Murders depicted in the Bible

[Gregory Matthews]

Green and Kevin S have been commenting on hermeneutics.  As part of that discussion, Green said:

Quote

God has not instructed me to have a proper "hermeneutic."  He has told me to demand a plain "thus saith the LORD" on any point of doctrine. 

I will suggest that there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of hermeneutics.  At the least it seems to me that in this discussion, that word has not been used with its basic meaning.  Fundamentally hermeneutics means the theory and methods that one uses in seeking to understand the Bible.  NOTE:  I am talking about its application to the Bible.

Once one understands the fundamental meaning, it must be said that in the quote above, Green has stated his hermeneutic.  That is clearly expressed by his statement that he approaches the Bible looking for a "plain saith the LORD."  Yes, Green could expand on that if he chose.  Regardless he has done what he says God does not require.

I will suggest that God does require a valid hermeneutic, whatever that may be, in order to understand the Bible.

NOTE:  In the history of the term, hermeneutics and exegesis were once used interchangeably.

[APL]

On 1/7/2017 at 0:00 AM, Green Cochoa said:

It hurts me to see Mrs. White used to support things which Mrs. White did not support.  CONTEXT is very important.  What was the context of the above passage?  There is another one that many use as well that says "God destroys no man" and that every man who is destroyed has destroyed himself.  But what is her meaning?  What is the context?  The context is that of character.  God will NEVER destroy the character of any person.  Each destroys himself or herself through his or her own choices--choices which God has granted liberty to make as free moral agents.  But Jesus Himself was clear as to the soul and body.  Matthew 10:28 quotes Jesus saying "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."  Obviously, Satan and God's enemies can kill our bodies.  But they are not able kill the soul with it.  Why?  Is our soul immortal?  No.  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."  God will destroy sinners who have rejected salvation.  The Bible tells us Sodom and Gomorrha is an example of this.  Jude 7 speaks to this.  Mrs. White acknowledges that God will destroy.  The Bible agrees: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” 

Funny how you are worried about the context of the EGW quote, but you deny that the context of a scripture verse is important and that we can ignore the culture for which it is written. 

And as for Matthew 10:28, Ellen White is clear who "him" is that we need to fear in the book The Desire of Ages and it is NOT GOD!

[Kevin Straub]

10 hours ago, jackson said:

Lev  24:11  And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)   24:12  And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be showed them.   24:13      And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,   24:14          Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

2 Sam 6:6     And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth [his hand] to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook [it].  6:7    And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for [his] error; and there he died by the ark of God.  6:8    And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

 The fate of Uzzah was a divine judgment upon the violation of a most explicit command. Through Moses the Lord had given special instruction concerning the transportation of the ark.....By the judgment upon Uzzah He designed to impress upon all Israel the importance of giving strict heed to His requirements. Thus the death of that one man, by leading the people to repentance, might prevent the necessity of inflicting judgments upon thousands.  {CC 176.2-4}  

In the first case above,, God chose His people to carry out the execution and in the second case God personally performed the execution. In both cases, however, it is God's decision that causes the direct death of the sinner.  

To have the Bible be its own expositor, is the only sound hermeneutic, for only inspiration can be relied upon to interpret inspiration. In addition, to use one Bible verse or verses to verify or substantiate  other Bible verses is not circular reasoning, for by faith it is  understood that all scripture is inspired by God. Therefore, the Bible needs no extra-biblical sources to verify its truthfulness.

No, it is circular. For the Bible says God sends evil angels, hardens hearts, creates evil, gives wives to another man, and so forth. We interpret these. By the same principle we interpret the others. We do not come in to the ones that have a certain appearance on the surface because of the Bible language and say well, in this case God actually did it, just because I said so.

[Kevin Straub]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green and Kevin S have been commenting on hermeneutics.  As part of that discussion, Green said:

I will suggest that there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of hermeneutics.  At the least it seems to me that in this discussion, that word has not been used with its basic meaning.  Fundamentally hermeneutics means the theory and methods that one uses in seeking to understand the Bible.  NOTE:  I am talking about its application to the Bible.

Once one understands the fundamental meaning, it must be said that in the quote above, Green has stated his hermeneutic.  That is clearly expressed by his statement that he approaches the Bible looking for a "plain saith the LORD."  Yes, Green could expand on that if he chose.  Regardless he has done what he says God does not require.

