Sovereign grace? No chance of me being Aligned with that false doctrine. Advent? No chance of me being aligned with that false mob (assuming it indicates some form of SDA rubbish). But just because a group such as these preaches it does not make it wrong. Plainly, the only reasonable way to view the Bible is literally unless it plainly indicates otherwise. Any other way just means that you make up a meaning you like. The Bible means what it says and says what it means - including telling us by various mechanisms when it is using pictures or illustrations.
I've got no idea what SGAT is but I certainly believe that every part of the Bible it taken literally unless there is clear biblical indication otherwise. It is not enough just think "well that's impossible so it must imagery". It is not possible for a man to rise from the dead, but Jesus raised from the dead in a literal, physical body. The text must in some way indicate it is a picture, illustration, or likeness, or it is to be taken literally.
No it doesn't - it is literal unless it tells you it isn't. There is no guesswork. When Jesus says "I am the vine, ye are the branches" there is no guessing whether it is literal or illustration. The Bible is clear on this point - in the example of the 70 weeks it is obvious that it is not 70 weeks of days as the Biblical record simply doesn't work with 70 weeks of days. If you investigate the Biblical record you find that 70 weeks of years fit perfectly. No guesswork. To interpret the Bible any way other than literally unless it indicates otherwise is to leave it to guesswork. The Bible tells you when it is not literal.
The basic premise of a literal interpretation is that we understand it literally unless there is indication in the language that it is not to be taken literally, or information that indicates it is not literal. In the instance of the 70 weeks, when we look for relevant reference to the 70 weeks in the Bible, we find none that link with 70 literal weeks of days. In investigating further, we find that the word used to indicate weeks in the Hebrew is very much akin to the english word "dozen" which relates to the number of things, not the things themselves. So we look to see if any other multiple of seven timespans fits with the record. "Months" doesn't work either. "Years" as a timespan in multiples of seven, does work. This can be figured out without reference to the Hebrew word, but the Hebrew supports the understanding of weeks of years, not weeks of days. Smarter men than I have done the calculations, and indeed there were seven weeks of years from the command to the rebuilding, thereby setting the reference as weeks of years.
That is not the grammatical issue in view, and you know it. These last few posts of yours are the perfect example of the "bait and switch" which is used by JW's and Mormons. You hope to confuse the issues so that you can avoid questions you can not answer. This is not a personal attack - it is an observed truth.
As usual, instead of addressing the question and the point, you want to introduce as many side points as possible to muddy the waters. Once the grammar issue is dealt with then maybe we can move onto the many other claims and issues you have introduced - and deal with them one at a time, in order.
But not with me - I am not interested in dealing with either of you when you won't deal with the issue at hand. You are the ones who have accused Brother Scott of changing the Bible by his analysis - prove it.
You both seem to be missing a critical point. There are one of three possibilities here: 1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where. 2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error. 3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.
There simply is NO ROOM for his analysis to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect. The Bible passages you refer to either do not apply in the way you suggest, or they do not conflict with the grammar in the way you suggest. We all agree that the passage say what it says, but the grammar is essential in understanding. The cross references will not nullify the grammar, but will agree with it.
Note: I am not saying his overall conclusions are correct, but those which stem directly from the passage analysed.
So now we are not arguing against grammar Itself, just in this instance? This just gets better and better....
Grammar can not be invalidated because it doesn't agree with your understanding.
Either the grammar is right or it is wrong - where is his grammatical explanation wrong? Because it is either his explanation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong? If the Bible is right, AND his explanation is right, then your ideas don't fit with the Bible. So show where his grammar is wrong. You can't have it both ways - the grammar of the passage CANNOT be at odds with the truth of the passage.
Ummmmm - actually, if you include the complete relevant passage the grammar works perfectly. Partial quotes, misquotes, and missapplication of quotes - such as forcing Tyndale's words the way you have above - confuses the subject rather than clarifying it. Doesn't matter how you twist it, grammar is essential to understanding written language.
The site I quoted from had it wrong..... The site had it in a picture where it was correct, but then reproduced it (wrongly) in text, which is where I did the cut and paste from. I will fix the original post.
I thought it might be worth having a place to post examples of sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar, making a difference to meaning.
An old, and most likely apocryphal, example: "An English professor wrote on the board: A woman without her man is nothing. The class was then asked to punctuate the sentence The men wrote: "A woman without her man, is nothing." The women wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing.""
Please let's have no argument about the debate or the merits of grammatical analysis - start a thread about it if you like - this is just for examples, hopefully a bit funny if possible but not necessarily.
Understanding of written language comes through structure, grammar, and punctuation. Simply stated or done so through technical language, the meaning is always the same - but to suggest that a full technical analysis of the language changes the meaning is just plain wrong. Your last statement is designed to imply that your opponent is changing the meaning, but that is just not the case. You can not deny the importance of grammar, structure, and punctuation in written language - to do so means that you can make any statement mean whatever you like. As I stated in the last thread before it was hijacked then closed, if his analysis is wrong then it should be easy to show it - even without technical language - and it is up to you to show it. To deny the importance of grammar, structure, and punctuation is no valid argument. Show his error, or accept his analysis - but you can't just deny the grammar.