KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum (2005 - 2007)

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics ::

Go to bottom of the page

# 01483 :  Melchizedek -The Mystic Person
Brazilian writer, PAULO COELHO’S magnum opus The Alchemist is a mystic novel draws the attention to the world of fables and myths. The shepherd boy, Santiago had a dream that a child would take him to the land of Pyramids, Egypt, where he will find a hidden treasure. On the way to land of Pyramids he met the King of Salem, Melchizedek. As the novel continues with overwhelming narrations the metaphor of Melchizedek is unique to the context of novel.

There are 3 distinct occasions in Bible particularly mention the name of Melchizedek. This Semitic name can be translated either as Zedek is My King or as My King is Righteous. Melchizedek was the priest of Most High God- El-Elyon, and King of Salem- formerly Jerusalem.

When the Great father Abram returning after he had conquered the four kings of that region, the King of Salem saluted him with bread and wine, and Father Abram offered him tenth of everything he had conquered. Why did Father Abram offer him tenth in everything?

Again He was mentioned in Psalms as ‘thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’. What could be the order of Melchizedek?

Finally the author of Hebrews identifies that Jesus Christ as " priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" there also Melchizedek remains as a mysterious person who is ‘without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Why did it say so?

The hallowing mystery of Melchizedek is the best icon to elaborate the divine priesthood of Jesus Christ surrounded him with obscurity and secrecy, which conferred on him by his Father alone, unlike the inherited, priestly order of Aaron that was ordained by Moses. Further, metaphorically Christ is also known as the King of Peace or King of New Jerusalem and King Righteousness.

Always the beauty of Christ is exalted by his mystery and there is no origin for his priesthood, simply because he is the Beginning of All.

Post by : valaad  View Profile    since : 26 Dec 2007


Reply by : sebastian   View Profile   Since : 28 Jan 2008 10:19:12 AM Close
Dear brother,
Melchizedek is not so much a name as it is a title or designation of honor. It is a position or office that has to be filled by a worthy candidate. The term is a transliteration of two Hebrew words, melek and tsedeq. The Hebrew melek means king and tsedeq means righteousness. Therefore, the term "melchizedek" means literally, "king of righteousness." Because a king is always preeminent in his jurisdiction, whoever Melchizedek was, he had to be preeminent in righteousness. He had to be the "king" of righteousness.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sebastian   View Profile   Since : 28 Jan 2008 10:19:30 AM Close
Every human, including Adam, has had a father (Luke 3:38). All the angels have the same father as Adam, and they are referred to many times in Scripture as sons of God. The One who became Jesus Christ is the father of all life except for one human life, His own. The Most High God is the Father of Jesus (Luke 1:32). But, God was not the father of Melchizedek. Paul is clearly saying that Melchizedek, like the Most High God, was without parents. Neither of them had beginning of days nor end of life. The two of them had always lived and there had never been a time that each of them had not lived. Melchizedek had always possessed life inherent. Life was not given to Him, He was not anyone's son.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sebastian   View Profile   Since : 28 Jan 2008 10:21:44 AM Close
This opinion is not mine. These are the thoughts of Jim Bowen, a theologian. I quoted him out of sheer curiosity to court the question of Valaad
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tinka   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2008 5:28:39 AM Close
Melchizedek, was as far as I understand, a person, whose lieage was unknown, yet he was a rigtheous and just king. Hence he is a 'type' of Christ. Christ Himself was such a figure...of whom even the prophets prophesied so...
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : johnmiller   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2008 2:10:59 PM Close
Dear readers,

We must take care not to invest mere mortals with "mystical" or mythical powers or character. Melchizidek was a human being. He would have had a mortal father and mother. His lineage is unknown and scripture deliberately conceals it to emphasise his service. He was a king and a priest and is presented as a type of Christ, but nevertheless in real life would one day have died, although once again scripture is silent on the matter. He was a clearly a great man, but nevertheless only a man.

In Christ,

John

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2008 5:43:41 AM Close
Dear readers

I appreciate Mr. John for his honest comments. But I doubt whether he has applied his mind properly, and he went as a legalist and strangulated the reason from unearthing the truth.

He used two terms mortal and mystic, based on these two terms he concluded his opinion, attributing to human beings, mortality, it is an implied fact hence no need to explain,. But if there is no relevance Melchizedek would not be mentioned by Paul. Therefore Paul’s illustration can not be disregarded as it as related to a mortal only.

From the reading of Genesis, it is apparently evident that Melchizedek was a mighty King as well the Priest of Most High God. And father Abraham was prompted to offer him the tithe. Therefore it can be concluded that Melchizedek was a person who was highly designated by that time and Abraham paid respect to him. Precisely speaking, prior to the Aaronite / Levities priesthood, God -approved priesthoods were existed.

