Consulting or calling up the dead

[RND]

Is it more charitable to call another person's remarks "unkind"? I tried to think of more descriptive words to describe the kind of interpretation you were presenting—naive and flat were the most accurate that I could come up with. Can you tell me in what setting the words "naive" and "flat" might be used without being unkind? Or which words that convey the same thought are more charitable? Thin skin is not an asset in honest discussions about controversial subjects. There was no personal insult intended.

If you need assistance as to what to say to be a little more respectful and kind then maybe you should do a self-examination. I don't find that calling a position "naive" helpful and somehow it seems related to to what I told you about my Bible experience. Suffice to say the English language is full of words that would have conveyed your point without the insinuation implied by "naive."

You wouldn't appreciate me calling your position regarding the topic at hand "ill-informed."

Pending a final decision as to whether "ruach" is taken to mean "breath" or "spirit," it is difficult to say whether Ecclesiastes 12:7 supports your view or mine. Is it the "breath" that goes to God, or is it the man's "spirit"? If it is the spirit, then that would seem to fit my scenario. If it is only the breath that departs, then it is only a reference to the departure of life from the body, saying nothing about the question under dispute here.

What's the Stong's say?

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

breathed=naphach/soul=nephesh

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

ruwach = from 'ruwach' (7306); wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y).

You really ought to know better than to bring this point up again. I have made it plain that there is no difference of opinion between us as to the coming of a future resurrection—which is what the passages you list here refer to. The question of the interim state is an independent issue, unaffected by the belief in the resurrection, which we both (along with Christians of all time) share. From the number of posts that you place at this forum, and the repetition of the same points in a single thread, I must assume that your time is less valuable than mine. I do not write for hours as a mere diversion from boredom. Please do not make me repeat my points by simply repeating the same irrelevant arguments that have already been dealt with.

Then there needs to be a complete dissertation on your part, using scripture of course, that plainly shows the multitude of souls in heaven coming back to earth to receive there glorified bodies. That's the least you could do in light of your position.

However, on top of that, keep in mine Jesus said "come forth" and not "come down."

Lastly, Job again tells us where "God's spirit" is.

Job 27:3 All the while my breath [is] in me, and the spirit of God [is] in my nostrils; Spirit = ruwach.

These are indeed interesting statements, since it is fairly agreed that both Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven prior to these remarks. I am inclined to believe that Jesus was saying that no one now on earth has ascended into heaven, so as to bring back a report of what God is like to us benighted men below. Only Jesus has that information from experience.

I'm inclined to believe that God can do whatever He wants with His creation. Enoch and Elijah were "translated" and thus never tasted death, so I don't know it that is comparable. Moses on the other hand did indeed taste death and was "resurrected" by God and appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration. That seems comparable. But none has come "back to life" as Lazarus did.

As for Peter's statement about David, he is clearly talking about David's body not having ascended to heaven (and no one would ever dispute this), because his body can still be found in his grave. This is simply showing that the prophecies David wrote about his flesh not seeing corruption (Ps.16) and being seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Ps.110) were not fulfilled in David himself but in his descendent Jesus. That Jesus did physically ascend and David did not is Peter's point. Nothing is said for or against David's "spirit" having gone to heaven.

Neither is anything implied that it did. Thus Jesus' statement "no man has ascended to heaven..." would seem to be a contradiction.

In your opinion they are—and they may well be able to be harmonized with your position. The problem comes with introducing the verses that are not in harmony with your position, and which do not harmonize with your view of Ecclesiastes and Psalms. For example, the times that the Hebrew Bible refers to the "shades" of the dead (Heb. rephaim) lurking about in Sheol, and even talking to each other there (Job 26:5/ Isa.14:9, 15-17; Ezek.32:21). I do not insist that these passages be taken literally (they are, after all, poetic), but I am saying the poetic books of the Old Testament do not present the uniform picture of the state of the dead that you suggest.

Sure they do. "Line upon line, precept upon precept" doesn't suggest not including the Psalms, Job, or Ecclesiastes.

