Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?))

From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 15:34:07 EST

Hi Don,

I appreciate your perserverence, but I weary of the ping-pong style
point-counterpoint since it feels like we are just talking past each other.

It seems to me that Scripture makes it perfectly clear that Paul believed
the OT Scriptures to be the Word of God. I quote 2 Tim 3.15f:

And that from a child thou hast known THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All
SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man
of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul believed that (at least some of) the OT Scriptures were "inspired of
God." I have no reason to believe that he would have had any problem calling
them "The Word of God." For example, consider what he wrote in 2 Cor 4:

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in
craftiness, nor *handling* the WORD OF GOD deceitfully; but by manifestation
of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of
God.

The key here is that Paul has made the Word of God the OBJECT of his
*handling*. He is not talking about the "physcial manifestation of the power
of God" nor is he talking about the "action of God on his creation
accompanied by a response on the part of some portion of that creation" as
you put it in your last post to George. Paul is talking about something he
can handle correctly or incorrectly, something he can study, something he
can "divide" rightly or wrongly. He is NOT talking about an "action of God"
or a "manifestation of the power of God." He is talking about Holy
Scripture.

Well, that's my point. I think I've adequately articulated it. I understand
your point. I just happen to believe it is wholly inadequate as a theology
of the Word. But that's OK! We can both live with that. I doubt I would want
to persue this particular detail any further. But I would be delighted if
you wanted to return to the original point of this thread, namely, the
revelation of the Whole Bible in the Book of Zechariah.

Or perhaps we could descend one step closer to the foundation and look at
the evidence I present (which you said was no evidence at all).

Here are some potential points of discussion:

1) The implications of infinite symmetry of the Circle integrated with the
Hebrew Alphabet and the structure of the Everlasting Word.
2) The implications of the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Canon
wheel, and its relation to the use of the Number Seven in all Scripture from
Genesis to Revelation. What does this tell us about God and His Word? How
does it relate to the One Stone with Seven Eyes?
3) The implications of the derivation of the sevenfold symmetry of the Canon
Wheel from first principles, using nothing but a Model, two symmetry
constraints, and two initial conditions.
4) The implications of the tri-radiant cruciform halo isomorphic to the
traditional Sign of Deity in ancient Christian iconography.
5) The implications of the Cross as the template for the geometric structure
of Scripture, and its relation to the Seal of God, and the central message
of all Scripture.
6) The implications of the representation of the Holy Bible in the form of
the Menorah, and the symbolic relation between Light and God's Word.
7) The implications of the etymology of the words for a Bowl (Gulah),
Revelation (Galah), Scroll (Megillah), Wheel (Galgal) and the Place of the
Skull (Golgatha) - which is the axis of the Biblical revelation.
8) The full integration of all these symbols and structures in the prophecy
given in Zechariah, where every detail mentioned above is integrated with
perfect grace.

I could go on .... ;-)

In the everlasting Joy of Christ,
Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Winterstein"

Richard: "I quoted Luke 4.3f: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written
[SCRIPTURE], That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every WORD OF
GOD."

Don: Every Word of God that one lives by is not necessarily Scripture, and
this passage does not imply as much. It further does not imply that any
Word of God is Scripture. For example, if Word of God were Scripture, then
Ezekiel 35 would be such a Word. Does a man live by that word? Just
because Scripture talks about the Word of God that man lives by does not
mean that Scripture is identical to such Word.

<snip>
Received on Tue Jan 13 15:33:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 13 2004 - 15:33:29 EST