But in history nobody knows who and what kind of person he was…?
This is the mystery hallowing Melchizedek...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2008 5:44:24 AM Close
When sketches again the symbol of Melchizedek, bible, extraordinarily states that Christ shall be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek …?

Dears from this point towards only we need to be cautious, that scripture never confined in a human being/mortal Melchizedek who was died centuries ago. It goes beyond and illustrates a beautiful slimily that Christ shall be a priest though he was not belonged to the clan of Aaron and hence ratify such all God-approved priesthood and invalidate Levite priesthood and rectify the notion that priesthood was established by Moses is wrong, and originated long before..

Another point is that to avoid the contradiction of the presumption of Kingship and Priesthood of Christ. The acts/duty of King is entirely different from the acts/duty of Priest. How can Christ be a King and Priest concurrently? If so happens, it will be a contradiction to his unique character… But the image of Melchizedek brooms away such arguments…

Of course it is unfair to us iconize Mr. Melchizedek, but try to enjoy the theory of introducing him as the prior image to the Kingship and Priesthood of Christ and realize that the Devine Providence was never limited by the four boundaries of Israel but always extended to all in history.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : johnmiller   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2008 8:54:32 AM Close
Dear "valaad",

I thank you for your acknowledgement of my contribution. The description of Melchizedek as mystic was yours in the title of the thread. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing mystical about him. He was a King, undoubtedly a very gret one, who had been divinely appointed as a priest of God.

I am clear as to the difference between his priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood. What we must guard is that as a man he is only a type of the infinitely greater King and Priest who was to follow, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. For those who believe in Him he is their great High Priest in heaven, an office that is divinely conferred, as was Melchizadek's, thus the description, "after the order of Melchizadek". He is also enthroned in the hearts of His own and is their Eternal King. He is yet to be revealed to the world as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

His kingly priesthood is "after the order" but owes nothing to Melchizadek. He is the great "anti-type" while Melchizadek is a historical, biblical person who fore-shadows this.

May I respectfully enquire to what fellowship or denomination of Christians you belong?

Yours in Christ,

John

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 5 Feb 2008 12:29:29 PM Close
Dear Mr. John

I regret that you have personalized my fair reply.
I replied only becoz your passive comment was not amount touching the full version truth

But now it seems that you’re very much offended by ‘Melchizedek’

In the beginning of my article itself I mentioned a Brazilian author who borrowed this idea. I am not a person to challenge Coelho’s creativity or genuineness, since the book contains a story only.

Hence the notion of mysticism is as much as confined to that work, suitable to the context of novel - possible try to read this book - The Alchemist

I don’t want to drawn a doctrine or theology out of that work.. What I did -is that thinking on this notion brought forth OT metaphor of Melchizedek contrasting to the divine ordination of Christ Kingship and Priesthood.

I respect your effort to defend Christ prominence. But the modus operandi was out of track. It is a negative approach, stating that all are bad and nothing, Christ is good. Whereas the positive approach states, all are good and something, but Christ is best and perfect.

Remember.. thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ was said not by humans.. but by God himself

Therefore, these are all the plan of God, and we feel a beauty on there...

I intended only --enjoy that beautiful thought.

Regards,
valaad

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : johnmiller   View Profile   Since : 5 Feb 2008 4:12:22 PM Close
Dear "valaad",

I can assure you that I am not offended in the slightest by your references to Melchizadek. I must confess that I do not follow some of your terminology, but that is probably down to the limitations of my understanding.

What I will defend to the uttermost is the absolute superiority of my Lord Jesus Christ. I trust that this would be your desire and commitment.

May I enquire if you have received Him as Saviour and Lord?

In Christ,

John

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 Feb 2008 8:15:18 AM Close
Dear 'valaad,'

No one is offended, as you think. We only see that you are not writing according to the Word of God, but according to a man's word. That is what Brother John Miller is trying to bring to your attention.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2008 2:54:10 AM Close
Dears

I deliberately abstained from answering certain doubts raised by Mr. John simply bcoz he was deviating from the facts in issue and dragging irrelevant areas, where I don’t think a discussion is necessary.

Firstly I raised certain questions in my article and it was not answered by him, in its place he is beating around the bush.

Secondly Mr. John is arguing from emotional stand point instead of relying reason, such adamant perception shadowed his reason and tendered him more arousing.

Thirdly Mr. John considers these matters with a passive approach, and undervalues the authentic principles of interpretation and construction of scripture.