First, I doubt if the giving of specific information about the state of the dead was as high a priority with God as it is to our curiosity.

I do and I think He presented His case very well.

Second, "life and immortality" were "brought to light" (they had been obscure previously) by Christ (2 Tim.1:10).

Christ of course being the only one who is "immortal." Immortality is associated with no one else.

Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Third, we do not have any record of anything Lazarus said, either before his death, nor after his reanimation. Apparently John's objective was to focus on the teachings of Jesus, not of Lazarus. What Lazarus actually described about his experience must remain an undisclosed mystery to us.

That's just it Steve, when taken as a whole what happened to Lazarus isn't a mystery at all. He died. Didn't pass "go" and didn't collect $200.00.

I don't see how the case would be different if Lazarus had finished his race, gone to his rest of unconscious existence (as in your view) and then been required to come back and run the race again. If it would seem unfair in one case, it would not be less so in the other.

That's just it Steve Lazarus was dead and didn't float off to heaven. Most likely he was quite astonished to find out that when he awoke from his nap he was in a sepulcher and not at home in bed, which was the last place he would have been when he died. For Lazarus his nap lasted only four days and not 4,000 years.

[TK]

Re: "Naive" and "flat."

I wouldn't take that so hard, RND. when it comes to interpreting poetry, or any kind of art, this could be a legitimate criticism.

For example- if i was at the museum of modern art in NYC and saw a Jackson Pollock painting (he's the guy that splattered paint on a canvas) and called it a mess that any two year old could do (and this is probably something i might say), a more well-read person or a person who has a better appreciation of art might very well call my comment "naive" and my assessment of the piece "flat." that being said, it is still only their opinion.

however, i am sure you know that there is a lot to hebrew poetry; i havent taken the time to study it in depth, but i believe that Steve likely has. therefore, why not take his comment as a challenge rather than as an insult?

TK

[TK]

RND--

i have also been troubled by those like lazarus who were resurrected (the widow's son, jairus' daughter, those who came to life after Jesus' resurrection, etc). i honestly dont know what to think about where they might have been while dead, and how they must have felt when compelled to re-enter their body (assuming they were somewhere). of course if they werent anywhere, then there isnt a problem.

TK

[steve]

RND,

I hate to say it, but when I read your arguments (if they can be called that!) "naive" is one of the gentlest words in my lexicon for what I think of them. I do not think it insulting (except to a proud man, perhaps) to be told that one's interpretation of a certain passage is naive. You say I would not wish to be told that I was "ill-informed." I should have no objection whatsoever to your use of that term, since I know, with or without your saying it, that that is your opinion of my ideas. So what? If I tell you (for your benefit, not as an insult) that your interpretation of a passage is naive and flat, and you turn around and tell me that I am ill-informed, why should anyone assume that malice exists in this conversation? It just sounds like honest dialogue to me. The readers can assess for themselves whether you or I are characterizing the other's arguments correctly.

One thing about your argumentation that inspires my low opinion of it is your inability to see the point that another is making. In fact, when your point has just been shown to be inconclusive, or even wrong, you say things like, "That's just the point!" and then follow up with comments that show that you missed the point altogether.

The logical fallacy to which you succumb most frequently is that of "begging the question," which is a technical term for assuming as part of your argument the correctness of the very proposition being debated. This is so frustrating that it must drive off from serious discussion with you many who would otherwise take you more seriously. Examples?

I wrote:
Third, we do not have any record of anything Lazarus said, either before his death, nor after his reanimation. Apparently John's objective was to focus on the teachings of Jesus, not of Lazarus. What Lazarus actually described about his experience must remain an undisclosed mystery to us.

To which you replied:
That's just it Steve, when taken as a whole what happened to Lazarus isn't a mystery at all. He died. Didn't pass "go" and didn't collect $200.00.

I wrote:
I don't see how the case would be different if Lazarus had finished his race, gone to his rest of unconscious existence (as in your view) and then been required to come back and run the race again. If it would seem unfair in one case, it would not be less so in the other.