I will suggest that God does require a valid hermeneutic, whatever that may be, in order to understand the Bible.

NOTE:  In the history of the term, hermeneutics and exegesis were once used interchangeably.

A Biblical guide to interpreting the language of wrath. Biblical keys. I have explained at least twice in this discussion what I am looking for. Nobody offers it. They just keep coming back with more examples of language of wrath and think they are pretty smart for doing so, too. But they are legends in their own minds, lol.

[Kevin, you have quoted something that  I wrote and posted it as Green having written it.  In addition, your mixed in your own comments.  Please clean up your post so that it accurately reports who said what--Gregory Matthews.]

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Well what "bible hermeneutic"  do you use to decide that the fire came first from the earth...going up...then coming down again?

The same one. See Deut. 3:16-18 for the basic concept. There are more. The area was given over to a big eruption. Nature gone to chaos is one of the ways "God destroys."

[Kevin Straub]

43 minutes ago, APL said:

Funny how you are worried about the context of the EGW quote, but you deny that the context of a scripture verse is important and that we can ignore the culture for which it is written. 

And as for Matthew 10:28, Ellen White is clear who "him" is that we need to fear in the book The Desire of Ages and it is NOT GOD!

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {FLB 176.9}
 

God will destroy the wicked. But how? This is our study. He gives them up to the results of their choice. We've talked a little bit about this on this discussion over the last few days. By reading, you can determine what my take is on it. Ultimately, the one to fear is self, for this is what causes the destruction at last. Self and its choice to have self as god and not God as God.

Every calamity and every death comes from the side of evil

 

“When will men learn that God is God, not man, and that He does not change? EVERY calamity, EVERY death, is a witness to the POWER OF EVIL and to the truth of the living God. The Word of God is life, and it will abide forever. Through all eternity it will stand fast. How can man, knowing what God is and what He has done, choose Satan's way instead of God's way? There is only one path to Paradise restored,--the path of obedience” (ST, January 25, 1910 par. 18).

 

Light and truth will destroy

 

“The light that shines upon our path, the truth that commends itself to our consciences, will condemn and destroy the soul, or sanctify and transform it” (1T 307.1).

 

“Let ministers and people remember that gospel truth ruins if it does not save. The soul that refuses to listen to the invitations of mercy from day to day can soon listen to the most urgent appeals without an emotion stirring his soul” (5T 134.1).

Hos. 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me [is] thine help. 
 

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, Kevin S. quoted something that I wrote and reported it as having been written by Green.  In addiltion, some of his comments were combined in the mix.  I have asked him to clean that post up. 

NOTE:  I want to be clear.  I do not think that Kevin S intended to be so confused.  But, it happened.

 

[Kevin Straub]

50 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In an earlier post, Kevin S. quoted something that I wrote and reported it as having been written by Green.  In addiltion, some of his comments were combined in the mix.  I have asked him to clean that post up. 

NOTE:  I want to be clear.  I do not think that Kevin S intended to be so confused.  But, it happened.

 

Sorry. I don't spend time here, not used to this setup.

[Kevin Straub]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Once again; no Bible, and twisted spirit of prophecy quote.

Please, tell us more about how justice of God = "calamity?"

Please respect the same guidelines you proffer to us and use only the Bible, and stop twisting small out of context snippets from EGW

How about I tell you nothing? You can have your fun somewhere else.
What nasty people over here. Now I know why I don't waste my time here.

[Kevin Straub]

19 hours ago, there buster said:

No, that is not 'my god,' it is your straw man.  If one kills a rabid dog or a man-eating tiger, this is not a matter of punishment, but rather of protecting the innocent. You reason as if there were only two alternatives, a vengeful God, or a passive one who never acts to end evil. The vengeful god is the god of Old Testament pagans; capricious, envious, and wrathful. The vengeful god is one kind of reductionism. Another type of reductionism is the God never kills or destroys.

We construct those reductionist deities to alleviate the need for the intellectual and emotional effort required to wrestle with the God portrayed in the Bible. Jesus withered the fig tree--a destructive act, surely. It is, as scripture says, a 'strange act' for God to destroy, but scripture makes it clear in multiple places that he does just that.  The Revelation 19 passage I mentioned earlier is just one, but a very pointed, example. The mass of verbiage required to deny these examples is an indication of how weak that position is.

