I'm getting tired (I think I have the flu).
thanx for your response mark, and I hope you will recover quickly...... :praying: .......please join back in when you're more able to ok?......thanx again for your thoughtful post even while being weak in the body.

:hugs:
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Mark F on Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:08 pm

shorttribber wrote:
Sanderson wrote: I think it also needs to be considered is if the evidence is to beunderstood literally or spiritually? Without a common base to begin from, agreement willnever be reached.


Hi Sanderson,
That's' true Sanderson. It's very obvious that unless there does come an unprecedented miracle from God, that there will never be complete agreement in doctrine, TRUE Doctrine, among the saints. But, I believe there will be such a miracle occur before we are gathered to Christ at the rapture, but that's another subject for another thread.

The main emphasis of this thread, and the direction I hope we go with it is to focus on the PROCESS that each of us use to Gather and Evaluate Evidence. HOW it Must Be that we ALLOW other opinions to be Thoroughly, Fairly and Adequately examined in our Own Hearts and Minds.

What can we Do to Improve Ourselves from being so Adamantly BIAS in our Own Ideas that we Simply Refuse to Process other opinions correctly?

What are the Real steps that we can take to Improve in Our Own Processing of Evidential Truth?

What is the best Method or Methods to lay our Personal Ideas aside to be able to Perceive an Evidence or Proof On it's Own Merit?


I think Sanderson has a good point that would help in the points I brought up because unless we decide how to approach the text we can come away with "evidence."

The argument literal vs. spiritual can cause much confusion.
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:48 pm

Mark F wrote:I think Sanderson has a good point that would help in the points I brought up because unless we decide how to approach the text we can come away with "evidence."

It's a typo I suppose that you have written "Can" rather than Can Not. And yes , it is very true that....
Mark F wrote:The argument literal vs. spiritual can cause much confusion.

Absolutely, but again our Practice of Examination of texts Do, Absolutely MUST reflect BOTH Systems in order to give any and all evidence a Fair, Adequate and Thorough hearing.

That's part of what I hope to encourage on this thread....we must Force Our Own Ideas into a corner...and Open our hearts and minds to other Opinions.
But there are Difficulties, nearly insurmountable Difficulties in attempting to elevate another opinion over our own.
One of the obvious reasons for that is because it is in disagreement with us, simple as that......but we can overcome that obstacle with a tenacious effort on our part to bring our stubbornness under subjection.
And Yes, We ARE ALL Stubborn in Our Opinions.

Anther reason, and probably just as obvious, is Time. How can we manage to Unlearn so much and In some cases almost start from scratch to Gain a Real and Full understanding of another idea?

Time alone was the reason that I could not fully do the "Selfcheck" that Douggg had produced for us all a long time back about the Kings, Kingdoms, Crowns, No crowns, Empires, nations..... :faint:

i'll admit it, that whole area of study is too Difficult for me.......Jay has a real good grasp of that area of study also I think. That's why I make the admission that his opinion is reasonable should all of our other ideas not come to pass soon.

more thoughts later.
.
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Mark F on Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:18 pm

Yes I have problems with the thoughts being transferred to the keyboard. You are right it was a typo.

And sometimes I just have problems with the thoughts!! :lol:
Mark

All Scripture from NKJV

Find a seven year covenant Jesus makes with anybody plainly stated in Scripture.
Mark F
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:29 pm

:tease:
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:54 am

Well, it was my turn mark s,
went in to the hospital ER last night with fever, chill, severe body aches. Hope you're doing ok.
What caused my symptoms though wasn't the flue, it was three abscessed lumps under my right arm. Got some fluids because I was heavily dehydrated, antibiotics and such...should snap back in a few days.

Also Mark F,
I hope I've not offended you with the little tease cartoon, there has been no response by anyone after that so I wasn't sure if I offended you or if anyone else felt it was in appropriate.

Blessings to all. and I hope again mark s that you're feeling better soon.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:22 am

Not to throw a wrench into the line of thought here, but I think it is very difficult for any of us to be truly objective when considering each others evidence concerning interpretation of scripture.

We all come to view the scriptures based on a foundation of understanding that we have over time come to rest upon. If one is more Calvanist in their foundation they will interpret prophetic scripture based on that foundation. If one has a dispensational foundation they will interpret accordingly and so on. To divorce oneself from their preconceived notions is a very difficult task, especially when they believe they are correct in that view. This makes consideration of evidence a daunting task. For instance if I am to provide evidence for my view of a pre- trib rapture, I often find that I have to go back and define the evidence for my foundational view of dispensationalism. If indeed I want those interested parties to fully comprehend my evidence, they have to understand my foundational view as well, which also requires evidence. This is one of the reasons I rarely post any more in the debate forum, because I have found that most folks cannot grasp the evidence I put forth, even when to me it appears to be fairly solid. To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.

I think it is important to define what constitutes evidence, but even more so I think the question is how can we come to consider evidence in an unbiased fashion? How can we be objective while standing on a foundation that differs from others we are trying to debate with?

I have in the past found it helpful to follow the logical path of someone's point back to its foundation. But this approach takes a lot of time and back and forth discussion, and often leads to frustration which brings an end to the debate.

I think this is where it breaks down, when we fail to agree on what constitutes a correct method of interpretation and when we cannot approach the subject of our various foundational differences that influence how we interpret scripture.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Exit40 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:07 am

Resurrection Torchlight wrote: because I have found that most folks cannot grasp the evidence I put forth, even when to me it appears to be fairly solid. To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.


Oh good, I thought it was just me. And not just on this board. In casual conversation the blank stares and outright confusion at times is very evident, to the point of personal indignation for some. I consider my delivery, perhaps I am approaching the issue incorrectly. I have been a teacher and trainer for many years so I am continually, well almost, seeking to improve the skills I have continually sought to improve. And I am harder on myself than anyone else has ever been for my inability to relate in a manner so as to just be understood, and to not appear judgmental. What appears to be factual, simply, tends to offend so many. Particularly as to general matters of Christian Faith and the implications of the nature of our cultural trends, within and without our Faith. I try to not be offensive or defensive, just understood, yet I am painted with a label from so many that is so far from who I am that I have to seriously question myself, but never question my Faith, just the manner in which I present it to others. The following Scripture has come to my attention, read the
context here.

Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

I am not sure of the relevance, or if maybe it might even apply to myself, I am hopeful it is neither. Just trying to get outside myself and do the will of Our Lord, if I can.

God Bless You

David
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.
User avatar
Exit40
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 8880
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:46 am

Re: Evidently

Postby Ready1 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:26 pm

Resurrection Torchlight wrote: If indeed I want those interested parties to fully comprehend my evidence, they have to understand my foundational view as well, which also requires evidence. This is one of the reasons I rarely post any more in the debate forum, because I have found that most folks cannot grasp the evidence I put forth, even when to me it appears to be fairly solid. To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.


I would agree with you completely on this statement. Our prior understanding of the evidence affects our understanding of future prophecy. As an example, one simplistic statement that I have made at various times is

Whoever we view to be the "elect" of Matt 24, determines the outcome of our viewpoint of how the end of time will play out.

But the truth is, we determine who the "elect" of Matt 24 are, based upon "a foundation of understanding that we have over time come to rest upon." And everything else is determined by that parameter.

Exit40 wrote:What appears to be factual, simply, tends to offend so many. Particularly as to general matters of Christian Faith and the implications of the nature of our cultural trends, within and without our Faith. I try to not be offensive or defensive, just understood, yet I am painted with a label from so many that is so far from who I am that I have to seriously question myself, but never question my Faith, just the manner in which I present it to others.


Once again, David, you have said it very well. While some act like they know how the future will play out, not one of us really does. We can only look into the Word for the pictures that are there and imperfectly attempt to understand what God is bringing about.

At times we get all upset about our government and other governments, but let us never forget that the Lord sets up and takes down rulers as It pleases him; and our job is to witness for him regardless of the circumstances of the government we are under, until He comes.
Just observing.

E.
Ready1
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Central Cal

Re: Evidently

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:37 pm

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:We all come to view the scriptures based on a foundation of understanding that we have over time come to rest upon. If one is more Calvanist in their foundation they will interpret prophetic scripture based on that foundation. If one has a dispensational foundation they will interpret accordingly and so on.


This very reason is why I've come to question many teachings(ers). Most believers adopt the foundation they are taught without "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Over time, that foundation becomes set in stone and even examining the scriptures is done through a lens or filter that leads back to the things taught.

To divorce oneself from their preconceived notions is a very difficult task, especially when they believe they are correct in that view. This makes consideration of evidence a daunting task.


I agree it's a difficult task, but not impossible imo. Many, if not most, views are arrived at with a particular goal or agenda as it's driving force. In order to arrive at the desired conclusion, good rules of hermeneutics are ignored or discarded in favor of words or verses taken out of context.

For instance if I am to provide evidence for my view of a pre- trib rapture, I often find that I have to go back and define the evidence for my foundational view of dispensationalism. If indeed I want those interested parties to fully comprehend my evidence, they have to understand my foundational view as well, which also requires evidence. This is one of the reasons I rarely post any more in the debate forum, because I have found that most folks cannot grasp the evidence I put forth, even when to me it appears to be fairly solid. To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.


Don't underestimate the ability of others to grasp, RT. It may be a simple matter of disagreeing and we often perceive that as ignorance on their part (not using ignorance in a derogatory manner) or a lack of substantial evidence on their part. But Jesus said that there were some things even the apostles couldn't receive at that time. He also said the Holy Spirit would reveal things to come. I see it as a matter of timing. We will know what we should when we should. This, of course, is relative to future prophetic events.

I think this is where it breaks down, when we fail to agree on what constitutes a correct method of interpretation and when we cannot approach the subject of our various foundational differences that influence how we interpret scripture.


You know, there are so many places on the internet that detail correct methods of interpretation that I wonder why we can't use them. If they are the work of credible scholars, we should be able to weigh our views against them to arrive at a fairly good understanding and discard previously held foundational views acquired by well-meaning, but misinformed teachings(ers). In that case, we must be willing to stand strong on our convictions, but at the same time allow others to do the same without judging.

I've heard many pastors and teachers admit to having believed something they learned in college or seminary, etc. that they've since learned was far from true. They've been humble enough to admit it and I have the utmost respect for them for doing so. Growth is a process, after all and wisdom is arrived at via a long, often difficult journey.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28699
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Evidently

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:41 pm

Exit40 wrote:Oh good, I thought it was just me. And not just on this board. In casual conversation the blank stares and outright confusion at times is very evident, to the point of personal indignation for some.


No, David, it's not just you...You are not alone in this.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28699
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:14 pm

Resurrection Torchlight wrote: This is one of the reasons I rarely post any more in the debate forum, because I have found that most folks cannot grasp the evidence I put forth, even when to me it appears to be fairly solid. To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.


I consider your evidence reasonable, although I can't pretend to have understood it all, because I doubt that you could completely express it all. There is so much you at least feel you have received by the Spirit of Truth that you have not been able to yet explain. And I think that may be the case with all of us.

there is one certain element that I will speak of in a few posts from this one if someone else doesn't bring it up first.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:To them it often makes no sense at all because they are standing on a different foundation.

that's true.....but that Difficulty Can be Personally Addressed.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:I think it is important to define what constitutes evidence

Oh Yes.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:but even more so I think the question is how can we come to consider evidence in an unbiased fashion? How can we be objective while standing on a foundation that differs from others we are trying to debate with?

Key point....Absolutely........we Can Address this in our Own Hearts.....All of us Can.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:I have in the past found it helpful to follow the logical path of someone's point back to its foundation. But this approach takes a lot of time and back and forth discussion, and often leads to frustration which brings an end to the debate.

That's a good approach.....but is there that much time to Re-Learn.....or is there a better method?
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:I think this is where it breaks down, when we fail to agree on what constitutes a correct method of interpretation and when we cannot approach the subject of our various foundational differences that influence how we interpret scripture.

True..........but that should not ultimately Determine what IS Evidence, and what Is Not.

Because we must First Determine the following....as you've already said.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote: it is important to define what constitutes evidence
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Jay Ross on Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:33 pm

Hello

To be a good communicator, we must be prepared to learn. To be able to learn we must appreciate the medium that we are using to communicate.

In a face to face communication environment, we are able to see and observe the other person's body language and hear the inflections in their voice which conveys much information about how the conversation is proceeding and we can learn/respond instantaneously to the feedback we are getting during the conversation and the clues that the recipient is providing as to how interested they are in the topic of the conversation and how safe they feel in participating in it. Our frustration with the other persons' interest or understanding in the conversation can really be a signal to the other person to "escape" as quickly as possible from their conversation with us so that they can feel safe.