To which you replied:
That's just it Steve Lazarus was dead and didn't float off to heaven. Most likely he was quite astonished to find out that when he awoke from his nap he was in a sepulcher and not at home in bed, which was the last place he would have been when he died. For Lazarus his nap lasted only four days and not 4,000 years.

In both instances, my points were modest observations and did not overstretch the bounds of facts that were self-evident. Your response was a mere reassertion of your position (not an argument for your position), a fact of which you were apparently unaware! My points were not "just it"—if "it" means the things you said. My point is that the story of Lazarus does not establish or even provide an argument for your position. Instead of countering by showing some reason to believe that the evidence does in fact support your position, you simply reasserted your position—as if the assertion itsef takes the place of an argument. Such childish behavior (not a kind word? What other can I choose?) does not belong in a debate among grown-ups.

You also do not seem to know what the issue under dispute may be, although it has been defined numerous times by participants who state their position at least as clearly as you state yours. They understand you. Why don't you understand them?

For example, when I suggested that the word ruach, in Ecclesiastes 12:7 might be taken either to mean "spirit" or "breath," and that we cannot be sure which is meant, you proceeded to make my very point for me by citing scriptures and Hebrew lexicon entries that make my very point—along with citations having no bearing on the point (apparently you thought that, by telling us the meaning of the word nephesh, in Genesis, you had somehow demonstrated the meaning of ruach in Ecclesiastes).

It is not hard to find passages where ruach means "breath," and where it is associated with the nostrils. That is a point that I acknowledged. However, it is also not difficult to find passages where ruach means "spirit" (unless we are prepared to say that all the references to the Holy Spirit would better be translated "the Holy Breath"). The term is also used of angels (Ps.104:4), of evil spirits (apparently demons), as in 1 Sam.16:14 and 1 Kings 22:21, and also of a disembodied (apparently human) spirit, as in Job 4:15-17. It is also used of the spirit within a man, in cases where it is essentially synonymous with The "heart" or "the inner man" (e.g., Ps.32:2; 34:18; 51:10, 17; 77:3, 6; 78:8, etc.), where the word "breath" would be an impossible translation. My point, which your citations did not even begin to refute, is that ruach might mean "spirit" or "breath" in different contexts, and which is meant in Ecclesiastes 12:7 is unclear.

When you must resort to irrelevant arguments and citations, then you give the impression you have used up all of your relevant ones. I honestly am embarrassed for you when I read your arguments, and I do not wish for you to dig your pit deeper. Therefore, I recommend that you either present real biblical arguments (new ones, please!) or else leave the field to men like Paidion, who can usually follow an argument, to defend your position.

[RND]

RND,I hate to say it, but when I read your arguments (if they can be called that!) "naive" is one of the gentlest words in my lexicon for what I think of them. I do not think it insulting (except to a proud man, perhaps) to be told that one's interpretation of a certain passage is naive. You say I would not wish to be told that I was "ill-informed." I should have no objection whatsoever to your use of that term, since I know, with or without your saying it, that that is your opinion of my ideas. So what? If I tell you (for your benefit, not as an insult) that your interpretation of a passage is naive and flat, and you turn around and tell me that I am ill-informed, why should anyone assume that malice exists in this conversation? It just sounds like honest dialogue to me. The readers can assess for themselves whether you or I are characterizing the other's arguments correctly.

OK then, I consider many of the points you've made "ill-informed

One thing about your argumentation that inspires my low opinion of it is your inability to see the point that another is making. In fact, when your point has just been shown to be inconclusive, or even wrong, you say things like, "That's just the point!" and then follow up with comments that show that you missed the point altogether.

Steve, if you can use scripture, other than your opinion, to show me where I am indeed wrong or at best inconclusive I'll certainly heed to your expert analysis. You have, in all cases, been unable to do so.

For example, you have yet tp rovide one shred of evidence from scripture that says the "soul" inner man goes and returns with Christ or the need for the "soul" to return to earth for it's glorified body.

