Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Finis Dake on Interpreting the Bible

[Fit4theKingdom]

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

And this is my whole point of contention with Fit. He keeps arguing and straining against the evidence presented to him without presenting any real Scriptural rebuttal. However, he did try to state that Og having a large bed did not make him a giant and stuff like that so this may be the "evidence" that he is claiming. However, while accusing others of only giving an opinion, he keeps giving opinion.

Makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time in some of these debates.

Victory -- your frustration is that you have missed the point of the debate in effort to be correct about the example. The discussion is about OPINION SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE and that there can be differing opinions where both use scripture to support the opinion. Just because one uses scripture to state "this is why I believe (x)......." does not mean that believe is a fact!

If you want scripture to support that men are also called "sons of God" -- I will provide them, sorry I made the assumption you were aware that you (assuming you are saved) are called a "son of God" Do I need to provide them for you? If so I will.

The point about Og and the large bed was simply to show that a large bed does not prove anything more than the bed, not the man who owns the bed, was large.

BTW -- you think you are wasting your time because I don't accept your OPINION as FACT. (It may be a factually based opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless.)

[bibleman]

the only thing clear here, is that some don't understand the difference between OPINIONS and FACT. Opinions can be factual. And it is a fact that people have opinions, but neither of those make OPINIONS = FACTS. Anytime you, me, Dake or anyone cross references scripture to connect the two OPINION is being used. As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view.

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

I did not, but apparently I made a fatal assumption in believing that your admission that "sons of God" is used in scripture to identify godly men was enough not to. And I used a reference by Dake to show that the word for giant could be tyrant - although Dake denies that is a possibility. (As a side question - please explain why, when the reference to giants is never good, that Dake says the reference is only to size.)

Again, this is not a discussion about Angel's or Giants, but about how simply stating that you let the Bible speak for itself instead of forming an opinion is an untruth. You are of the opinion that Gen 6 "sons of God" is referencing angels and you cite several OT examples where it only refers to angels. I can show biblical examples where "sons of God" is in reference to godly men and therefor understand why people have the opinion that these were unions of "unequally yoked" couples. And I (as I believe you could as well) can supply scriptures where God says don't be unequally yoked, don't marry unbelievers. And would then point to this passage as one of the reasons God forbids it.

Therefor conflicting views, each "letting the Bible speak for itself" are held on the same passage. Each using scripture to support, each saying the "other side" is using scripture improperly, each holding fast to their OPINION and claim their opinion as FACT. Each is wrong - it is not fact even though each has used "facts" in an attempt to prove their point.

You see, the Bible is not clear here. Scripture tells us everything we need to know, but does not tell us everything there is to know. In this case people are trying to fill in the gaps between what was told and what did occur. Each side has gathered "facts" to support their conclusion, their opinion. You have used scripture to support your position/opinion. Others holding a contrary view have used scripture to hold that. Both are OPINIONS and when everything is revealed, one sides OPINION may be proven to be true, or maybe both sides are partially true, or neither side has any truth. But until then, they are OPINIONS SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE -- NOT FACTS.

OK since you admitted you gave no Scripture... then how about giving it!

[bibleman]

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

And this is my whole point of contention with Fit. He keeps arguing and straining against the evidence presented to him without presenting any real Scriptural rebuttal. However, he did try to state that Og having a large bed did not make him a giant and stuff like that so this may be the "evidence" that he is claiming. However, while accusing others of only giving an opinion, he keeps giving opinion.

Makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time in some of these debates.

That is the common theme of those who are against the literal understanding of the Bible.

He and Ed will rail against whatever it is that is taught in the Bible (word for word), but then offer NO Scripture to support their views other than Scriptures that do NOT say what they would like for them to say.

I have never understood why people do not want to believe the Bible just as it is.

[Justaned]

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

And this is my whole point of contention with Fit. He keeps arguing and straining against the evidence presented to him without presenting any real Scriptural rebuttal. However, he did try to state that Og having a large bed did not make him a giant and stuff like that so this may be the "evidence" that he is claiming. However, while accusing others of only giving an opinion, he keeps giving opinion.

Makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time in some of these debates.

That is the common theme of those who are against the literal understanding of the Bible.

He and Ed will rail against whatever it is that is taught in the Bible (word for word), but then offer NO Scripture to support their views other than Scriptures that do NOT say what they would like for them to say.

I have never understood why people do not want to believe the Bible just as it is.

Last week I was getting chastised because I took something literally and was told by the wolf in sheep's clothing that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Now you saying I don't take scripture literally. Which is it? Do you even know of do you simply run your mouth to get reactions?

You all know what Fit said was fully supported by scripture and to bait him on you pretend to be unaware of it.

[bibleman]

Hi Fit,

Above you said: "As I've shown with the giants of Gen 6 - scripture can be used by differing points of view. You have not given me FACTS why the ones I used are incorrect, but you have supported your opinion with scripture, just as I supplied supporting scripture to a contrary view."