If we are not prepared to learn from the signs provided by the recipient(s) in the conversation as to how they are receiving what we are attempting to convey to them, then the transfer of information between the parties in the conversation breaks down and they will actively avoid us in the future irrespective of our perceived "quality" of the "useful" information we are wanting to convey.

In an "ear" to "ear" conversation, say via a phone conversation where the recipients are not able to see each other, the available feedback loop is drastically reduced to only the inflections and tones of the voice that the person is able to hear via the phone line. How we interpret these signals and adjust our verbal conversation is not as viable as the face to face communication situation because of the reduced feedback.

In an "eye" to 'eye" conversation, like we have here on this forum, the process is slowed down considerable and the communication is not in real time where the interpretative aspect of the conversation is more reflective than it is responsive. This makes a very big difference in the conversation.

The evidence in this case has to be presented more carefully so that the intended meaning is precisely understood by the recipient. Good communication is measured by how well a concept or idea is transferred from the originator to the recipient such that the recipient is able to come to the same "understanding" of the original concept being conveyed by the originator, to be able to evaluate the concept/idea as to whether the presented evidence is acceptable.

As has been previously stated in this thread, this may take a number of back and forth posts in the conversation. Sadly having too many participants in this form of conversation often muddies the waters very quickly and takes the conversation off topic.

The environment of the conversation participants also plays a role in effective communication. In a face to face model both participants are experiencing they same surrounding environmental conditions whereas in the other two models presented in this post, that cannot be assumed.

The outside emotional environment of the participants also plays a part in the conversation, with the "eye" to "eye" communication model providing too much time to reflect on what might be being said in the conversation. Also the influence of the emotional environmental factors plays a bigger distracting part in the conversation because it cannot be compensated for as easily as with a face to face conversation.

Evidently, the "facts" often get in the way of a lively conversation between two people and the truth is lost along the way.

In today's modern form of communication, it is the "sound bite" that has become important in our "emotional understanding" of the situation and the need for any reality in the "sound bite" becomes lost in the transmission.

People are asked for their opinion on many topics today, which they happily give, and the necessary required information needed to form that opinion on the topic of the question being framed, is missing in action and so often considered irrelevant. Today, how I feel has become more important than the surround facts and evidence on which the opinion should be made. So often we do not even know what the facts and evidence should be.

Shalom

jay ross
Jay Ross
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:51 pm

Don't underestimate the ability of others to grasp, RT. It may be a simple matter of disagreeing and we often perceive that as ignorance on their part (not using ignorance in a derogatory manner) or a lack of substantial evidence on their part. But Jesus said that there were some things even the apostles couldn't receive at that time. He also said the Holy Spirit would reveal things to come. I see it as a matter of timing. We will know what we should when we should. This, of course, is relative to future prophetic events.

I think this is where it breaks down, when we fail to agree on what constitutes a correct method of interpretation and when we cannot approach the subject of our various foundational differences that influence how we interpret scripture.



You know, there are so many places on the internet that detail correct methods of interpretation that I wonder why we can't use them. If they are the work of credible scholars, we should be able to weigh our views against them to arrive at a fairly good understanding and discard previously held foundational views acquired by well-meaning, but misinformed teachings(ers). In that case, we must be willing to stand strong on our convictions, but at the same time allow others to do the same without judging.


Hi Abiding,

I don't underestimate the ability of folks to understand or "grasp" ideas. I also have learned that in explaining, one has to be thorough, especially when posting online,( as Jay said so well in his post) so much can be misconstrued in this format, often I find that I am the one to blame when others fail to grasp, because I assume they know what I am talking about and have failed to give a thorough explanation. Some people however just do not seem to be able to grasp, no matter how thorough you are. As I read through some older debate threads, it occurs to me that often it is the foundation they stand on that inhibits their ability to comprehend. It takes a mature and well seasoned student of the word to look beyond their foundation to examine "evidence" free of bias. I think it is a rare individual who can do so. Of course as you have so nicely pointed out, none of us has a full understanding and only when we meet our Lord on the other side of eternity will we fully know.

As far as methods of interpretation, most of us are not formally trained in study methods and sometimes even those who are fail to apply correct principles when dealing with subject matter that they are passionately committed to. I have a brother in law who is a pastor for many years of a large church, he has his Masters of Divinity. I and others have been engaged in debates with him over interpretation, and frankly he is often unwilling to admit that his reasoning and methodology is flawed, because he was so fully committed to what he wanted to believe about it and he was after all "the expert". My experience here at FP is that although some people claim to have great skill in proper exegesis and a firm grasp of hermeneutic principles, sometimes they often fail to demonstrate that skill in their interpretation. They will point out others flaws, but fail to see their own. Again I see this is an issue of maturity and perhaps ability as well and sometimes it is just an issue of being committed to that foundation. I am no trained theologian, and I never claim to anyone that I have it all figured out, but it seems that others think they have and in those cases and all too often conceding to disagree is what ends the debate.

I agree we should always be willing and able to disagree in love, without judging . I have tried to always do so here at FP as I have noticed others also excel in doing so.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:56 pm

Because we must First Determine the following....as you've already said.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote: it is important to define what constitutes evidence


So Shorttibber, what say you? What constitutes evidence?


RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:34 pm

As far as methods of interpretation, most of us are not formally trained in study methods and sometimes even those who are fail to apply correct principles when dealing with subject matter that they are passionately committed to.


Hi RT,

I'll just give this one little example and then I'll bow out of the discussion as I have other plans for this evening and prophecy isn't necessarily my strength.

I know all the scripture and principles of what's needed for salvation. Many will list the necessities in a nice bullet-list and perfectly identify the evidence from scripture. One of those "requirements" is that one must admit (s)he's a sinner and repent. That just didn't happen to me. I didn't ever think I was a sinner nor did I repent in the sense it's taught today. I simply read a prayer from the back of a book and hoped their really was a God that heard it. Now the foundation and/or evidence presented by most would categorically deny my born again experience or salvation. To try to convince them that God reaches us where we are and how we conform to their "list" of musts/have-to's/ought-to's is just a waste of time.