The logical fallacy to which you succumb most frequently is that of "begging the question," which is a technical term for assuming as part of your argument the correctness of the very proposition being debated. This is so frustrating that it must drive off from serious discussion with you many who would otherwise take you more seriously. Examples?

Steve, if you wish to make this argument I suggest you use scripture to make your point. Saying I'm naive regarding poetry is one thing. But when that poetry aligns with the majority of what is shown in scripture then maybe it's not my problem but yours.

In both instances, my points were modest observations and did not overstretch the bounds of facts that were self-evident. Your response was a mere reassertion of your position (not an argument for your position), a fact of which you were apparently unaware! My points were not "just it"—if "it" means the things you said. My point is that the story of Lazarus does not establish or even provide an argument for your position. Instead of countering by showing some reason to believe that the evidence does in fact support your position, you simply reasserted your position—as if the assertion itsef takes the place of an argument. Such childish behavior (not a kind word? What other can I choose?) does not belong in a debate among grown-ups.

And yet in neither case did you use scripture to solidify your point Steve. Nor have you been able to establish what may have happened to Lazarus during those 4 days other than speculation.

As for the other points you made, that's fine, your opinion is noted. But I would at least suspect that a man of your extensive knowledge would rather look for answers for his position in scripture than resort to mere "name calling."

You also do not seem to know what the issue under dispute may be, although it has been defined numerous times by participants who state their position at least as clearly as you state yours. They understand you. Why don't you understand them?

I understand them perfectly, and each is entitled to their position. I'm here to debate and discuss. Not change anyone's mind.

For example, when I suggested that the word ruach, in Ecclesiastes 12:7 might be taken either to mean "spirit" or "breath," and that we cannot be sure which is meant, you proceeded to make my very point for me by citing scriptures and Hebrew lexicon entries that make my very point—along with citations having no bearing on the point (apparently you thought that, by telling us the meaning of the word nephesh, in Genesis, you had somehow demonstrated the meaning of ruach in Ecclesiastes).

You can "think" that Steve. You are more than welcome to. But is is obvious, check that, more than obvious that the Hebrew word "ruwach" is used for "breathe" or blast of air in Ecclesiastes 12:7 and not a separate entity that leaves the body upon death.

It is not hard to find passages where ruach means "breath," and where it is associated with the nostrils. That is a point that I acknowledged. However, it is also not difficult to find passages where ruach means "spirit" (unless we are prepared to say that all the references to the Holy Spirit would better be translated "the Holy Breath"). The term is also used of angels (Ps.104:4), of evil spirits (apparently demons), as in 1 Sam.16:14 and 1 Kings 22:21, and also of a disembodied (apparently human) spirit, as in Job 4:15-17. It is also used of the spirit within a man, in cases where it is essentially synonymous with The "heart" or "the inner man" (e.g., Ps.32:2; 34:18; 51:10, 17; 77:3, 6; 78:8, etc.), where the word "breath" would be an impossible translation. My point, which your citations did not even begin to refute, is that ruach might mean "spirit" or "breath" in different contexts, and which is meant in Ecclesiastes 12:7 is unclear.

Do make sure you "check" and "double check" each and every context in which the word is used. Ps.104:4 is a good example.

NIV - He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.

When you must resort to irrelevant arguments and citations, then you give the impression you have used up all of your relevant ones. I honestly am embarrassed for you when I read your arguments, and I do not wish for you to dig your pit deeper. Therefore, I recommend that you either present real biblical arguments (new ones, please!) or else leave the field to men like Paidion, who can usually follow an argument, to defend your position.

Wow, you are truly filled with the venom of high mindedness and an air of superiority tonight aren't you Steve. I suggest you use the context and meaning of scripture a bit more and climb off your high horse and loose the arrogant attitude. You look as if you hate having your precious notions challenged by an amateur. Which really says more about you than it does me.

