Links to newspapers and other news sources.

Features state news and headlines, and national and world coverage of business, entertainment, health, politics, sports, technology and offbeat stories.

Online version of Kentucky Living magazine features travel ideas, recipes, festivals, home and garden tips, articles written by authors statewide.

News on Kentucky continually updated from thousands of sources around the net.

A non-partisan and nonprofit e-zine. Provides political issue news for the state.

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:

> >>
> >Not at all, if you would but look at what the grammatical-historical
> >hermeneutic teaches. "Literally" allows for metaphors,
typifications,
> >figures of speech and the like. But the scriptures were always
written
> >in the common tongue of the time of their writing, whether Hebrew,
> >Aramaic or Koine Greek specifically because they were to be read
> >normally. ANd when we read normally it is not all that difficult to
> >arrive at what the Author intended to reveal.
>
> Ah, I get it. It's metaphor or type or figure of speech when you
> say it is, and when it fits your theology. Otherwise, it has to
> be taken litarally.
>
> What a load of bologna.
>
Come on now, Stephen, let us seek an understanding. When you read a
novel or a newspaper or even the evening news, it is normal to allow
for these distinctions. We understand when someone is using a metaphor
when we are in casual conversation, why do you suppose the laws of
grammar are suddenly confused when we come to scripture? Yes, I will
be the first to agree that there are occassions when it is difficult to
discern these things. However, that said, it is more often than not
that the context clearly testifies to the distinction. The easiest
example is John's use of "like unto" in Revelation. Another example
would be Moses' striking the rock a second time. But there is nothing
in context of Gen 1 & 2 to suggest anything beyond the literal, the
normative reading of the text. In point of fact, the weight of the
burden rests upon those who would allegorize the text.
>
> >James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith
> >alone.
>
> Bingo. I don't HAVE to cite it because you all know it. And you,
> like Luther, know it demolishes your false theology so you spend
> reams and reams of paper trying to explain it away, say he meant
> something else, or like Luther, simply declare that you "find nothing
> of the Gospel" in James and it is "straw."
>
Hardly reams. A simple sentence does it. James is explaining cause
and effect. The effect has no effect on the cause, does it?
>
> >There is no contradiction here. James is stating the obvious. That
if
> >you have made a true confession of faith, there will be external
> >evidences of that pre-existing internal reality.
>
> Not what he says. He says quite clearly - thaat faith without works
is
> dead. YOU say he means external signs. But that's your eisegesis.
>
"Salvation by faith alone never means a faith which is alone." How
many have to say that before you accept it