I'm of the belief that the Bible is a guide to Christian living...not a law book. I believe that God is our merciful Savior; not a score-keeper.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. Carry on..... :lol:

Members here are A+ in my opinion!
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28699
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:46 am

I don't think it's at all impossible to set aside however temporarily what we believe we've learned up to this point, in order to examine different viewpoints.

In fact, I think that a key component of understanding an opposing view is to understand it's strengths to the same degree as those who hold to that view.

A hungry man will taste everything to find something to eat, the satiated man picks at his food. How hungry for learning are you?

Abiding, I like your testimony for the very reason you shared it! As it is written in the Scripture, "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". And so it is!

This has been one of the great benefits in participating on this board. I've been able to learn a number of different viewpoints, and to examine many different ideas. I believe in learning the strengths of other views, and the weaknesses in my views. One terrific way to do that is to debate things with smart people who disagree with me. All I ask is that they be nice about it, and I guess that's why I'm here!

Love in Christ,
Mark

:spin:
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:00 pm

mark s wrote:I don't think it's at all impossible to set aside however temporarily what we believe we've learned up to this point, in order to examine different viewpoints.

I don't think it's impossible either, but very uncommonly practiced.
The consensus is fairly clear in that regard I think.
mark s wrote:In fact, I think that a key component of understanding an opposing view is to understand it's strengths to the same degree as those to hold to that view.

That, I believe, is nearly impossible though mark. (WHO, instead of TO is what you intended I'm sure)
The principle you've mentioned is very true though....IF that could be accomplished.
mark s wrote:A hungry man will taste everything to find something to eat, the satiated man picks at his food. How hungry for learning are you?

:a3:
mark s wrote: I believe in learning the strengths of other views, and the weaknesses in my views.

Also a great practice.

great post mark :grin:

will wait a little longer on....this....
shorttribber wrote:there is one certain element that I will speak of in a few posts from this one if someone else doesn't bring it up first.


But before that, I should attempt an answer at this....
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:So Shorttibber, what say you? What constitutes evidence?

Evidence is such an interesting thing to ponder because it itself is so conditional....not at all stable if it is on the Weak end of our Personal standard of weight and measure of it.
For instance we can Personally assign a certain Evident Piece offered for our measuring, a 1-10 strength.
And then through any number of exercises, we may assign a Piece of Evidence, a 3 in strength, or a 7 possibly.

here's my point basically. Often It is said, "I've seen no Evidence at all to support what you're saying and yada yada yada".
Well, is that because a certain element of Evidence must Rise to the Strength level of a 10 to be considered "Evidence"?



That's not Reasonable nor Rational at all. there is such a thing as what may be called Weak, Moderately Weak, Moderate, Moderately Stronger , Strong and Overwhelmingly Strong Evidence.

When we speak of Evidence then, we should understand the Many Variations of that Word.

i'll add more later.

blessings to all
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:31 pm

shorttribber wrote:
mark s wrote:I don't think it's at all impossible to set aside however temporarily what we believe we've learned up to this point, in order to examine different viewpoints.

I don't think it's impossible either, but very uncommonly practiced.
The consensus is fairly clear in that regard I think.


Hi ST,

That may be. But it can be done, and I believe it can be learned. One thing to remember, opposing views need not be threatening. It harms us nothing to understand someone's ideas, even different from ours. I think maybe some people forget that. If an opposing view is presented, maybe some people automatically feel the need to defend their own.

As far as I'm concerned, IF I truly believe my view correct and yours not, and I believe in the value of teaching my view, I need to understand your view, so I can not only show what I believe to be right about mine, but to show where yours doesn't match Scripture. And in the meantime, I am given the opportunity to test my view, so if mine fails the test, I can more quickly correct it.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but I think I can present the case for pre-wrath rapture as effectively as those who hold that view, though I remain pre-trib. But it is in understanding the view to the degree that I do that I believe I understand its weaknesses. And it's in seeking to understand what others see as the weaknesses in pre-trib that I can avoid the pitfalls of things that aren't actually proofs, and therefore fail to convince.

Here is a simple example. Pre-tribbers commonly point out that "we are not appointed to wrath", therefore, we will be taken pre-. But the fact is Paul could have been easily speaking of the wrath of final judgment, and I personally think that was the case. And that wrath will be upon the earth, God is able to make a distinction between those who are His and those who are not. So this is not a proof.

mark s wrote:In fact, I think that a key component of understanding an opposing view is to understand it's strengths to the same degree as those to hold to that view.

That, I believe, is nearly impossible though mark. (WHO, instead of TO is what you intended I'm sure)
The principle you've mentioned is very true though....IF that could be accomplished.[/quote]

(that was what I meant, thank you!)

When I wanted to know for certain about the permanence of our salvation, I studying every verse I could find, reaching the conclusion that we are permanently born again. I then spent probably 4 times as long studying every verse other people presented claiming that we could lose our salvation. I found that many of them actually added to my list of Scriptures, and none of them actually said what they were claimed to say.

So perhaps the point in all this rambling is to encourage people to take the challenge, "Does that verse actually say what is being claimed?" I think if you do enough of those, you'll find out what is true and what is not. Because the Bible says a certain thing.

Maybe the reason we have so many disagreements is because we stop too soon.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:33 pm

mark s wrote:Hi ST,That may be. But it can be done, and I believe it can be learned.

Yes, it Can be. When we Willingly Force Our Opinions to be Momentarily Subservient to another idea.
mark s wrote: It harms us nothing to understand someone's ideas,

True, our Personal Ideas then Serve as an help to our understanding of an Evidence we may have never before found Valuable.
mark s wrote: I think I can present the case for pre-wrath rapture as effectively as those who hold that view, though I remain pre-trib.

somewhat the same in the reverse here. but surely we are both very limited in that way.
mark s wrote:Here is a simple example. Pre-tribbers commonly point out that "we are not appointed to wrath", therefore, we will be taken pre-. But the fact is Paul could have been easily speaking of the wrath of final judgment, and I personally think that was the case. And that wrath will be upon the earth, God is able to make a distinction between those who are His and those who are not. So this is not a proof.

so true, and very refreshing to hear it so plainly admitted.
mark s wrote:Maybe the reason we have so many disagreements is because we stop too soon.


partly true.....but the reason is in the Hands and Timing of our Sovereign Lord.