Dears, with all respect, submitting the following explanations:

Truths about God manifested by divine revelation constitute sacred doctrines; all truths manifested by scared doctrine are either truths about God or truths about creatures in reference to God.

Holy Scripture is a source of divine revelation and hence a source of sacred doctrine. Scripture sometimes imparts a truth by figurative language, but not in such wise as to confuse us. This is right, truth is often taught most effectively by making comparison with material and familiar things, that is, by using a figure of speech such as a simile or metaphor.

Sometimes scripture uses a term with an extension of meaning or a spiritual implication as when Paul (Heb: 10.1) calls the Old Law a figure of the New Law. Here the term ‘The Old Law’ receives the added meaning of a forecast or promise it is suitable that scripture should thus manifest its richness by conveying in literally true words an abundance of implied meaning or suggestions.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2008 2:54:40 AM Close
When two interpretations are claimed for a Scripture, the construction most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. The use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is everywhere to be assumed. The Bible comes to us in the forms of human language, and appeals to our reason, hence, an inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It is a process of reasoning. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise.

Applying this methodology, I think Malkizedek is a suitable figure to explain the kingship and priesthood of Christ.

The prominence of Christ never dims away by any of the characters mentioned in the scripture. Therefore it is unnecessary to underestimate or despise rest of the characters. Mr. John tempted to this area and find them are negative. Interestingly, he says Malkizedek is mortal; in fact all human beings are mortal and no newness in that finding.

Later it is found by Mr. Koshy that I hold man’s word instead of Scripture. This doubt might have aroused at the presence of the ‘name’ of Mr. Coelho, for his clarifications: the remark from book of Alchemist is only an introducing part to the topic and not the substance.

It is very difficult to answer to such affirmative statement unless it is supported with sufficient explanation. I ask, on what ground he is relying to establish his defense?

Regards

Valaad.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2008 7:51:22 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-1

You asked a good question on 15 Feb 2008, “On what ground he is relying to establish his defense?” --- Let me answer this question in advance, for me. The ground of my defense is the Word of God, the Sword of the Lord. I leave it to Brother John Miller to answer that.

Your posting of 15 Feb 2008 raises a few questions:

You wrote, “Holy Scripture is a source of divine revelation and hence a source of sacred doctrine.” --- Could you tell what the other sources of divine revelation are?

You also wrote, “…Paul (Heb: 10.1) calls the Old Law a figure of the New Law. Here the term ‘The Old Law’ receives the added meaning of a forecast or promise …” --- Where did you see this expression “The Old Law” in Hebrews 10:1? In addition, where did you see the expression “the New Law” in Hebrew 10:1? It appears that you are adding to the scriptures, which you said as “a source of divine revelation.” For you, it is only one of the many sources. You might have got these from your other sources.

You also wrote, “When two interpretations are claimed for a Scripture, the construction most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. The use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is everywhere to be assumed.” --- What about a third explanation from the scriptures? You started this thread from Alchemist and you are leading this thread from the Alchemist and your human reason. If you refer to the Word of God, you do not quote it, but write what is not there. An example is “the Old Law” and “the New Law” as you wrote about when you referred to Hebrews 10:1.

(To be cont. Part-2)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2008 7:52:03 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-2

You also wrote, “an inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It is a process of reasoning. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise.” --- You should know that an inference is not a fact. It is a leap of faith into the unknown territories from the known facts or data. This leap of faith into unknown territories is using a process of reasoning and its logical consequences. If you derive your conclusions from given facts or premises, as you wrote, will you provide the fact about Hebrews 10:1? This is a reasonable request to ask for. Could you provide the facts about Melchizedek, also? We know that your source is the Alchemist of Mr. Coelho. Our source is the Word of God.

Since you complained about Brother John Miller not answering your question, I hope that you will not ignore any of my questions.

I am sorry to tell you that we would like to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Because of our commitment to His guidance, we tend to be “passive” in our “observation.” We do not actively introduce unscriptural ideas from the Alchemist of Mr. Coelho or other sources.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2008 3:58:40 AM Close
Dears

I really enjoyed the reply posted by Mr.Koshy, I appreciate him, he raised certain cogent questions there on, since I consider this is an intellectual dialogue, and therefore I hope he will read this reply in that sense only.

Mr.Koshy contented that his source of authority is sola scriptura, but in his discourse he failed keep his stand and borrowed classical dictionary meaning and embraced the reason. This is self contradiction; he is requested to clear his stand point.

Secondly Mr.Koshy highly clinging on the technicality – looking for the spellings of ‘old’ and ‘new’-, hence lacks the spirit of the text. His enthusiasm to proclaim scripture as his source is dubious since he considers himself as an authority that is ultra vires. I never added or deleted from scripture, this may be a problem of his understanding.

Thirdly it is very difficult to sketch from this little paragraph, by what schools of thought Mr Koshy is guided, probably he prefers a literal interpretation, but it is unfair in extending such an ambiguity against him.

Further, his curiosity to view the ‘third explanation’ of Scripture seems to be childish, and do not deserve any answer. He is prima facie erred there and on certain accepted parameters in the general parlance of interpretation. It is not necessary to prove those facts plainly proved to rational beings.

Finally, his contention that, he will not entertain Alchemist as a source, do not deserve any reply since this is not a facts in issue, me too not consider Coelho as an authority.

Cntnd

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2008 3:59:09 AM Close
Dear with all respect:

The scripture is the supreme text, as far concerned man’s utmost means and ends. This is a proved fact. But scripture is not absolute, God is only absolute. Here we need a pause, if you consider scripture is absolute, for me this dialogue is meaningless, because there can not exist two absolute simultaneously.

Scripture is codified through centuries, but divine revelation was evident from the very beginning of universe, for God revealed himself in nature (Ps 19:1), Again from the very creation of man, revelation was evident in man’s conscious (Rom 1:19-20).Again God himself revealed as human by the incarnation of Blessed Lord (Jn 1:18, 14:8-9) revelation of Holy Ghost is approved by Apostles. Again the History upholds the revelation of God by fulfilling each prophecy foretold.

Dears, at last, if God answers to your prayer will you discard the same saying that not a revelation from God? (Job 33: 14-18). Since revelation is a matter under the absolute discretion of God, he chooses appropriate means. Invoking this principle, when there is contradiction arise regarding a particular substance, it should be decided in the light of reason whether it is a revelation or not. For the conformity of facts, scripture is always preferred.

Thus on Mk 12:35-37, is warranted two possible interpretations, (1) Christ is the son of David, (2) Christ is the Lord of David. Both are proved facts in its own premise and reasonable inference removes the absurdity and inconsistency.

Further explained, none of the statements above intended to limit the power of scripture with regards to man’s means and ends.

Mr. Koshy considers human reason is ugly, Further he replaced ‘reasonable inference’ by the expression of ‘leap by faith’ which denotes ‘speculation’ and disfigured the right intention of the term ‘inference’. The precision of inference always depends upon the facts in test tube, this is not a limitation.

Cntnd

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : valaad   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2008 3:59:56 AM Close
Dears
God is absolute intellect and this is a proved fact.
The community of all things in the universe is governed by divine reason. Since God is eternal, divine reason is eternal, being identified with God himself. God created man as a rational creature; human beings share the divine reason by becoming aware of an order in things according to which man is to attain his last ends, his true purpose in existing. Therefore reason is not against God, provided it should be ‘reason’.

Finally, demands on the facts of Malkizedek: many references are given in scripture, you also may be aware of the same. For me, the existence of Malkizedak is a proved fact, firstly scripture says so, secondly History never contradicts the same, and finally this is acceptable to my conscious too.

It is unfair in justifying defects of attitude whether it is consciously or not, invoking the name of Holy Ghost, further I appeal to you, to refrain from these kinds of remarks totally irrelevant to the context.

But I would like to take note an interpretation from your side, based on Ps 2:7 on the comment of ‘today’ attributing to Our Blessed Lord.???

Regards
Valaad

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 22 Feb 2008 10:14:59 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-1

Your postings were interesting. Taking this as the data, I should say that it is misleading in many ways.

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, that I content that my source of authority is sola scriptura. I have not used that term, “sola scriptura.” I am glad to state the Word of God is the final authority for my faith and conduct.

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “… and borrowed classical dictionary meaning and embraced the reason. This is self contradiction …” --- What are you referring to? It will help, if you could expand this further.

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “… looking for the spellings of ‘old’ and ‘new’ … I never added or deleted from scripture” --- Let me quote you from 15 Feb 2008, “Here the term ‘The Old Law’ receives the added meaning of a forecast or promise.” --- Did you write this? When you wrote, “’The Old Law’ receives,” it tells me that that expression is there. I did not ask for the spelling, I asked for the expression, as you implied. When the intentional and extensional meanings of words are in question, then it is the responsibility of the one who made it to explain it. Since, you failed to do so; I could say that you added that expression under question, to the Word of God. I looked, in Hebrews 10:1 and failed to see the expressions, “The Old Law” and the “New Law.”

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “…what schools of thought Mr Koshy is guided …” --- Earlier you wrote that I content that my source of authority is sola scriptura. Now you write that you are ignorant about my school of thought!

Thank you for clarifying by writing, “… me too not consider Coelho as an authority.”

(To be cont. Part-2)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 22 Feb 2008 10:16:13 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-2

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “The scripture is the supreme text, as far concerned man’s utmost means and ends. This is a proved fact. But scripture is not absolute, God is only absolute.” --- Are you saying that the Word of God does not have the attribute of its source, God? This question will be answered, if you could tell us what do you mean by “absolute” and “supreme.” Without that knowledge, I could say that there is a word play and it takes us away from the Word of God.

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “Scripture is codified through centuries, …Again from the very creation of man, revelation was evident in man’s conscious (Rom 1:19-20)… revelation of Holy Ghost is approved by Apostles.” --- Was the Scripture codified through centuries or revealed through centuries? I failed to see this word, “codified” or ‘codify,” in the Bible. Therefore, I have to go by the meaning of it from the world literature. “Codify” means to arrange or systematize. It was done by man and not by God. This codification took place, years after they were given in revelation from God to man. This codification did not take centuries to complete. It was done centuries after. Again, in Romans 1:19-20 I read about the knowledge and not about the conscience. Will you please read those verses and explain how the knowledge of man could be equated to his conscience? The Apostles did not approve the revelation from God. If they did, then they should be in a higher position to accept and reject what God revealed. As far as I can see from the scriptures, the prophets and apostles accepted what was revealed to them without any hesitation or approval (1 Peter 1:10-11).

(To be cont. Part-3)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 22 Feb 2008 10:18:20 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-3

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “when there is contradiction arise regarding a particular substance, it should be decided in the light of reason whether it is a revelation or not. For the conformity of facts, scripture is always preferred.” --- It is evident that you do not accept the Word of God as the final authority for your faith and conduct. On the contrary, your reason is your final authority. About man’s reason, Lord Jesus Christ made a statement in Matthew 6:22, “If therefore the light that is you be darkness, how great is darkness.” He did not say that the ‘light became darkness.’ What the Lord Jesus Christ said was that the light itself is darkness. The human light is something like a dark energy. Those who reject Psalm 119:105, “Your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” by clinging to the light of reason is trying to bring alien teaching in a subtle manner. This is what you did in the next sentence. Why do you say, “Scripture is always preferred,” rather than “the scripture is always to be the final authority?” When we say about preferences, then the man with sinful nature has the authority and not God.

You wrote on 18 Feb 2008, “Mr. Koshy considers human reason is ugly, Further he replaced ‘reasonable inference’ by the expression of ‘leap by faith’ which denotes ‘speculation’ and disfigured the right intention of the term ‘inference’. The precision of inference always depends upon the facts in test tube, this is not a limitation.” --- In this, you are dabbling with words, such as, ‘reasonable inference,’ ‘leap of faith,’ and ‘speculation.’ An inference is different from speculation. There is a huge difference between these two. You used the expression, “reasonable inference,” on 18 Feb 2008 and not before. On 15 Feb 2008, you wrote about inference. Are you subtly changing the argument from ‘inference’ to ‘reasonable inference.’ By doing so, you have added a qualification to ‘inference’ and changed the discussion...(Cont.)

(To be cont. Part-4)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 22 Feb 2008 10:19:23 AM Close
Dear ‘Valaad,’
Part-4

... This subtlety is very interesting, to note. This is true, when they are used within quotes.

You are partially correct when you wrote, “The precision of inference always depends upon the facts in test tube, this is not a limitation.” --- An inference is not the data, but it is derived from the data. Where you went wrong in the expression is, “…this is not a limitation.” It is the limitation of facts or data in the test tube or any ones experience. That is why in all scientific studies, there is a requirement of a “confidence limit” and the “precision level" for the inferences, we make. That is why, in hypothesis testing, the decision rule is, “To reject” or “not to reject” the hypothesis under consideration. It is not “to accept.” Many may say that they accept the hypothesis, but it is not right to do so. If one accepts a hypothesis, then he should not reject what was accepted when some one show how fallible he was, because of falsity of observation, data, or method of analysis. All data derived from observation have inherent limits. In many instances, our inferences are ‘leap of faith’ and our faith is dashed to pieces when the real data contradicts them. Only one data is all that is needed to nullify an inference.

For your information, I do consider human reason is fallible and is governed by the sinful nature of man. I do not consider human reason as ugly, as you wrote. Here is an example of the fallibility of your inference, a leap of faith into the unknown. If we control our reason in the light of the Word of God, then it cannot be ugly, it will be beautiful. There is a big difference between being ‘ugly,’ and ‘fallible.’

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page



Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::
© 2017 Sansnet.com



HOME