Because of the many examples of God commanding or approving of violence--see Samuel's dispatch of Agag, for example--the God never kills argument requires multiple different explanations (or did he merely "hide his face" when Samuel hacked Agag to death? And why didn't Samuel get the memo?). This violates Occam's Razor, and renders the position inconsistent and incoherent.

You seem sensitive to any perceives slight, yet quite willing to define another's position falsely in the most pejorative terms. Black-and-white, false dichotomies are not constructive to the discussion, and not expansive to the intellect.

 

We haven't even touched on the subject of God's commands to do violent acts. But with your snotty attitude why should I talk to you about it?

[Kevin Straub]

23 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

lol, here we go with the religious rough talk. My my. Please stop making such excuses to avoid answering the questions you knew you would get before you started posting here. Trying to play a victim in these discussions may seem to you a good way to avoid giving us a straight answer. for things you know your posts have put in a false light. If you would settle down and just give us the answers, whether or not you think we "deserve" them, none of this would be happening. Do you want us to just shut up and not ask questions? Just let you do all the talking?

I would rather you tell me how it is that we read active wrath in the instance that lacks the narrative defining causation or the phrases that indicate hiding of face, Divine Recession. Where does the Bible say to do this? Don't give me any more instances of Bible language. I've seen those. Otherwise, as I said, I will talk to nice people. Not you.

[Gail]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green and Kevin S have been commenting on hermeneutics.  As part of that discussion, Green said:

I will suggest that there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of hermeneutics.  At the least it seems to me that in this discussion, that word has not been used with its basic meaning.  Fundamentally hermeneutics means the theory and methods that one uses in seeking to understand the Bible.  NOTE:  I am talking about its application to the Bible.

Once one understands the fundamental meaning, it must be said that in the quote above, Green has stated his hermeneutic.  That is clearly expressed by his statement that he approaches the Bible looking for a "plain saith the LORD."  Yes, Green could expand on that if he chose.  Regardless he has done what he says God does not require.

I will suggest that God does require a valid hermeneutic, whatever that may be, in order to understand the Bible.

NOTE:  In the history of the term, hermeneutics and exegesis were once used interchangeably.

In understand what Kevin is meaning here. In my case I have learned some about the difference between some Hebrew or Aramaic words and the Greek words they were translated into. A good question would be, at what point does a "plain saith the Lord" as translated in the KJV or modern translations become moot?

But now I am wondering if we need to study EGW hermeneutically as well? She is short enough distance between her and us that we should be able to understand her words plainly. The excerpts that have been posted above seem in plain enough language. Did she actually mean something other than what she said in clear language?

Does the fire that comes down from God out of heaven actually come down from God out of heaven? It just seems weird that Satan would be the one to destroy himself and all sinners and cleanse the earth with fire. Again, we are crediting him with the eradication of evil and delivering God's people.

[Gail, in your post above it appears that you are saying that Green said (posted) what I actually wrote and posted.  I think that you copied from a post   made by Kevin S, who made that error.  If you would correct it, people would not be confused.  Thanks--Gregory Matthews.]

[there buster]

Quote

1 hour ago, Kevin Straub said:

How about I tell you nothing? You can have your fun somewhere else.
What nasty people over here. Now I know why I don't waste my time here.

Quote

We haven't even touched on the subject of God's commands to do violent acts. But with your snotty attitude why should I talk to you about it?

Well, there we have it. Because we dare to ask questions or make counter arguments, everyone else is nasty or snotty.

Whatever else it is, such an approach is not convincing.

[APL]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Once again; no Bible, and twisted spirit of prophecy quote.

Please, tell us more about how justice of God = "calamity?"

Please respect the same guidelines you proffer to us and use only the Bible, and stop twisting small out of context snippets from EGW

Does God's justice equal punishment? retribution?  Is that what Biblical justice?  Isaiah 1:17  learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.  Is justice in this verse seeking to punish, bring retribution?  Deuteronomy 10:18  He ensures that orphans and widows receive justice. He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing. What is justice, God's justice?

 

 

[APL]

1 hour ago, Gail said:

Does the fire that comes down from God out of heaven actually come down from God out of heaven? It just seems weird that Satan would be the one to destroy himself and all sinners and cleanse the earth with fire. Again, we are crediting him with the eradication of evil and delivering God's people.

We read of chains of darkness for the transgressor of God's law. We read of the worm that dieth not, and of the fire that is not quenched. Thus is represented the experience of every one who has permitted himself to be grafted into the stock of Satan, who has cherished sinful attributes. When it is too late, he will see that sin is the transgression of God's law. He will realize that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. This is a fire unquenchable, and by it every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. Satan strives constantly to lead men into sin, and he who is willing to be led, who refuses to forsake his sins, and despises forgiveness and grace, will suffer the result of his course. {ST, April 14, 1898 par. 13}

[Kevin Straub]

4 hours ago, Gail said:

In understand what Kevin is meaning here. In my case I have learned some about the difference between some Hebrew or Aramaic words and the Greek words they were translated into. A good question would be, at what point does a "plain saith the Lord" as translated in the KJV or modern translations become moot?

But now I am wondering if we need to study EGW hermeneutically as well? She is short enough distance between her and us that we should be able to understand her words plainly. The excerpts that have been posted above seem in plain enough language. Did she actually mean something other than what she said in clear language?

Does the fire that comes down from God out of heaven actually come down from God out of heaven? It just seems weird that Satan would be the one to destroy himself and all sinners and cleanse the earth with fire. Again, we are crediting him with the eradication of evil and delivering God's people.

[Gail, in your post above it appears that you are saying that Green said (posted) what I actually wrote and posted.  I think that you copied from a post   made by Kevin S, who made that error.  If you would correct it, people would not be confused.  Thanks--Gregory Matthews.]

Fire from God out of heaven is not fire from God out of heaven the way you are reading it. There are different fires from God out of heaven so have to look at context every time to see what kind it is.

Here is one. Please explain to me why I can't read it as you are suggesting:

Job 1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. 
 

[Kevin Straub]

3 hours ago, APL said:

Does God's justice equal punishment? retribution?  Is that what Biblical justice?  Isaiah 1:17  learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.  Is justice in this verse seeking to punish, bring retribution?  Deuteronomy 10:18  He ensures that orphans and widows receive justice. He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing. What is justice, God's justice?

 

 

What are the principles behind Divine punishment?

[Kevin Straub]

3 hours ago, APL said:

We read of chains of darkness for the transgressor of God's law. We read of the worm that dieth not, and of the fire that is not quenched. Thus IS REPRESENTED the experience of every one who has permitted himself to be grafted into the stock of Satan, who has cherished sinful attributes. When it is too late, HE WILL SEE that sin is the transgression of God's law. HE WILL REALIZE that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. THIS is a fire unquenchable, and BY IT every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. Satan strives constantly to lead men into sin, and he who is willing to be led, who refuses to forsake his sins, and despises forgiveness and grace, will suffer the result of his course. {ST, April 14, 1898 par. 13}

Yes! I love this quote. It tells us what the unquenchable fire is! Thank-you.
Here is another:

Against every evildoer God's law utters condemnation. He may disregard that voice, he may seek to drown its warning, but in vain. It follows him. It makes itself heard. It destroys his peace. If unheeded, it pursues him to the grave. It bears witness against him at the judgment. A quenchless fire, it consumes at last soul and body  (Ed 144.5).

 

[Green Cochoa]

22 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

Here is one. Please explain to me why I can't read it as you are suggesting:

Job 1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. 

That's easy for an English teacher.  The Bible writer is here simply quoting reported speech.  He is not making any statement about its validity, simply reporting what was said.  Few would mistake the servant of Job for an inspired prophet whose word was of God.  Because the Bible quotes people, even when they lie, does not make every one of those quotes true statements of fact.  Consider, for example, where Ahab accuses Elijah of being a troubler of Israel (see 1 Kings 18:17).  Because the Bible quotes Ahab accusing Elijah thus, does it make it so?  Was Elijah really a troublemaker?  Of course not.  Nor does the Bible teach that he was.  Consider also where Aaron proclaimed that the Golden Calf was the god that had brought the people out of Egypt (see Exodus 32).  Aaron was the High Priest--should his word be credible?  Does his statement become a fact because the Bible, and even God Himself, quotes it?

Furthermore, I do not accept that Gail was suggesting what you allege.  Twisting what people say will not help you gain influence over them.  It does help clarify which side you are on.  I would urge you to examine your own heart.

 

[Kevin Straub]

2 Sam. 22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 

Rev. 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 
 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 
 

Isa. 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 
 66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 
 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. 

Jer.17:27 But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched. 

 Isa. 47:14 Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: [there shall] not [be] a coal to warm at, [nor] fire to sit before it. 

Ps.  89:46 How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire? 

Lam. 1:12 [Is it] nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted [me] in the day of his fierce anger. 
 1:13 From above hath he sent fire into my bones, and it prevaileth against them: he hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back: he hath made me desolate [and] faint all the day. 

Rev.  11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 

Eze. 20:45 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 
 20:46 Son of man, set thy face toward the south, and drop [thy word] toward the south, and prophesy against the forest of the south field; 
 20:47 And say to the forest of the south, Hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein. 
 20:48 And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched. 
 20:49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables? 

Deut. 32:18 Of the Rock [that] begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 
 32:19 And when the LORD saw [it], he abhorred [them], because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. 
 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith. 
 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. 
 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. 
 32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. 
 32:24 [They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. 
 

[Kevin Straub]

6 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

That's easy for an English teacher.  The Bible writer is here simply quoting reported speech.  He is not making any statement about its validity, simply reporting what was said.  Few would mistake the servant of Job for an inspired prophet whose word was of God.  Because the Bible quotes people, even when they lie, does not make every one of those quotes true statements of fact.  Consider, for example, where Ahab accuses Elijah of being a troubler of Israel (see 1 Kings 18:17).  Because the Bible quotes Ahab accusing Elijah thus, does it make it so?  Was Elijah really a troublemaker?  Of course not.  Nor does the Bible teach that he was.  Consider also where Aaron proclaimed that the Golden Calf was the god that had brought the people out of Egypt (see Exodus 32).  Aaron was the High Priest--should his word be credible?  Does his statement become a fact because the Bible, and even God Himself, quotes it?

Furthermore, I do not accept that Gail was suggesting what you allege.  Twisting what people say will not help you gain influence over them.  It does help clarify which side you are on.  I would urge you to examine your own heart.

 

This servant was simply using the manner of speaking. It wasn't a lie, it was just what they called the lightning or whatever it was that destroyed them.

BTW, I am a trained English teacher. Taught in classroom several years, then private tutoring, then government. Graduated 2nd in my class. Got 100% on many of my papers, actually.

[Gail]

6 hours ago, Gail said:

 

[Gail, in your post above it appears that you are saying that Green said (posted) what I actually wrote and posted.  I think that you copied from a post   made by Kevin S, who made that error.  If you would correct it, people would not be confused.  Thanks--Gregory Matthews.]

No... I simply quoted your post, not copied.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

57 minutes ago, Gail said:

No... I simply quoted your post, not copied.

true, except that when we quote someone's post, any quote that was within that post does not appear.  So when you posted a quote from Gregory, it looked like this:

Quote

Green and Kevin S have been commenting on hermeneutics.  As part of that discussion, Green said: [underlining added]

I will suggest that there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of hermeneutics.  At the least it seems to me that in this discussion, that word has not been used with its basic meaning.  Fundamentally hermeneutics means the theory and methods that one uses in seeking to understand the Bible.  NOTE:  I am talking about its application to the Bible.....

 

The actual quote should have been this:

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Well; the word "suggest" has not been used in this post "with it's basic meaning." lol There has been no "misunderstanding." Everyone here in this topic knows very well what they are saying and why. As long as different agendas are combatting one another, there will never be a "hermeneutic."

you totally missed the point of my post... it had nothing to do with the discussion, other than to show what caused the quoting problem to which Gregory was referring.

 

[Gail]

11 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

true, except that when we quote someone's post, any quote that was within that post does not appear.  So when you posted a quote from Gregory, it looked like this:

 

The actual quote should have been this:

Yes, I see, the post within a post should have been within its own box. For the record, my comment was directed at no one in particular