Scripture and the Proverb of the Red Berry

[Sparkey]

I'd like to share a moment of embarrassment from the other day. It was a day, just like any other day and it started with a breakfast cereal straight from Kellogg's -- called Special K. I was talking to my sister on the phone and wondered what exactly the "Red Berries" were. You see, I had been reading the box and that's what they were called.

My sister said they were strawberries.

Now, I could tell that was what Kellogg's wanted everybody to think but I'm not so gullible about things and said, "If they were strawberries, why didn't Kellogg's say "strawberries"???

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

 

[Bonairos]

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

And so it is with all of us. To think, You not only had breakfast with the Lord, you had dialog as well! How awesome is that?!


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Pard]

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

+1! :D

Biblical hypotheticals are useless. Nice connection by the way!

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'd like to share a moment of embarrassment from the other day. It was a day, just like any other day and it started with a breakfast cereal straight from Kellogg's -- called Special K. I was talking to my sister on the phone and wondered what exactly the "Red Berries" were. You see, I had been reading the box and that's what they were called.

My sister said they were strawberries.

Now, I could tell that was what Kellogg's wanted everybody to think but I'm not so gullible about things and said, "If they were strawberries, why didn't Kellogg's say "strawberries"???

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

I have no idea what you are saying.
Can you give an "explanation for dummies"?

 

[Sparkey]

Lol - okay, I'll try.

Have you ever read somebody say, "That word was around 300 years before Christ and was in common use of the Greek then, I wonder why God didn't choose to mention it?"

And for the absence of a specific word like 'strawberry' the conclusion is that red berried thing, whatever it is, simply can not be strawberries.

Take the Greek root of our word in English, "Hermeneutics" for instance. Since God could have used that word in Scripture, and since it is absent, it must mean that all study of the written word that included mans' method for interpretation is ungodly. I can see the support for that assertion, because we know that the Holy Spirit does this as our Teacher, but I just don't like the argument from absent mention.

That's quite the teaching, isn't it? And based on what, exactly? Based on the fact that Kellogg's didn't use the word 'Strawberry" and chose instead to say "Red Berry"? Wow, is all I may say here. There is a list of ingredients printed on every box. Sure, one might need to study hermeneutics (herman who?) to interpret some of the ingredients listed, but that specific word "strawberry" is right there, on the side of the box. What does it matter if it isn't printed on the front of the box?

Godly men who devoted their lives to the study of the Word of God have spoken of those things they have learned and of various methods they have used (including following the leading of the HS). We can read their "side of the box" in published studies that benefit not only students of the Word of God but students the world over.

There are many arguments that are delivered from absence. Have you ever heard somebody argue against the rapture? Some may say, "Look it up! You won't find that word in the bible." What about Trinity? Does that specific word appear in the King James? Arguments that the use of the term 'red berry' necessarily means it can't be a strawberry appear almost everywhere. It's an informal fallacy. Strawberries are red berries too. They are not red herrings, well, not necessarily and certainly not simply because they are both red.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Lol - okay, I'll try.

Have you ever read somebody say, "That word was around 300 years before Christ and was in common use of the Greek then, I wonder why God didn't choose to mention it?"

And for the absence of a specific word like 'strawberry' the conclusion is that red berried thing, whatever it is, simply can not be strawberries.

Take the Greek root of our word in English, "Hermeneutics" for instance. Since God could have used that word in Scripture, and since it is absent, it must mean that all study of the written word that included mans' method for interpretation is ungodly. I can see the support for that assertion, because we know that the Holy Spirit does this as our Teacher, but I just don't like the argument from absent mention.

That's quite the teaching, isn't it? And based on what, exactly? Based on the fact that Kellogg's didn't use the word 'Strawberry" and chose instead to say "Red Berry"? Wow, is all I may say here. There is a list of ingredients printed on every box. Sure, one might need to study hermeneutics (herman who?) to interpret some of the ingredients listed, but that specific word "strawberry" is right there, on the side of the box. What does it matter if it isn't printed on the front of the box?

Godly men who devoted their lives to the study of the Word of God have spoken of those things they have learned and of various methods they have used (including following the leading of the HS). We can read their "side of the box" in published studies that benefit not only students of the Word of God but students the world over.

There are many arguments that are delivered from absence. Have you ever heard somebody argue against the rapture? Some may say, "Look it up! You won't find that word in the bible." What about Trinity? Does that specific word appear in the King James? Arguments that the use of the term 'red berry' necessarily means it can't be a strawberry appear almost everywhere. It's an informal fallacy. Strawberries are red berries too. They are not red herrings, well, not necessarily and certainly not simply because they are both red.

Hope that helps.

I sort of get your drift, but it really just leads to a lot more questions that may sound stupid.

 

[Sparkey]

I sort of get your drift, but it really just leads to a lot more questions that may sound stupid.

Okay and normally I'd say, "Ask away," because that ready answer "I'm unsure or I don't really know," is there in my toolbag. This is the internet though and it is a public forum. Having said that, sounding stupid is a far piece from being stupid. May I suggest that you pick one question, pray about it and try the answer, maybe even in another thread? Kellogg's Red Berries are a very broad category. Feel free to [MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION] me or PM me there if you like. I might not have any answer but I don't mind praying and asking others too. You never know? Somebody may have just completed a study on the subject of your interest.

;)

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

Okay, you've made this an algebraic equation.
Give me the answer here in simple english.
Thank you.

 

[Sparkey]

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

Okay, you've made this an algebraic equation.
Give me the answer here in simple english.
Thank you.

Hmmmm.... :nod

"The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion."

"The bible could have said the word, "Rapture" but didn't. Because God didn't use that word, therefore it follows that my counter argument is true and the only possible solution.

"The bible could have said the phrase, "One thousand four hundred and forty minutes," instead of "Day" or the Hebrew word, "Yom", so that means the time counted and spoken of as a 'day' in the Genesis Week of creation could be anything from milliseconds to billions of years just as long as we know it doesn't mean days.

That kind of reasoning is weak.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It reminded me about various arguments that can be heard on the forum here where a brother says, "The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion." Reading the box (and not understanding the content) was my mistake.

Okay, you've made this an algebraic equation.
Give me the answer here in simple english.
Thank you.

Hmmmm.... :nod

"The bible could have said, "X" but didn't. This proves my assertion that "Y" is the only possible conclusion."

"The bible could have said the word, "Rapture" but didn't. Because God didn't use that word, therefore it follows that my counter argument is true and the only possible solution.

"The bible could have said the phrase, "One thousand four hundred and forty minutes," instead of "Day" or the Hebrew word, "Yom", so that means the time counted and spoken of as a 'day' in the Genesis Week of creation could be anything from milliseconds to billions of years just as long as we know it doesn't mean days.

That kind of reasoning is weak.

Lol, sorry Sparrowhawke.
It's these type of answers that caused me to fail geometry.

 

[Sparkey]

Lol, sorry Sparrowhawke.
It's these type of answers that caused me to fail geometry.

There is no geometry test required for entry to heaven. There is a test though. It's about love.

I'll give it some thought and try to say it differently. Okay, here goes.

There was once a young man who wanted only to please his father, the King. And this prince of a man had a good heart too. So when he heard others argue, he frowned but didn't say anything. They were getting more and more upset and almost drew swords over what seemed to be a big deal. The one guy, that guy in black, complained out loud, "But that is NOT what he said," and every time he tried to explain further the other guy said, "He did so, did so, did so."

They went round and round about it. So the prince, wanting to establish peace in the land, for he knew his dad to be a peace loving guy, interrupted that spat and said, "Woah down there Nelly!" and demanded they explain what this was all about.

The first guy said, "Well it's about the King's proclamation," and the second guy agreed.
The prince nodded and replied, "Say on, good sir."
The Second guy, finally getting a chance to speak, tried to explain, "That proclamation never said we had to fight dragons,"
That's when the first guy interrupted him with a fist to the mouth, "No. He said we had to establish peace in all the land."

The second guy had just been given a red berry.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Lol, sorry Sparrowhawke.
It's these type of answers that caused me to fail geometry.

There is no geometry test required for entry to heaven. There is a test though. It's about love.

I'll give it some thought and try to say it differently. Okay, here goes.

There was once a young man who wanted only to please his father, the King. And this prince of a man had a good heart too. So when he heard others argue, he frowned but didn't say anything. They were getting more and more upset and almost drew swords over what seemed to be a big deal. The one guy, that guy in black, complained out loud, "But that is NOT what he said," and every time he tried to explain further the other guy said, "He did so, did so, did so."

They went round and round about it. So the prince, wanting to establish peace in the land, for he knew his dad to be a peace loving guy, interrupted that spat and said, "Woah down there Nelly!" and demanded they explain what this was all about.

The first guy said, "Well it's about the King's proclamation," and the second guy agreed.
The prince nodded and replied, "Say on, good sir."
The Second guy, finally getting a chance to speak, tried to explain, "That proclamation never said we had to fight dragons,"
That's when the first guy interrupted him with a fist to the mouth, "No. He said we had to establish peace in all the land."

The second guy had just been given a red berry.

Let's see, red berries, red berries, hmm...
My mistake was reading the box and not understanding the content, hmmm.......

Let's see, a fist in the mouth is the only conclusion, hmm, sounds like a proverb or something....

I'm inside a toolbag made up of King James people, hmm...
And Herman somebody is getting in the way..Hmmm...

Nope, I don't understand.
We can drop it if you want, I don't have to know everything.
Thanks for trying.
Love ya, Allen

 

[Sparkey]

Drop if you like, those were several examples that were offered upon request.

They have similar themes in that nobody can make me say something that I have not said just because I have not said something else. They can try, but that is their argument, not mine.

It is the same (and more so) for God who knows what He said; it doesn't matter what speculation one may have about what He didn't say. We may ask him about peace and He tells us to love the brotherhood, to avoid senseless arguments, and there is nothing more than to simply obey. Why argue amongst each other? Especially about what was not said.

PS - my bread is coming out of the oven, it's time for me to rest. Interesting thought to me during the prep time for that bread is that it was kneaded then rested, given time to rise, gently handled one more time, and rested again... the popped into the oven and baked. All the various ingredients had been blended together. There was no battle, only mixing together, and providing warm place to rest the dough. It's that gentle touch than makes the texture fit for a king.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

PS - my bread is coming out of the oven, it's time for me to rest. Interesting thought to me during the prep time for that bread is that it was kneaded then rested, given time to rise, gently handled one more time, and rested again... the popped into the oven and baked. All the various ingredients had been blended together. There was no battle, only mixing together, and providing warm place to rest the dough. It's that gentle touch than makes the texture fit for a king.

Nice, I like it.