What I want to convey in this thread is that it is not so greatly important to all come into agreement at present, but to be Willing to see the Value and Strengths of Other Opinions other than our Own. We must Learn to Humbly Embrace the idea that Acknowledging the Strength of another opinion is Greatly Helpful.

try to imagine this as an example of HOW to lay our ideas aside. We make our opinion Weightless and then rest AN Evidence against OUR Weightless Opinion.......the weight then of course will automatically rest with the opposing opinion.
Now, when that opposing weight hit the scale, How fast did the scale fall under the weight? Did it take 1 second, or a Tenth OF 1 second?
The Determined Speed is the 1-10 Strength of Evidence that I spoke of earlier.
That's HOW Evidence is Weighed On It's Own Merit.
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:49 pm

here's my point basically. Often It is said, "I've seen no Evidence at all to support what you're saying and yada yada yada".
Well, is that because a certain element of Evidence must Rise to the Strength level of a 10 to be considered "Evidence"?

That's not Reasonable nor Rational at all. there is such a thing as what may be called Weak, Moderately Weak, Moderate, Moderately Stronger , Strong and Overwhelmingly Strong Evidence.


The problem I see with this approach is that one's "strength level" can be subjective. What to me might be a 10 on my scale might be a 2 on yours. If we are to craft a scale for how strong evidence is then that scale has to be based on something that we all agree is true. For instance I might say that the scene in Revelation 4, shows John being caught up into the heavenly tabernacle. And as evidence I can point to Numbers 8- which describes how the earthly Tabernacle was patterned after the heavenly, and also to Hebrews 8 which tells us how Jesus entered into the heavenly tabernacle after His resurrection, and that that tabernacle served as the pattern for the earthly tabernacle.

Now we know that both the passages in Numbers and Hebrews tell us that there is both and earthly and heavenly Tabernacle, and that the heavenly served as the pattern for the earthly. And that certain references in Revelation 4 speak about things that served as the pattern of items that were in fact present in the earthly tabernacle. But is my evidence strong enough to demonstrate that that is where John is caught up to. In my mind I would say it is pretty strong evidence from scripture which we know to be true. But others might say that I am being presumptuous, that the passage in Revelation 4 doesn't say it is the heavenly tabernacle and my evidence is only moderate.

If my evidence is strong, then can I based on that evidence extrapolate more meaning from what is happening in Rev. 4? For instance who are the 24 elders? What do the golden crowns signify? What is actually happening as the lamb enters? Etc... The evidence for those conclusions may prove weaker, but it is still evidence based on scriptural truths. So who decides if it is strong enough evidence?

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:23 pm

mark s wrote:I don't think it's at all impossible to set aside however temporarily what we believe we've learned up to this point, in order to examine different viewpoints.

In fact, I think that a key component of understanding an opposing view is to understand it's strengths to the same degree as those who hold to that view.

A hungry man will taste everything to find something to eat, the satiated man picks at his food. How hungry for learning are you?

Abiding, I like your testimony for the very reason you shared it! As it is written in the Scripture, "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". And so it is!

This has been one of the great benefits in participating on this board. I've been able to learn a number of different viewpoints, and to examine many different ideas. I believe in learning the strengths of other views, and the weaknesses in my views. One terrific way to do that is to debate things with smart people who disagree with me. All I ask is that they be nice about it, and I guess that's why I'm here!

Love in Christ,
Mark

:spin:


Mark,

I completely agree that participating on this board has caused me to learn much more about other viewpoints and even more about my own, than I ever would have or even could have had I not engaged in and followed debates. I think perhaps you are one of those few who is able to set aside your views more easily than others. I have tried to follow your example in this, though I admit it doesn't come as easily to me. Even though I try to do so, I still have predisposition toward my own view, I can never totally set it completely aside so as to remain free of any bias.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:05 pm

great comments RT....got to answer tomorrow ok?
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:20 pm

shorttribber wrote:great comments RT....got to answer tomorrow ok?

still couldn't get to it RT, sorry...try tomorrow again
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:22 am

For me, the weight of evidence in Scripture is based on the specificity of the language (word choice, syntax, grammar). I believe that the Bible says a certain thing. I don't so much have to "weigh the evidence", I more just have to understand what it says.

All doctrines come from the meanings of passages, which come from the meanings of words.

I think passages can be sorted into those which allow more than one meaning, and those which allow only one meaning. We use those which allow only one meaning to interpret those which allow more than one.

Love in Christ,
Mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:27 pm

mark s wrote:For me, the weight of evidence in Scripture is based on the specificity of the language (word choice, syntax, grammar). I believe that the Bible says a certain thing. I don't so much have to "weigh the evidence", I more just have to understand what it says.

All doctrines come from the meanings of passages, which come from the meanings of words.

I think passages can be sorted into those which allow more than one meaning, and those which allow only one meaning. We use those which allow only one meaning to interpret those which allow more than one.

Love in Christ,
Mark


I would agree with you Mark, however I find that even in this it comes down to an individual's understanding of; as you say; "what words mean". How many times have I read through or participated in debates where an obscure definition of a word is claimed as evidence to bolster or prove someone's interpretation? Again I would say that it boils down to one's foundation, one will choose the meaning that best fits within that structure, unless of course they are able to be open and remain unbiased. Our interpretation of the passage which allows only one meaning only works to interpret those passages which allow more than one, if we agree on the one meaning. With many passages the one meaning is clear and obvious, but with others it is not, this is why we have various doctrines among our churches that contradict one another. Because folks do not agree to the meaning of the words. Why is that? Because they are biased by what they already believe.

Here's an example. I greatly value much of what John MacArthur has taught over the years, however he has stated that people who take the mark of the beast during the "tribulation" can still be redeemed through repentance. You can listen for yourself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1dVmBzA1Us

I also have his book Because The Time Is near, where he also states on pages 234 and 235 the meaning of
Revelation 14:9-11
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”


He interprets this passage as a warning by the angels, a call to repentance, not a proclamation of condemnation.
The third angel's dire warning is addressed to anyone who "worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or his hand." The angel warns that a terrible fate awaits those who persist in worshiping the Antichrist. Once again, God graciously calls on sinners to repent in the final hour.