I must have missed that... What Scriptures have you given so support your contrary view?

And this is my whole point of contention with Fit. He keeps arguing and straining against the evidence presented to him without presenting any real Scriptural rebuttal. However, he did try to state that Og having a large bed did not make him a giant and stuff like that so this may be the "evidence" that he is claiming. However, while accusing others of only giving an opinion, he keeps giving opinion.

Makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time in some of these debates.

That is the common theme of those who are against the literal understanding of the Bible.

He and Ed will rail against whatever it is that is taught in the Bible (word for word), but then offer NO Scripture to support their views other than Scriptures that do NOT say what they would like for them to say.

I have never understood why people do not want to believe the Bible just as it is.

Last week I was getting chastised because I took something literally and was told by the wolf in sheep's clothing that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Now you saying I don't take scripture literally. Which is it? Do you even know of do you simply run your mouth to get reactions?

You all know what Fit said was fully supported by scripture and to bait him on you pretend to be unaware of it.

Hi Ed,

Well I have been known to run my mouth on occasion, but...

DUH! ...Fit NEVER gave any Scripture to support his opinion, he stated that he did not!

[victoryword]

BTW -- you think you are wasting your time because I don't accept your OPINION as FACT. (It may be a factually based opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless.)

"factually based opinion"? Oh Fit, what am I to do with you?

It's been an interesting discussion, but me thiks that we are at an impasse on this particular subject about the"sons of God". Do you have another example you want to discuss?

[bibleman]

BTW -- you think you are wasting your time because I don't accept your OPINION as FACT. (It may be a factually based opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless.)

"factually based opinion"? Oh Fit, what am I to do with you?

It's been an interesting discussion, but me thiks that we are at an impasse on this particular subject about the"sons of God". Do you have another example you want to discuss?

I have an idea... Why don't we go back to helping Ed find Scripture to prove Jesus was born with a "sin nature." Yak, Yak, Yak!

[macca]

He missed nothing, Rocky.
Its just that he blows holes in all self important theologians hand me downs that they are consumed by envy and hatred.

macca

[Rocky]

Rocky
You need a course in reading. I never said Dake taught heresy. I said he missed it on some things. You wanted to know what they were so I said go do a search on Dake heresies you will find a list you can discuss if that is what you want to do. I didn't say they were my list of objections I just said if you wanted some to discuss there were lists. Am I afraid Dake will own me? No not hardly since he is dead and can't speak for himself. However I do believe that no matter what I did say you and others would twist it and try to "own me" since that appears to be your objective.

I think you made a Freudian slip there saying what you did. It is apparent from your response you have no care for discussion of God's word you only objective is to "own" people. Can I caution without stirring your wrath? I think you need to rethink your attitude I never saw a place where it was Jesus goal to own people. Just the opposite Jesus seemed to want to help, teach, encourage, edify and exhort people.

The own thing was a joke Ed. sheesh touchy touchy lol. I am sorry I was joking. But however, yes Dake could still own you because we have his writings. And yes Jesus owned, Look at the exchange between him and the Pharisees. He called them Vipers and refuted them at every turn, Jesus was very good at owning the religious crowd. A Freudian slip lol, its called a joke. Why are you avoiding examples were Dake is wrong or off? I know, you will get

[Justaned]

Rocky
You need a course in reading. I never said Dake taught heresy. I said he missed it on some things. You wanted to know what they were so I said go do a search on Dake heresies you will find a list you can discuss if that is what you want to do. I didn't say they were my list of objections I just said if you wanted some to discuss there were lists. Am I afraid Dake will own me? No not hardly since he is dead and can't speak for himself. However I do believe that no matter what I did say you and others would twist it and try to "own me" since that appears to be your objective.

I think you made a Freudian slip there saying what you did. It is apparent from your response you have no care for discussion of God's word you only objective is to "own" people. Can I caution without stirring your wrath? I think you need to rethink your attitude I never saw a place where it was Jesus goal to own people. Just the opposite Jesus seemed to want to help, teach, encourage, edify and exhort people.

The own thing was a joke Ed. sheesh touchy touchy lol. I am sorry I was joking. But however, yes Dake could still own you because we have his writings. And yes Jesus owned, Look at the exchange between him and the Pharisees. He called them Vipers and refuted them at every turn, Jesus was very good at owning the religious crowd. A Freudian slip lol, its called a joke. Why are you avoiding examples were Dake is wrong or off? I know, you will get

You say joke I say what is in the heart comes out the mouth. If you think Jesus owned the pharisees then I think you missed His purpose. Scripture clearly says Jesus did not come into this world to condemn this world but to lead this world to salvation. Hard to do that when you are "OWNING" people wouldn't you say. Oh yes some of those "owned" Pharisees did come to Jesus as we see scripture.
Sense of humor? Yeah I have sense of humor when dealing with things less serious than the eternal destination of man and the perversion of the Word of God.