The Bible--Let It Speak
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
Are you using the original Scofield Bible. Notes on Matthew 4:17? Mine says Note 3: ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be ‘at hand’ will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11, 17; Ephesians 3:3-10)."
This has several serious errors. First, Scofield doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the Kingdom "presently unfolding" in Jesus' day and today. Also had the Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, he would not have gone to the cross. This is no doubt why Jesus hid himself from those who would try to make him king.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
Are you using the original Scofield Bible. Notes on Matthew 4:17? Mine says Note 3: ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be ‘at hand’ will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11, 17; Ephesians 3:3-10)."
Ok you had said Matthew 5 in a previous post.
This has several serious errors. First, Scofield doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the Kingdom "presently unfolding" in Jesus' day and today. Also had the Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, he would not have gone to the cross. This is no doubt why Jesus hid himself from those who would try to make him king.
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
Are you using the original Scofield Bible. Notes on Matthew 4:17? Mine says Note 3: ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be ‘at hand’ will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11, 17; Ephesians 3:3-10)."
Ok you had said Matthew 5 in a previous post.
This has several serious errors. First, Scofield doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the Kingdom "presently unfolding" in Jesus' day and today. Also had the Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, he would not have gone to the cross. This is no doubt why Jesus hid himself from those who would try to make him king.
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.
I recall pointing out serious errors in the Scofield notes on both Matthew 4:17 and Matthew 5.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
Are you using the original Scofield Bible. Notes on Matthew 4:17? Mine says Note 3: ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be ‘at hand’ will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11, 17; Ephesians 3:3-10)."
Ok you had said Matthew 5 in a previous post.
This has several serious errors. First, Scofield doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the Kingdom "presently unfolding" in Jesus' day and today. Also had the Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, he would not have gone to the cross. This is no doubt why Jesus hid himself from those who would try to make him king.
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.
I recall pointing out serious errors in the Scofield notes on both Matthew 4:17 and Matthew 5.
Even still, I don't see the serious errors you are talking about. Has Christ setup a physical Kingdom yet? No. Is he currently reigning over the nations? No. Is he the spiritual kingdom and king currently? Yes. But the full kingdom has not yet come to earth.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The most obvious is the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Another would be Scofield saying God postponed the Kingdom when Scripture clearly shows it is here. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) etc. etc....How is the unbelieving Jews an example? That has nothing to do with Scripture saying something is fulfilled and the wide belief that it has not been among Christian circles.
As far as Scofield, I asked specifically for a reference over a week ago, the exact verbage because I looked in the chapter you pointed to and there was nothing like you described there. What does it actually say?
Are you using the original Scofield Bible. Notes on Matthew 4:17? Mine says Note 3: ‘At hand’ is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be ‘at hand’ will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11, 17; Ephesians 3:3-10)."
Ok you had said Matthew 5 in a previous post.
This has several serious errors. First, Scofield doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the Kingdom "presently unfolding" in Jesus' day and today. Also had the Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, he would not have gone to the cross. This is no doubt why Jesus hid himself from those who would try to make him king.
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.
I recall pointing out serious errors in the Scofield notes on both Matthew 4:17 and Matthew 5.
Even still, I don't see the serious errors you are talking about. Has Christ setup a physical Kingdom yet? No. Is he currently reigning over the nations? No. Is he the spiritual kingdom and king currently? Yes. But the full kingdom has not yet come to earth.
You are wrong on all counts. The Kingdom arrived when Jesus said it did. Jesus did not fail to establish it as Scofield claims. The Kingdom is spiritual in nature. But only the born again can see it. And Jesus presently rules over the world on David's Throne in heavenly Jerusalem above.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.I would say that there will never be "a physical kingdom" with Jesus as its king ... by which most likely is meant an earthly political kingdom with Jesus as a political leader/king.
I would suggest that a better translation instead of "kingdom" would be "reign" ... as it is not about a kingdom in the earthly sense with a designated area which has a border, etc.
Jesus made several rather plain and clear statements which describe the nature of his reign as well as the time frame when it would become reality ... its nature would be spiritual ("not of this world") and it was imminent even at the time he spoke about it, and as can be seen from later records, Jesus took up his place on the throne after the ascension when he was received up into heaven.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I content the Kingdom is spiritual and physical. We have not yet seen the physical.I would say that there will never be "a physical kingdom" with Jesus as its king ... by which most likely is meant an earthly political kingdom with Jesus as a political leader/king.
I would suggest that a better translation instead of "kingdom" would be "reign" ... as it is not about a kingdom in the earthly sense with a designated area which has a border, etc.
Jesus made several rather plain and clear statements which describe the nature of his reign as well as the time frame when it would become reality ... its nature would be spiritual ("not of this world") and it was imminent even at the time he spoke about it, and as can be seen from later records, Jesus took up his place on the throne after the ascension when he was received up into heaven.
Every knee will bow and there will be a new heaven and new earth, sounds pretty physical to me.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Jesus made several rather plain and clear statements which describe the nature of his reign as well as the time frame when it would become reality ... its nature would be spiritual ("not of this world") and it was imminent even at the time he spoke about it, and as can be seen from later records, Jesus took up his place on the throne after the ascension when he was received up into heaven.Every knee will bow and there will be a new heaven and new earth, sounds pretty physical to me.
for me to show reverence to God and acknowledging Jesus as my lord by bowing my knee (even with my part involving my physical body now) does not make God or Jesus political rulers who are exercising a physical reign, does it?
Also, to what does "new heaven" and "new earth" refer?? especially in light of the truth that God promised already at the time of Noah that He would not again destroy the earth as He had done in judgment in those days by means of the flood ...
Are you aware of the truth regarding the use of figures of speech in the Bible and how context and overall scope concerning a topic or matter determine whether an expression is used literally or as part of a figure of speech?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Jesus made several rather plain and clear statements which describe the nature of his reign as well as the time frame when it would become reality ... its nature would be spiritual ("not of this world") and it was imminent even at the time he spoke about it, and as can be seen from later records, Jesus took up his place on the throne after the ascension when he was received up into heaven.Every knee will bow and there will be a new heaven and new earth, sounds pretty physical to me.
for me to show reverence to God and acknowledging Jesus as my lord by bowing my knee (even with my part involving my physical body now) does not make God or Jesus political rulers who are exercising a physical reign, does it?
Also, to what does "new heaven" and "new earth" refer?? especially in light of the truth that God promised already at the time of Noah that He would not again destroy the earth as He had done in judgment in those days by means of the flood ...
Correct, he is going to destroy it by fire, not flood.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Also, to what does "new heaven" and "new earth" refer?? especially in light of the truth that God promised already at the time of Noah that He would not again destroy the earth as He had done in judgment in those days by means of the flood ...Correct, he is going to destroy it by fire, not flood.
Hmn ...
Psa 78:69
And he built his sanctuary like high [palaces], like the earth which he hath established for ever.
Psa 104:5
[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
Eccl 1:4
[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.So much for the earth being destroyed by fire ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Also, to what does "new heaven" and "new earth" refer?? especially in light of the truth that God promised already at the time of Noah that He would not again destroy the earth as He had done in judgment in those days by means of the flood ...Correct, he is going to destroy it by fire, not flood.
Hmn ...
Psa 78:69
And he built his sanctuary like high [palaces], like the earth which he hath established for ever.
Psa 104:5
[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
Eccl 1:4
[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.So much for the earth being destroyed by fire ...
I refer you to 2 Peter chapter 3. By the way, the flood did not destroy the foundation of the earth, but I think we can agree it destroyed the earth. No contradiction here.
Guess we are back to the earth being destroyed by fire like Scripture says.
-
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I refer you to 2 Peter chapter 3. By the way, the flood did not destroy the foundation of the earth, but I think we can agree it destroyed the earth. No contradiction here.Guess we are back to the earth being destroyed by fire like Scripture says.
Have a careful look at the record in 2Pe 3 ... and it should be obvious whether or not the text is meant literally (as you seem to think) or not ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I refer you to 2 Peter chapter 3. By the way, the flood did not destroy the foundation of the earth, but I think we can agree it destroyed the earth. No contradiction here.Guess we are back to the earth being destroyed by fire like Scripture says.
Have a careful look at the record in 2Pe 3 ... and it should be obvious whether or not the text is meant literally (as you seem to think) or not ...
I don't see any indication that it is not literal, care to enlighten?
-
You need to enlighten us on how you think the heavens will be literally burning with fire and be dissolved thereby and how elements will melt by fervent heat of fire ... cp. 2Pe 3:12. Especially so in light of the fact that the believers should actually be looking forward to that and hasten to that day when such will happen ... if elements and heavens are literally on fire and melting, how could believers or anyone else for that matter be alive in that day?
-
Just recently I heard the notion that "elements will melt by fervent heat of fire" is likely a figure of speech for complete renewal. am very skeptical. Anyone know anything about that? For now, I take it literally and see no reason not to do so.
-
@GaoLu said:
Just recently I heard the notion that "elements will melt by fervent heat of fire" is likely a figure of speech for complete renewal. am very skeptical. Anyone know anything about that? For now, I take it literally and see no reason not to do so.So then why would you be very skeptical regarding it being a figure of speech ? Since you see no reason to understand it literally, perhaps you can then easily tell us what elements and how they melt by fervent heat?
-
I wasn't very clear. I have always taken it literally and see no reason not to do so. I am wanting to understand the notion of the clause as a figure of speech, if anyone here knows.
perhaps you can then easily tell us what elements and how they melt by fervent heat?
I don't know, only what the Bible says there. I presume fervent heat is fervent heat. I am not sure what else it might mean. Medium fervent heat? Cool heat? Elements are probably everything down to the basic parts. Maybe elements doesn't mean elements but just big buildings, or forests or polar icecaps. Dave might look at his thesaurus and say it means that "spirits" will burn up. Or maybe just make it a metaphor so that it doesn't mean anything. Those are options, I suppose. I would go with "elements will burn." Yet I am open to other ideas.
-
@GaoLu said:
I wasn't very clear. I have always taken it literally and see no reason not to do so. I am wanting to understand the notion of the clause as a figure of speech, if anyone here knows.I don't know, only what the Bible says there.
...Hmn ... what does the Bible say there ? ...
In Phil 3:2 the Bible says "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
So, did Paul sort of warn the folks there about dogs biting because the Bible says "beware of dogs"? Did he perhaps warn of the medical profession having inadequacies when the Bible says "beware of the concision"?
If this is not what the Bible says there, then what does the Bible say there?
-
@Wolfgang said:
You need to enlighten us on how you think the heavens will be literally burning with fire and be dissolved thereby and how elements will melt by fervent heat of fire ... cp. 2Pe 3:12. Especially so in light of the fact that the believers should actually be looking forward to that and hasten to that day when such will happen ... if elements and heavens are literally on fire and melting, how could believers or anyone else for that matter be alive in that day?Believers won't be there Wolfgang. Unbelievers, well, they get their eternal torment don't they? This really isn't hard to understand, I'm not sure why you make it so hard.
-
I suppose most people would have little difficulty discerning which parts are figures of speech. Some might. Certainly not in the passages you indicate. However that may be, I will await some insight on the passage as indicated above.
(Re: how will things burn - I suppose global warming or a nasty atomic reaction, or a rather large solar flare. Kim Jong En might accomplish it., Otherwise I bet God can.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
You need to enlighten us on how you think the heavens will be literally burning with fire and be dissolved thereby and how elements will melt by fervent heat of fire ... cp. 2Pe 3:12. Especially so in light of the fact that the believers should actually be looking forward to that and hasten to that day when such will happen ... if elements and heavens are literally on fire and melting, how could believers or anyone else for that matter be alive in that day?Believers won't be there Wolfgang.
Sorry ... but the verse itself indicates otherwise ... not it is speaking about believers who should be looking forward to that and hast to that day (!!) ... why hast to that day when they won't be there ??????????????
Unbelievers, well, they get their eternal torment don't they? This really isn't hard to understand, I'm not sure why you make it so hard.
Speculation is taking over .... I would rather refrain from that and stick to what the text actually says ...
-
@GaoLu said:
I suppose most people would have little difficulty discerning which parts are figures of speech. Some might.Ah ha ... and how would they discern what is figure of speech and what is meant in its literal sense? How do YOU discern such? what are your criteria by which you discern what is to be understood literally and what involves a figure of speech and which one?
(Re: how will things burn - I suppose global warming or a nasty atomic reaction, or a rather large solar flare. Kim Jong En might accomplish it., Otherwise I bet God can.
????? what does this have to do at all with what is revealed in Scripture in 2Pe 3 ???
-
@Wolfgang said:
Ah ha ... and how would they discern what is figure of speech and what is meant in its literal sense?For most passages, especially one like this, a small dose of common sense works pretty good. Now and then we come up with a stumper. This isn't one. Never heard this one confused before--but if you insist!
How do YOU discern such? what are your criteria by which you discern what is to be understood literally and what involves a figure of speech and which one?
See above
(Re: how will things burn - I suppose global warming or a nasty atomic reaction, or a rather large solar flare. Kim Jong En might accomplish it., Otherwise I bet God can.
????? what does this have to do at all with what is revealed in Scripture in 2Pe 3 ???
Ohhh...I thought you asked this "Perhaps you can then easily tell us what elements and how they melt by fervent heat?" I was answering that.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
You need to enlighten us on how you think the heavens will be literally burning with fire and be dissolved thereby and how elements will melt by fervent heat of fire ... cp. 2Pe 3:12. Especially so in light of the fact that the believers should actually be looking forward to that and hasten to that day when such will happen ... if elements and heavens are literally on fire and melting, how could believers or anyone else for that matter be alive in that day?Believers won't be there Wolfgang.
Sorry ... but the verse itself indicates otherwise ... not it is speaking about believers who should be looking forward to that and hast to that day (!!) ... why hast to that day when they won't be there ??????????????
Now I think you are just playing dumb. Believers who have already passed on Wolfgang, are they in this world? No, they are not. Unless you believe in zombies?
Unbelievers, well, they get their eternal torment don't they? This really isn't hard to understand, I'm not sure why you make it so hard.
Speculation is taking over .... I would rather refrain from that and stick to what the text actually says ...
No speculation here, do you actually read Scripture?
-
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
Ah ha ... and how would they discern what is figure of speech and what is meant in its literal sense?For most passages, especially one like this, a small dose of common sense works pretty good. Now and then we come up with a stumper. This isn't one. Never heard this one confused before--but if you insist!
I am pretty sure you know that you are evading to answer my question ... by the way, common sense tells me that.
I have seen above ... and note that you are not willing to answer my very simple question.
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
(Re: how will things burn - I suppose global warming or a nasty atomic reaction, or a rather large solar flare. Kim Jong En might accomplish it., Otherwise I bet God can.
????? what does this have to do at all with what is revealed in Scripture in 2Pe 3 ???
Ohhh...I thought you asked this "Perhaps you can then easily tell us what elements and how they melt by fervent heat?" I was answering that.
Gao_Lu, I am astonished to see you descend to a level of discussion / exchange that has not been your manner previously ... I admit, while I am used to that from some other posters, I certainly did not expect it from you.
-
Gentlemen,
I don't know everything, however, the aforementioned text (2 Pe 3:12) is not beyond our comprehension, in light of the Spirit and basic exegesis. For starters:
- Pray before you read the passage in several different versions of the Bible. Include Greek (or any of it's help), if you have the skills).
- Read the passage in its context @ Peter 3:10-13.
- " " " " the chapter, then, in the books. "A text without a context is a pretext."
- A little background: Understand Peter's audience (believers -- those who had received 1 Peter -- in the region of Asia Minor); when (shortly before A. D 65) and the theme of the chapter.
- See other places in the chapter, book and the Bible where the main topic is addressed. Note what is said about it. There is a unity to the message in the Bible that is a witness to the divine Person who was behind its inspiration from start to finish. The Bible is its own expositor.
- Remember, the authors of the Bible wrote from a variety of personal and historical situations. Yet through all that time and variety, the Bible gives the same message from Genesis to Revelation.
- Second Peter is Peter's last will and testament (1:13-14). He warns believers about the false teachers, encouraged them to stand firm in the faith and to “grow in the grace and knowledge” of Jesus (3:17–18).
Other last testaments express similar concerns and advice (1 Sam. 12; Acts 20:17–38; 2 Timothy). He treats the following themes:
Purity. Peter emphasizes the need of purity both in conduct and belief so that the readers may be ready for Jesus’ Second Coming.
Knowledge. Peter stresses the importance of knowledge for the Christian life. This knowledge, however, is not esoteric or purely intellectual but a knowledge of Jesus and God.
Spiritual growth. Peter exhorts the readers to “add” to their faith spiritual virtues.
False teachers. Peter predicts the coming of false teachers and denounces them.
He also responds to four objections they would make:
- The Second Coming of Jesus is a myth—a fiction—that the apostles want us to believe (1:16–19).
- Prophecy has a human origin: it is humans who interpret their own dreams and visions (1:20–21).
- There will not be judgment (2:3–10).
- The Second Coming has delayed: Jesus will not come again (3:4–10).
Until next time, I will zero in on the passage in question, if interested. These are simple and basic guidelines that should set the tone for understanding. This is not to insult anyone. It’s only a reminder to help raise the standards of CD. Happy reading. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
Ah ha ... and how would they discern what is figure of speech and what is meant in its literal sense?For most passages, especially one like this, a small dose of common sense works pretty good. Now and then we come up with a stumper. This isn't one. Never heard this one confused before--but if you insist!
I am pretty sure you know that you are evading to answer my question ... by the way, common sense tells me that.
Dear Wolfgang, I despise evading questions. When I have done so, help me out so that I never do so.
I thought my answer was valid, that the way to "discern what is figure of speech and what is meant in its literal sense" is usually common sense. There are occasionally difficult passages. This is not one. What is wrong with that answer?
Again, I answered sincerely. If I missed the point or did not satisfy you, I am sorry. I am willing to do better.
For the second time, you asked how I thought elements might burn. I told you. You keep asking why I answered. I am starting to scratch my head. See below.
Ohhh...I thought you asked this "Perhaps you can then easily tell us what elements and how they melt by fervent heat?" I was answering that.
Gao_Lu, I am astonished to see you descend to a level of discussion / exchange that has not been your manner previously ... I admit, while I am used to that from some other posters, I certainly did not expect it from you.
Well, I tossed in what I hoped would be a little humor. I meant no disrespect. Actually, I am sort of serious. Do you think it a joke that God can sort of burn things up to if he wants? Maybe use natural processes or supernatural, either one? I do not. Maybe you are right. I am not any better than others here after all.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