[Paidion]

1. Paidion:
So I wonder why Jesus would have used sleep as a figure of speech concerning death, if the dead are conscious

1. Steve:
Sleeping people are not unconscious. I would be equally curious as to why he would use the figure of sleep, if they were nonexistent? Sleeping people still exist—and even have dreams.

1R. Paidion:
In normal parlance, sleeping people ARE unconscious. They are unconscious of their surroundings. A dreaming existence is not consciousness. You answered your own question in your second statement as to why he would use the figure of sleep if they were nonexistent. Their undecayed bodies exist, and as you have indicated in your second response, these bodies appear to be asleep. However, the “they” which I claim to be nonexistent is not their dead bodies, but their consciousness, their awareness of their surroundings, their minds, their very selves. None of those exist. Just a body, which is not a person at all.

2. Paidion:
In what sense would they be asleep?

2. Steve:
To the view of the earthly eye, the dead have the look of being asleep. However, they will get up again at the resurrection, which is another way that they are like people asleep—they are destined to wake up.

2R. Paidion:
Yes, you have answered the question correctly. That is the reason I think the figure of sleep is used for the dead. However, it would not make sense to so use it, if they have conscious spirits which exist in heaven. If the dead were awake and conscious somewhere else as disembodied spirits, they would not be asleep, though their lifeless bodies may have that appearance.

In the case also for those in natural sleep, it seems to me that we would call them awake, not asleep, if they were conscious and aware of their surroundings in some other location.

[steve]

Paidion,

You and I would agree that those who "sleep" in Christ are unconscious of their bodies' surroundings. It is, after all, their bodies that are "asleep" and that will awaken in the resurrection. However, sleeping people are not non-existent, and are often very conscious, in their dreams, of a different reality than that of their physical surroundings. In my view, this would be precisely parallel to the state of the dead, if their physical bodies are unaware of their surroundings in the tomb, but their minds are aware of a different reality in heaven (or elsewhere). I can admit that a person who goes into complete unconsciousness might metaphorically be said to "sleep," but it would be a less-exact parallel than the scenario I am suggesting.

You wrote:

However, the “they” which I claim to be nonexistent is not their dead bodies, but their consciousness, their awareness of their surroundings, their minds, their very selves. None of those exist. Just a body, which is not a person at all.

I guess this is a set of affirmations for which I would like to see better scriptural evidence. Like Suzana, I don't care about the matter one way or another. I just need more than has been provided, in the way of biblical evidence, to move me from my original view on this.



RND,

I am sorry I hurt your feelings. Perhaps I should have said those things to you in private posts, but you conducted our dialogue in the public forum, and that is where I answered you. Even your latest post exhibits the defects that I described, and it is not profitable for me to continue pointing them out. By the way, your being a novice challenging me does not hurt my pride. My pride already hurts just by getting up and looking in the mirror every morning—and then it seldom recovers before bedtime. It is the cocky, self-confident novice wasting my time without responding sensibly to my posts that I object to. Perhaps you are destined to misunderstand my arguments because I am not sufficiently clear. I am not referring to the fact that you fail to see the truth of my position. I am referring to the fact that you don't even know what point I am arguing! You really should read things twice, I suppose, or more than that, until you understand what is being said, before shooting back a rapid-fire answer that only damages your credibility. This is adios, Amigo. Feel free to argue with anyone who has infinite leisure to chase their tails with you. I will take up my debates with those who know how to participate in one.

[RND]

RND,

I am sorry I hurt your feelings. Perhaps I should have said those things to you in private posts, but you conducted our dialogue in the public forum, and that is where I answered you.

Look, if you feel compelled for some strange reason to insult, degrade and belittle me please do so on a PM. But your continued sniping and jabs at me about what I understand or whether I read post, etc., only seek to reveal your obvious hostility towards me.

The whole thread Steve shows where Paidon and I have addressed that man does not have an "inner man" or being that floats away upon death.

The OP is referring to the ability to speak with the dead. I've yet to see where you've addressed the OP specifically. Do you believe the dead can be brought up or are demons acting in place of the so-called dead?