Why would he interpret it this way? Because he has a particular foundation, one that doesn't allow for an inability of people to to repent. It is also born out of how he pieces together the timing of the events of the book of Revelation, which is also based on a foundation. The passage is clearly a proclamation against those who take the mark of the beast, yes it is a warning, a warning to those on earth not to worship the beast or to take his mark. It is not a call to those who have already done so, but to those who may be tempted to do so. This to me is obvious. Especially in light of this passage:
Revelation 9:20-21
20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk;
21 and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts.


Earlier In his book on page 168, MacArthur himself says when he interprets this passage, that those left on earth won't repent, contradicting his statement found later in the book (see above quote):
The death of one-third of the earth's remaining population will be the most catastrophic disaster to strike the earth since the flood. Yet in an amazing display of hardness of heart, the rest of mankind not killed by these plagues still refuses to repent. Tragically, those remaining will choose to worship the dragon and the beast (Antichrist) instead of the Lamb.


(I believe that 1/3 that is killed by the plagues are in fact the tribulation saints- who do not take the mark killed by the demonically inspired armies of the Antichrist. MacArthur does not identify who the slain are.)

So John MacArthur, a man who is a bible scholar, who gets many things right, I believe got this wrong. He doesn't even provide evidence as to why he believes this. In fact his book is full of ideas that I disagree with, that he provides no scriptural backing for. He claims some things are symbolic and should not be taken literally, and his basis for saying so is built once again on a foundation, that leads him to interpret the words as he does. If you get the foundation right or wrong, then everything else is subject to it and will be interpreted in light of that foundation.

I just have no other explanation as to why folks interpret as they do, except that is boils down to preconceived ideas. To their foundational understanding of scripture. Even the most seasoned scholars have difficulty interpreting certain passages without being influenced by their predisposition. I think this is especially true when it comes to the interpretation of prophetic scripture.

Needless to say, like you- I read books like these to understand the various views, so that I might learn from them. They challenge my own thoughts and ideas and lead me to go back to the word and see if they are right or wrong.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:46 pm

Interestingly in the light vs.darkness thread, the whole idea of "evidence" is in view.

Mark pointed out that in the passage regarding the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians, that the restrainer is referenced in both the gender neutral and the masculine. While all other biblical references to angelic beings are made in the masculine form.

I don't want to put words into Mark's mouth, and he can correct me if I am wrong, but I think Mark's point is that because this is true, it is evidence that the restrainer can not be an angel.

Now some pointed to the passage in Zechariah 5:9 that describes two winged "women" carrying the basket containing the woman called "wickedness", saying that this is evidence that there are also "female" angels which would then satisfy the gender neutral reference in 2 Thess. 2 regarding the restrainer.

Mark in turn pointed out that these "women" are not called angels in the passage. But others pointed out that because the "women" are described as having "wings like a stork" that they are in fact angelic beings.

So whose "evidence" is correct? Whose bears more "weight"? Who has the correct understanding?

I would say that it depends on who you ask.

I happen to agree with Mark, but not just based solely on this one piece of evidence (and it's likely he might say the same) but on much more that can be brought to bear, which I will not get into here. I personally believe that when there is more scriptural evidence for one interpretation, than another that the one with more bears more weight. It isn't always just the passage that only has one meaning that helps to interpret the one that has more than one meaning, but when many passages taken together point to the same meaning. To have good scriptural evidence one has to have a comprehensive understanding of scripture as a whole, not just a command of language, but a command of biblical precedent, of the way that God has worked throughout history according to the scripture, and an understanding of His character and of course one must have a solid understanding of basic doctrine among other things. And sometimes I think it matters how some are gifted, some are teachers, and some prophets- not in the sense of foretelling the future, but in the sense of interpreting God's word. Not all are teachers, or gifted in prophecy are they?

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:14 am

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:To have good scriptural evidence one has to have a comprehensive understanding of scripture as a whole, not just a command of language, but a command of biblical precedent, of the way that God has worked throughout history according to the scripture, and an understanding of His character and of course one must have a solid understanding of basic doctrine among other things.


This comment RT, answers well enough how I would also respond to mark about grammar and language. There is a great deal more involved.
It must be clear enough to all that there is weak and strong evidence and everything in between.

We can't simply study study study, and then expect inherently weak evidence to become mighty, no; we can see it Strengthened through study, yes, but that weaker evidence will Never reach a 10 in strength so to speak.

Part of the reason for this discussion is to Allow In OTHER Evidence that clashes with Our Biases......and Actually and Truly CALL IT Valid Evidence.

Example.....

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:The problem I see with this approach is that one's "strength level" can be subjective.

Subjective, yes, but it can also become Objective By Degrees through the practice of humility and very careful correction of How we tend to Respect another Person and that persons Opinion.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote: If we are to craft a scale for how strong evidence is then that scale has to be based on something that we all agree is true.

Not exactly, it is better to remember an old stile scale with nothing on it. Then weight is placed on the other side....if the evidence has nearly no weight, the scale will take forever to lower under the minuscule amount of weight. the weightier the object, the faster the scale falls.

So, what is on the opposite side becomes very Negligible....and That is how Our Bias needs to be, Negligible.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:For instance I might say that the scene in Revelation 4, shows John being caught up into the heavenly tabernacle. And as evidence I can point to Numbers 8- which describes how the earthly Tabernacle was patterned after the heavenly, and also to Hebrews 8 which tells us how Jesus entered into the heavenly tabernacle after His resurrection, and that that tabernacle served as the pattern for the earthly tabernacle. Now we know that both the passages in Numbers and Hebrews tell us that there is both and earthly and heavenly Tabernacle, and that the heavenly served as the pattern for the earthly. And that certain references in Revelation 4 speak about things that served as the pattern of items that were in fact present in the earthly tabernacle. But is my evidence strong enough to demonstrate that that is where John is caught up to. In my mind I would say it is pretty strong evidence from scripture which we know to be true. But others might say that I am being presumptuous, that the passage in Revelation 4 doesn't say it is the heavenly tabernacle and my evidence is only moderate. If my evidence is strong, then can I based on that evidence extrapolate more meaning from what is happening in Rev. 4? For instance who are the 24 elders? What do the golden crowns signify? What is actually happening as the lamb enters? Etc... The evidence for those conclusions may prove weaker, but it is still evidence based on scriptural truths. So who decides if it is strong enough evidence?


An example of what I mean by Negating Personal Bias. There was I time when I looked at Rev 4 and it's relation to the elders and crowns as Weak Evidence at best, but I no longer do.
Why? Because I've Learned to have more Respect for RT, I've Learned that Prophecy in general is much more Complex than I first realized long ago.
Now I would consider the evidence of Rev 4, crowns and elders, maybe a 7-8 in strength, because when weighed against at least a Non-Bias Opinion, it just should Reasonably be rated as such I think.

more later
Last edited by shorttribber on Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby mark s on Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:44 am

shorttribber wrote:Part of the reason for this discussion is to Allow In OTHER Evidence that clashes with Our Biases......and Actually and Truly CALL IT Valid Evidence.


Subjective, yes, but it can also become Objective By Degrees through the practice of humility and very careful correction of How we tend to Respect another Person and that persons Opinion.



Hi ST,

Isn't this just saying that we should consider something valid simply because someone else says it is?

Something does not "Become Objective" as a byproduct of interpersonal relations. Something is objective if it has an external reality that can be shared as we all perceive that reality.

The act of removing a bias does not change the nature of facts or truth. Information is intrinsically true or not true based on itself, not on whether I have a bias for or against certain information.

Let's use an example.

Let's say that in my reading of Dan. 9, I've concluded that the Many whom the Covenant is Confirmed With are "Many Successive Leaders of a Single Gentile Nation", so that this covenant is actually confirmed Many Times over the course of history, most likely with Rome.

Does your bias for or against, or neutrality, for that matter, have any relation towards whether this is a valid interpretation of the passage? On what basis would you refute me? Would it not be based on an examination of the Scriptures? Or would it be based on your setting aside preconceptions? If you start off with saying, "No, that's not right", then change to, "OK, it could be right", does that strengthen the validity of my interpretation?

Isn't the point that we are to consider things apart from bias?

Why? Because I've Learned to have more Respect for RT, I've Learned that Prophecy in general is much more Complex than I first realized long ago.


These are actually logical fallacies, aren't they? Something is not true because Someone Else says it is. This is Appeal to Authority: RT is Authoritative, and RT says it is such-n-such.

The second fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance: This should be considered valid, after all, there is So Much we Do Not Know.

True proofs would be based on a Scriptural Examination.

RT mentioned John MacArthur. I disagree with his teachings concerning spiritual gifts, whether God loves the unsaved, election, condemnation of those who receive the mark of the beast, I could go one. But whether or not I consider him a "scholarly Bible teacher", a "good man", a "mature Christian", or not, this is not what determines the strength of his arguments. In each case, I return to the Scriptures, and compare his words against God's Words. How I feel about the man matters nothing at all. It does not change the evidence, how "strong" or "weak" it is.

Love in Christ,
mark
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12868
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:34 pm

Again I would have to agree with Mark. In essence it is the scale that we must agree on. What is the scale? Is it based on a person? Is it based on other teaching? Is it your scale or mine? Is the scale itself accurate? I would suggest as Mark has said, that all of our "evidence" must be proven by scriptural examination. Scripture itself is the scale, to remain as unbiased as possible, all evidence must be shown worthy of consideration through a careful study of scripture. I have no trouble considering someone's evidence when that person has done the work to show how scripture supports it. Whether they are Joe Shmo or John Macarthur. (I was just using him as an example of how even well known teachers interpret with bias)

Part of the reason for this discussion is to Allow In OTHER Evidence that clashes with Our Biases......and Actually and Truly CALL IT Valid Evidence.


This statement confuses me a bit, I can consider or allow OTHER evidence that disagrees with my bias, no problem, but I may or may not be able to call it VALID evidence. The person who is presenting their evidence has to convince me why I should consider it as valid. If it flies in the face of my understanding of what scripture says, or if I find their argument weak, or their understanding of scripture flawed in some way, then I cannot accept it as valid. You have to explain your evidence in such a way that it proves to actually be valid. I can't just call it valid because it sounds plausible, it has to prove to BE valid.

I am reminded of that dress thing that was going around on facebook, what color was it? http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-on ... lor-dress/ Was it Blue with black trim, or white with with gold trim? People actually saw it as one or the other, but the dress was actually only one, not both, even though some actually saw it as white and gold, it really was blue and black. There is of course an explanation as to why some folks see it one way and others see it another- see link if you are interested. Anyway, just because someone has evidence that the dress is white and gold, doesn't mean it really is. It had to be tested by viewing it in various contexts, in the end even though some people were utterly convinced that it was truly white and gold, when it was "tested" it was proven to be blue and black, and those people who thought otherwise had to accept that they were seeing it wrong, because the evidence- proved it .

Now this is not a perfect analogy, but I think it lends itself well to our discussion. Just as the color of the dress had to be proven, we need to do the same with our interpretation, we need to prove with valid evidence from scripture that our idea has merit. The color of the dress in question above, could not be proven based solely on someone's authority, or even on what people actually saw with their eyes. Just like our interpretation cannot be proven by simply calling our evidence valid, even if we are successful at looking beyond our bias, the evidence actually has to be true.

Along with the ability to examine one's evidence free of bias, the other side of that coin is that we also need to be willing to admit when our own evidence doesn't stand up to the test.

RT
Last edited by Resurrection Torchlight on Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:27 pm

Why? Because I've Learned to have more Respect for RT, I've Learned that Prophecy in general is much more Complex than I first realized long ago.



These are actually logical fallacies, aren't they? Something is not true because Someone Else says it is. This is Appeal to Authority: RT is Authoritative, and RT says it is such-n-such.


Well it is nice to know I am respected..... thanks you guys :mrgreen:

But seriously, I am truly just a novice when it comes to producing valid evidence and I really do want people to check my evidence against scripture before they decide whether or not it is valid.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:58 pm

mark s wrote:Isn't this just saying that we should consider something valid simply because someone else says it is?

Absolutely not. The Word of God reigns above all opinions obviously.
mark s wrote:Something does not "Become Objective" as a byproduct of interpersonal relations.

I didn't intend to imply that "SomeTHING Becomes Objective", my intention was to suggest improvement in Our Personal Behavior to allow Ourselves to become objective.
mark s wrote:The act of removing a bias does not change the nature of facts or truth. Information is intrinsically true or not true based on itself, not on whether I have a bias for or against certain information.

Of course, I've also not said any Bias will have Any effect whatsoever on a Matter of Fact. Where do you think I've suggested that?
mark s wrote:Isn't the point that we are to consider things apart from bias?

Sure. but rarely is that ever actually done. It takes an ability to strip personal bias away by degrees.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:ST wrote:Part of the reason for this discussion is to Allow In OTHER Evidence that clashes with Our Biases......and Actually and Truly CALL IT Valid Evidence.(quoted ST)
.....This statement confuses me a bit, I can consider or allow OTHER evidence that disagrees with my bias, no problem, but I may or may not be able to call it VALID evidence. The person who is presenting their evidence has to convince me why I should consider it as valid. If it flies in the face of my understanding of what scripture says, or if I find their argument weak, or their understanding of scripture flawed in some way, then I cannot accept it as valid. You have to explain your evidence in such a way that it proves to actually be valid. I can't just call it valid because it sounds plausible, it has to prove to BE valid.


Validity is not equivalent to Absolute factual Truth. maybe we could look further at the meaning of the word "valid" or "validity".

The Word of God is Absolutely True, our opinions of What the Word of God IS Actually Conveying only has a certain Degree of Validity.


more later.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:49 pm

Validity is not equivalent to Absolute factual Truth. maybe we could look further at the meaning of the word "valid" or "validity".


So would we have to provide valid evidence for validating validity? :mrgreen: (hee hee)

Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.


According to this definition a valid point or "evidence" in our case, is logically or factually sound.

The Word of God is Absolutely True, our opinions of What the Word of God IS Actually Conveying only has a certain Degree of Validity.


Actually I didn't say one's evidence had to be proven as fact, I said it has to be proven as valid in order for me to consider it as such. I would agree that our opinions about God's word and also our ability to interpret sometimes has limited validity, based on our limited knowledge and understanding of the evidence we gather to do so.

Let me ask this question- what are the means to determine the validity of evidence? I understand the analogy made about the scale. But a scale as described has counter weights, measures, that either bring the scale into balance or not. What are the measures we should use when we provide evidence, to ensure that it is logically or factually sound? If our evidence comes from scripture then what is needed in our scriptural evidence to make it valid? I found this pdf that explains exegesis in simple terms, though I myself am not very well versed in the actual method of exegesis, and have much to learn.


http://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Smith, ... lstudy.pdf

When someone properly uses these kinds of methods, in theory, their evidence should be valid.

RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:31 pm

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:In essence it is the scale that we must agree on. What is the scale? Is it based on a person? Is it based on other teaching? Is it your scale or mine? Is the scale itself accurate? I would suggest as Mark has said, that all of our "evidence" must be proven by scriptural examination. Scripture itself is the scale, to remain as unbiased as possible, all evidence must be shown worthy of consideration through a careful study of scripture.


What is the scale? I would say that the scale is kept accurate By the Word of God. The scale is Kept accurately Calibrated BY the word of God, but the Word of God is not the scale. Truth could be best described as the center Point OF the Scale. Then, Fallacy, Non-Truth, a Lie, or Non-Resistance (Zero Bias), which has Zero Weight wherewith to Resist Truth is on One Side of the scale. Then, Evidence that has Any weight of Truth AT ALL will add slight or Rapid movement of the scale and thereby creating a visible discernible effect that could be described as a Proving Process.


What is being described then is not this persons opinion or that persons teaching AS THE Scale, but two ideas weighed against each other where Truth itself is at a Perfectly Calibrated Center, and all that falls on the small bits or large bits OF Truth Side begins the process of Proof Evidently.

In other words, we Consciously and Purposely value our personal idea as Non-truth or Fallacy to Observe the Weight of a Contrary Opinion; and Let Truth, the Absolute Center, Decide the matter by an Unbiased Observation of the Weight of the Opposing Opinion.

I have not said that RT has persuaded me , and caused me to give a greater degree of weight to the Rev 4 text, no, I have just removed any contrary opinion to it, and weighed it by itself. When the idea has Zero Resistance, the weight is more Evident.
Last edited by shorttribber on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby shorttribber on Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:46 pm

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:So would we have to provide valid evidence for validating validity? (hee hee

A Valid Point :mrgreen:
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. According to this definition a valid point or "evidence" in our case, is logically or factually sound.

Yes, Logic and Soundness.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Actually I didn't say one's evidence had to be proven as fact, I said it has to be proven as valid in order for me to consider it as such.

I agree, and Determining an evidences validity is where the Measuring exists. But many people will disregard Any amount of evidence before a Clear and Unbiased Measuring of it.
Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Let me ask this question- what are the means to determine the validity of evidence? I understand the analogy made about the scale. But a scale as described has counter weights, measures, that either bring the scale into balance or not.

I feel I have addressed this on my previous post......Again.....an Un-Biased Scale Has Zero Counter Weight.....The Speed that the scale Moves Determines the Severity of the Weight applied to it.
Last edited by shorttribber on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Evidently

Postby Resurrection Torchlight on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:25 am

What is being described then is not this persons opinion or that persons teaching AS THE Scale, but two ideas weighed against each other where Truth itself is at a Perfectly Calibrated Center, and all that falls on the small bits or large bits OF Truth Side begins the process of Proof Evidently.

In other words, we Consciously and Purposely value our personal idea as Non-truth or Fallacy to Observe the Weight of a Contrary Opinion; and Let Truth, the Absolute Center, Decide the matter by an Unbiased Observation of the Weight of the Opposing Opinion.


I can agree with what you are saying about the scale being based on truth itself (which I think is what I was trying to say), although when I am considering someone's evidence, am I weighing it against my own ideas or opinion as you say? And if so wouldn't that be weighing it against my own bias? I would say that the word of God serves as the counter balance, not my opinion or evidence. It is one person's piece of evidence weighed against the truth of what God's word says.

Also I would have a hard time considering my understanding false, if I believed it was false then how could I ever believe it to be true. However, if someone weighs their evidence against the truth of God's word and in doing so they give me reason to reconsider my own opinion or idea, then I may come to the conclusion that my idea is false.

That said, there are many ideas and opinions that are difficult to prove, much of our debate is based on speculation, especially when we consider prophecy. In that case it is a tad more difficult to weigh ideas against the Word of God. In those cases I always have in the back of my mind some doubts about the validity of my own opinion, and I do carefully weigh others ideas to see whether or not they are more sound than my own, but they must be weighed as logically or factually as possible against the Word of God.


RT
Resurrection Torchlight
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:15 pm

Next

Return to Prophecy Debate Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests