Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 212
  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    me again Rick...I realized too...that when I answered within the quote of your post, it left out part of your question. (I still don't know how to take separate quotes...and it's easier to do it this way...but obviously it causes more problems than it's worth)

    I wrote: The character and purposes of God were always meant to be seen through His Creation(His Word made FLESH)...It was when we traded the Truth of God for a Lie and began "adding" to it, with our carnal minds, that the whole downward spiral mentioned at the beginning of Roman's , began.

    Learning of God....or learning of our "Father/Bridegroom" was NEVER meant to be learned "precept on precept".We were meant to KNOW Him (consummate with Him(CONSUME HIM)..spirit and matter , heaven and earth, northern house with southern house If you look at Isaiah 28...the written word..or the LETTER of the word...was given as a CURSE.

    You asked: What verse are you talking about?



    [/I]

    Now..not sure what your question is here...If it is about the written Logos or the "letter" of the Logos given as a curse, I gave two witnesses to this in the whole chapter of Isaiah 28, and the 1st chapter of Romans.

    If it is the consummation of the "northern house" and "southern house"...that has to be studied through typology, and can't be answered quickly. It begins with the whole theme of division, beginning in Genesis chapter one...and moves from there. "North" in scripture, is a type of Heaven..."south", the earth. It of course moves into the division of everything ...male/female ...spirit/soul...divine/carnal...it is literally everywhere from beginning to end, in scripture.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathryn
    If you want to discuss these things in a serious and scholarly manner...you need to really consider whether or not to stay in discussion with those of us who can explain their understanding in the biblical method of determining truth. And not only do this, but demonstrate that it is not of private interpretation...and as easily demonstated as a mathematical formula, and with equal credibility. It's not fair to our scholarship in the subject to repeatedly state your opinion without an equal dedication to it, on your part; it makes for a very one-sided and after awhile, extremely tedious discussion. In fact it isn't even a conversation.


    I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are the one being unfair. The case I presented with my opening post has in no-way been challenged or invalidated. I quoted verse after verse from Scripture with my commentaries on them that still remain intact and have interacted with people who have responded to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathryn
    I'm not just giving evidence from scripture, I'm showing how Creation itself backs it up. I'm not a scientist or mathematician...but I can demonstrate everything I do know about creation , in typology and how the two confirm, compliment and enlarge each other.
    That is one of the big problems I see…creation does not back up Scripture! In fact the more science discovers the farther away from Scripture it goes. No matter how many typological confirmations you have that compliment each other it still does not invalidate scientific evidence. That is why so many scientists don’t believe in the Bible; the more they learn the more they see that many things the Bible says are flat out wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathryn
    So...personally...I think your pursuit of Truth is not as avid as you think it is and you've simply decided to look somewhere else. And...that's cool too....but if you and Richard both feel the same way about this...my personal feeling is that if you if continue to enter discussions about the written Logos, you need to be able to back up your assumptions and feelings, with an equal degree of scholarship. .

    However, you haven't added anything past the point dis-assembly of the written Logos and you seem to have no interest in the possibility that there could be things you have misinterpreted or missed . This is not the mind of a true seeker as yet. If this were the case, we would never have entered the realm of Quantum Physics..or any realm for that matter, but what we understand at one moment in time. I have no doubt, because Christ IS in and through all things, that you will find the Truth, regardless of whether you discard the written Logos.
    Again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are wrong. You have no grounds to say my pursuit of the Truth is not avid and that I’ve decided to look elsewhere. It is a faulty conclusion that you have jumped to because I have not responded to your posts in the manner you think I should. It is the written logos I have been discussing, that is how I came to the conclusion that the Bible is biased toward the male, not by my assumptions or feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathryn
    All I'm saying is: I think you need to stop asking all the questions about it unless you're really open and interested to keep examining it. Both Deb and I have provided you with solid scriptural evidence that it isn't all the way you've been describing it, but your response is always the same....opinions, feelings and assumptions based on them. You began with scripture, pointing out the inconsistency...and there you've remained. As a scientist or mathematician...you wouldn't have gone far with this attitude or level of passion for Truth.
    I have not seen any solid evidence from either you or Deb that has invalidated my claim that the Bible is written from a male perspective and is biased toward the male. Even Richard with his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek confirms all the points I have made regarding my interpretation of various Scriptural passages, so my claims are not based on my personal opinions or feelings. It is my passion for truth that has gotten me to the place where I am now and you have no bases for saying anything different.


    All the best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    Rick...(me yet again)....It isn't complicated though and doesn't take that long...so if that's what you were asking (about the division) ...I'm ready and willing to start. I assumed you'd been following along..but this discussion has been primarily on the Matt. 17:27 (coin in the fishes mouth) thread, where most of the foundation was laid.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post

    I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are the one being unfair. The case I presented with my opening post has in no-way been challenged or invalidated. I quoted verse after verse from Scripture with my commentaries on them that still remain intact and have interacted with people who have responded to them.Rose..I'm sorry but I don't know how to break up the quotes...so I have to respond this way until I do I have challenged or rather offered an answer to your first post....months ago, when you first asked it...but you didn't respond at all. You ignored it completely and continued speaking with the others on the thread.



    That is one of the big problems I see…creation does not back up Scripture! In fact the more science discovers the farther away from Scripture it goes.actually, it's quite the opposite. The discoveries they are making in Quantum physics are resembling the Spiritual Laws more and more clearly as they are learning more. The possible holographic nature of the universe, as one example. No matter how many typological confirmations you have that compliment each other it still does not invalidate scientific evidence. That is why so many scientists don’t believe in the Bible; the more they learn the more they see that many things the Bible says are flat out wrong. no...it doesn't invalidate scientific evidence...and you haven't , not once, given me an opportunity to demonstrate this...or that typology is not of private interpretation. I realize you see that creation does not back up scripture...but I have started with the simple examples scripture has given...such as "the mystery of Christ explained by the PHYSICAL relationship between and man and woman...intercourse. This is directly related to the type of the Temple/tabernacle and goes into much depth on HOW physical intercourse is a type of the consummation of not just the Bride...but Creation itself. It also describes how the birth of the New man (in the flesh..or matter) takes place as well as the elimination of the condition of iniquity...in the type of the "furniture" or elements withing the Temple/Tabernacle.

    I've also taken the example in Corinthians, as the church being one Body, given the example of creation..matter..the physical body...with the different parts, both comely and UNcomely, and shown how the laver/molten sea...is both the cervix and anus of the body. Richard has referred the Temple/Tabernacle as the obvious and primary type of the Heavenly pattern on earth .

    So...we have to begin somewhere in this...but you haven't responded to any of it, with or without scripture.




    Again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are wrong. You have no grounds to say my pursuit of the Truth is not avid and that I’ve decided to look elsewhere. It is a faulty conclusion that you have jumped to because I have not responded to your posts in the manner you think I should.Rose..you haven't responded to anything I've written on typology. It is the written logos I have been discussing, that is how I came to the conclusion that the Bible is biased toward the male, not by my assumptions or feelings.yes...I know that, and as I said, this has been a wonderful "buffet" to my carnal mindsets that needed to come down! I fully realize that it wasn't based on assumption or feelings! If it was, it wouldn't have been any sort of challenge for me! My point is...you dis-assembled it all...and then you stopped there.



    I have not seen any solid evidence from either you or Deb that has invalidated my claim that the Bible is written from a male perspective and is biased toward the male.I say this with respect and love Rose...but if you haven't seen it, it certainly isn't because it wasn't given and I might add, according the Biblical method of determining Truth. In fact it has gone far beyond it. I've not only provided the two or three witnesses from the Logos, I've demonstrated them through all 3 phases of redemption...as well as the corresponding witness in creation. Even Richard with his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek confirms all the points I have made regarding my interpretation of various Scriptural passages,well...he has yet to confirm them using this criteria, with what I have presented. so my claims are not based on my personal opinions or feelings. It is my passion for truth that has gotten me to the place where I am nowAgain Rose...I wasn't speaking of your passion up to this point in time. In fact, way back several months ago, when you were being abused verbally for your studies and conclusions...I remarked on the forum on your bravery.

    (I was also sent some very vicious emails saying I had a" serpent tongue" for defending you..and just wanting to "suck up to Richard and Rose"...which was far from the truth. It was an honest, heartfelt observation.

    It was evident to me, that after being given the revelation of the Bible Wheel, both you and Richard had absolutely nothing to gain by going public with the conclusions you had come to. (and..the foundation of which I heartily agreed with, if you recall AND in great excitement, posted how I had found 3 biblical witnesses in the Word...of the the formation of the Bible wheel itself...also through all 3 phases in example. I realize that you probably didnt understand what I was saying...but a simple response of:..."that's interesting!" Or WHY or HOW did you come to that conclusion?"would have indicated some interest or mild curiosity)

    It was evident to me...and I'm sure many others, the courage it took to go public with this...and that kind of courage TAKES a passion that is willing to give up ALL, for the pursuit of Truth.

    And, unlike most, you had the seeming contradiction of the Bible wheel staring you in the face...which you had thrown your life's blood into for years, and STILL refused to stop your pursuit of Truth.

    What I am saying tonight, is that judging by your lack of response and the way in which you have responded when you have, you've lost your passion and curiosity...and that it seems to be time to either just drop the written Logos in discussion, or explore it scripture with scripture, interpretation with interpretation , using the criteria given to determine truth.

    Both you and Richard have held us all to a high standard on this forum. That's what attracted me to it, and what has kept me here. Each of us has been given a unique gifting in the pursuit of truth, and we need one another to grow in our understanding. We can only do that, if we're willing to really open up to each other, and try to make an attempt at understanding what we are each seeing. You've made no attempt to understand mine...never asked a question such as "where do you see that in the word?" Or..."I see it this way because this and this scripture says otherwise". I've even given a dream in which I was given a mathematical formula (PI) describing a concept in scripture...a very detailed one...that took it out of the realm of typology completely...and no response.

    Aren't you a least a little curious as to how I can make such bold claims about typology...? Or are have you remained silent, simply because you haven't heard it put this way before...and you only answer posts that aren't challenging your understanding? What other conclusion could I come to? Please explain..because I don't want to misjudge ANYONE...let alone you! The whole thing has baffled me!
    and you have no bases for saying anything different.


    All the best,
    Rose
    Last edited by kathryn; 12-11-2011 at 02:00 AM.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    I just checked back and I actually responded twice. Both posts were ignored.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hi Debz,

    I finally found a few minutes to jump in All my free time today has been spent so far on the Morality Thread.

    I don’t want to discourage your efforts by any means, because I think you have made many valid points, and I applaud you for your diligence.
    Really? This is your response?? "Many valid points" -- ?? In Post #73 you wrote: 'I really don't think you can lump all the male-bias of Scripture under the heading of "miss translation". I am not saying that scribes miss-translated Scripture...what I am saying is that the plain reading of the text shows that the men who wrote the Bible were clearly writing from their own male bias. That is why I have continued to say the Bible could not have been inspired by "God", but rather was penned from how the male minded imagined God to be.' AND, you continued: 'I agree Jesus was the most liberating character in the Bible for women, but then Paul comes along a undoes much of what Jesus accomplished, so now the words of Paul trump those of Jesus.' And I just spent quite a bit of time refuting that and showing that Paul wasn't really saying what traditionalists have been teaching, that his words ARE in agreement with Jesus. And all you have to say is "many valid points."

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    It is a shame that women have to dig so deep to find a few morsels of equality sprinkled throughout its pages.
    It is a shame that it has been presented and taught in ways that obscure the true meaning of what was originally stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    It was in my digging that I woke up to the fact that the Bible is completely a male book, there isn't one sentence in the whole Bible that was written by a woman!
    Actually, there are a growing number of scholars who think the book of Hebrews was actually written by a woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    If the Bible were truly inspired by 'God' why did he make it so easy for men to dominate women with it, and so hard for women to find equality in it? How many men do you think would go to the effort that you have done to try and show the un-biased nature of the Bible towards women? I think the answer is probably pretty close to none.
    Actually, quite a few. I learned most of this from male scholars who did the research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    You have poured your heart out to try and salvage women from the garbage dump where biblical writers have placed them (with God's approval). Men wrote the Bible, men translated the Bible, and men have re-translated the Bible, and may I ask...where is the woman in all of this?
    Not with God's approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    I think God should know that women make up half of the human race, and they have a feminine perspective that men don't have, so why have we been instructed how to live through the male-perspective of the Bible? Yahweh is presented in an entirely masculine way...father, warrior, husband, and I thought God was supposed to be gender neutral, after all he is a divine being, not a male or female.
    Of course He knows...I explained all that in Post #31, if you really paid attention to what I was writing, you may have understood. "adam" (MANKIND) was created in HIS IMAGE (ELohim - a plural image) ... when male/female was separated, HIS IMAGE wasn't subtracted from, it was just split into the masculine and feminine, which were BOTH from the IMAGE OF GOD. It is why the next verse immediately says, "FOR THIS REASON (because they were ONE, now they are split...), the man must leave and be joined and become ONE again..." God sees them as ONE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    These are things that most women don't think about, but where is the divine being that we can connect our feminine identity too? Men have Yahweh, a great masculine warrior, father, and husband, Christian women only have the masculine side which leaves things pretty imbalanced.
    "El Shaddai" -- The MANY BREASTED ONE....

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    All the best to you, and thank you for taking the time to share your work.

    Rose
    Again, Really???? A pat on the back for my "efforts" -- I gave solid answers to your claims, of which you have no response. I guess if you don't "want" to see, there's really nothing we can say that will change that.

    All the best to you, too.

    Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163

    from your response to Kathryn....