Even your latest post exhibits the defects that I described, and it is not profitable for me to continue pointing them out. By the way, your being a novice challenging me does not hurt my pride. My pride already hurts just by getting up and looking in the mirror every morning—and then it seldom recovers before bedtime.

Steve, don't be so hard on yourself! I've seen your picture and while it is true that when I see your picture time stands still I sure you are beautiful on the inside.

It is the cocky, self-confident novice wasting my time without responding sensibly to my posts that I object to.

I said it first.

BTW, have you figured out all those "souls" in heaven gravy train their way back from heaven to pick up their "glorified" bodies yet?

Perhaps you are destined to misunderstand my arguments because I am not sufficiently clear. I do not mean that you fail to see the truth of my position, I mean that you don't even know what point I am arguing!

That's just it Steve, I know "what" you are arguing. I firmly reject your arguments.

You really should read things twice, I suppose, or more than that, until you understand what is being said, before shooting back a rapid-fire answer that only damages your credibility.

You mean like damaging credibility by stooping to childish name calling and useless innuendo?

This is adios, Amigo.

Oh, I'm sure you'll interject again when you see me using childish arguments and acting all naive like. Remember, as an SDA it come with the territory.

Feel free to argue with anyone who has infinite leisure to chase their tails with you.

Will do.

I will take up my debates with those who know how to participate in one.

Roger. Will you know when you had you lunch handed to you in one, that's what I want to know.

[SteveF]

RND, I think you’re missing what Steve is trying to say.

Here’s what Steve wrote to welcome you to the forum back in December

Hi David,
It's good to have you input. I look forward to more discussion of the conditional immortality position (and any other subjects you may post about).

I think he means it!

I don’t think Steve is afraid of being shown up. He actually spends more time reading the material of those with whom he has a different position….so he can learn. I'm not aware of anyone on this forum that agrees with Steve on everything. In fact, a number seem to disagree on quite a variety of issues.

I think Steve, and I can speak for myself here as well, would like dialogue. Often that is what’s lacking. Let me make a potentially lame attempt at an illustration:

Let’s say you hold to a Young Earth Creation position and I hold to a Theistic Evolution position. I might start a thread presenting my arguments from scripture for TE. Then you respond with your explanation from scripture in support of YEC and engage some of my ideas at the same time. If my response to your explanation was merely “I’ve already spelled out what the Bible says on that issue” and posted links to a couple of long articles defending TE would you find that satisfying? Wouldn’t you prefer if I actually showed that I understood what you were trying to say by engaging the points you were making?

I know you don’t do this all the time but whenever you do, as Steve said, it can discourage some from dialoguing with you. I only write this RND because I, and I’m sure others, would like to dialogue with you more.

In Christ
SteveF

PS...just to keep things in perspective. Although many here, including myself, find topics like soul sleep interesting, we do need to realise its relative importance...which is not high. Sometimes we can "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel".

[steve]

As for the original post, 1 Samuel 28:12-20 is explicit in declaring that the medium called up "Samuel" and not an impostor. It is not ambiguous:

When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice...And the king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What did you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth."... And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.

Now Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do."

Then Samuel said: "So why do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy? And the LORD has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines."

Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, and was dreadfully afraid because of the words of Samuel.

The apparition correctly prophesied that Israel would be defeated the next day, and that Saul and his sons would die in the battle (the mark of a true prophet. Would a demon know the secret counsels of God?). The speaker is continually referred to as Samuel in the narrative, and his words are called "the words of Samuel." Either 1) the witch called up Samuel, or 2) the inspired writer was deceived into thinking that she did so.

From past dialogues with Paidion, I would expect him to take the second theory. I don't know whether or not RND will go that route as well. I dare say to any reader, please pay careful attention to any post seeking to argue that it was NOT Samuel, and see whether they present any scripture that says it was not actually Samuel as explicitly as these verses say that it was Samuel. We may be able to witness at this forum a classic case of a theological presupposition being employed to trump the actual words of scripture.