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are the one being unfair. The case I presented with my opening post has in no-way been challenged or invalidated. I quoted verse after verse from Scripture with my commentaries on them that still remain intact and have interacted with people who have responded to them.
    Really?? It has in "no way been challenged or invalidated? Really? Did you actually read my posts?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    I have not seen any solid evidence from either you or Deb that has invalidated my claim that the Bible is written from a male perspective and is biased toward the male. Even Richard with his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek confirms all the points I have made regarding my interpretation of various Scriptural passages, so my claims are not based on my personal opinions or feelings.
    Once again, really? Richard has not provided confirmation, IMO. He addressed my comments on "oikodespotes," but not satisfactorily--he said it was in the context of "keeping house," which absolutely was what women predominantly did at that time--they had no other options--but that does not negate the fact that the word chosen by Paul, over others more appropriate for that "function" -- showed more power given to the wife than most have understood. It supports mutual submission more than husband "ruling" wife. He also said, in another post somewhere, that he realizes there are many scholars who believe the 1 Cor passages (that I addressed here) actually WAS Paul's response to a letter they had written him.

    Again, as Kathryn has also recognized, this really isn't a scholarly debate.

    All the best,

    Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163

    the Earthquake Rose

    Good morning Rose....I had a continual prodding to send this this morning. I'm sure you've seen it before. It was the picture formed in the sand, by the seismic vibrations from the earthquake on 2/28, 2001. ..in your state of WASHington. (remember the twinned teeth of the Beloved in the S.O.S, are described as coming UP from the WASHing)

    Not long after I joined the forum, I had a strong sense in my spirit, that both you and Richard were going to play a very important role in the bringing down of carnal mindsets in the Body of Christ. I just didn't realize "how". Richard, I believe I was shown...was symbolic of the "Richard the Lion Hearted"...and you were the "Earthquake Rose".

    If you look at the picture in the sand...not only is it the "Rose of Sharon" blooming in the desert (sands of Abraham)...it is also the "head" of the "man-child"...crowning through the birth canal.

    http://www.earthquakerose.com/

    We're ALL in this process of transition Rose...and it's painful for both the mother and the "child"...The transition stage is that time when the woman tends to vomit on her husband's feet....and might bite him a time or too(as I did..har!) if he tries to "help". Just wanted to know that we love and respect you both and honor you. We couldn't have come to this stage without you....and it's ALL GOOD!

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    How to do Quote Tags [quote]...[/quote]

    Hi Kathyrn,

    This post is in response to your question of how to do quotes. There are two ways that I do them. The first way is to click on the "reply to quote" button found in the lower right-hand side of the post. Then when the post comes up in the message box I copy and paste the beginning and end "quote tags" around the specific section I want to quote like this...

    [quot=Rose]... blah blah blah... [/quot]... then I write whatever I want to say and quote the next section... [quot=Rose]... blah blah blah... [/quot] note: I purposely left the "e" off of quote so it wouldn't quote itself in my example.

    The second way is to quote the whole post highlighting the parts you wish to respond to, and then type your response after the end "quote tag" which looks like this [/quote]. Then your answer will show up below the quoted post instead of inside the quoted post.

    Hope that helps,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by kathryn View Post
    Good morning Rose....I had a continual prodding to send this this morning. I'm sure you've seen it before. It was the picture formed in the sand, by the seismic vibrations from the earthquake on 2/28, 2001. ..in your state of WASHington. (remember the twinned teeth of the Beloved in the S.O.S, are described as coming UP from the WASHing)

    Not long after I joined the forum, I had a strong sense in my spirit, that both you and Richard were going to play a very important role in the bringing down of carnal mindsets in the Body of Christ. I just didn't realize "how". Richard, I believe I was shown...was symbolic of the "Richard the Lion Hearted"...and you were the "Earthquake Rose".

    If you look at the picture in the sand...not only is it the "Rose of Sharon" blooming in the desert (sands of Abraham)...it is also the "head" of the "man-child"...crowning through the birth canal.

    http://www.earthquakerose.com/

    We're ALL in this process of transition Rose...and it's painful for both the mother and the "child"...The transition stage is that time when the woman tends to vomit on her husband's feet....and might bite him a time or too(as I did..har!) if he tries to "help". Just wanted to know that we love and respect you both and honor you. We couldn't have come to this stage without you....and it's ALL GOOD!
    I wholeheartedly agree with what Kathryn wrote here. Yes, even the part about honoring you, even though we are still "debating"

    I, too, believe the Bible Wheel, and both of you, are KEY to revealing a whole lot about what we are transitioning into.

    What hit me about this picture, in addition to the Rose, is how many see it as an "eye" -- it is the "singular eye" we've also been discussing on some other posts (Bob May, etc.).

    Love,
    Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •