Amil Theory/Preterist theory

[Old Timer]

Bible Texts are 94-96% accurate which is miraculous great, ie, however the Context is a different creature.

Evidently you must consider yourself the standard for what is accurate..

How else could you make the claim?

 

[Old Timer]

Context is a different creature.

Evidently..

Some have a truly difficult time understanding the difference between the things which are.. and the things which shall be hereafter..

Even when it tells you on the page in front of your face..

 

[shturt678s]

Evidently you must consider yourself the standard for what is accurate..

How else could you make the claim?

Sorry, been a long time, however one should be able to just Gooble up in today's time as I thought it was general knowledge, eg, the 94-96%?

Old Jack

btw I do recall they did use the manuscripts (Papyri and Uncials) as their primary standard then the rest as secondary, ie, Mr. Metzger and Aland were at the head of the one study that I was impressed with, and spaced out the rest, been decades. I'm just the dummy that brings their works forward thus you must have an issue with them.

Only a head's up, I'm an old man, and the more others dislike to despise me the more I and holy them.

 

[Shocker]

You receive an "A," ie, very esteemed Bible scholars at prestigious Seminaries long ago responed with "Jack, I didn't understand a word you said." I'll raise the bar a little, ie, even if we had the inerrant, infallible, and inspired original Autographs before us, it would still need a contextual interpretation. Bible translations are even more interpretive to the point that Jesus = / = God or Jesus = God for example.

Once we understand there is an issue then the Holy Spirit can work and we are no longer a part of the problem, but a part of the solution of course.



Weak argument when there are approximate 22 diverse 'Statements of Faith" and "born again," eg, you and I have extreme different ways of being "born again, throughout the world per the latest Gov't Census where each think they have the "1" valid way, ie, God's means of grace - glad we're agreeing to disagree again, ie, a heart condition sort of thing.



Again, approaching any interpretation going from the ancient langauges FORWARD to the English, ie, no rocket science here.



Bible Texts are 94-96% accurate which is miraculous great, ie, however the Context is a different creature.

Old Jack again back to agreeing to disagree, ie, now my heart back to sinus

Are you telling me you think salvation in the GNT is somehow taught differently than in the modern translations??

I truly feel this is a cop out.. God gave us bibles in our languages so we had his word.

He didn't keep it "secretly" locked in context in the original texts that only "old jack" was capable of discerning for the world..

Ego much?

 

[Old Timer]

Ego much?

Really.. I thought that I heard it all but this..

 

[Shocker]

Really.. I thought that I heard it all but this..

Ive heard the "you can only understand Gods word in the native language" argument before..

It doesn't hold weight..

The Greek is very precise in its meaning.. That's why our Bibles essentially say the same thing in different ways.


The translations in English that we have encompass the literal to the dynamic, in which we should be so lucky, this makes understanding the Bible even easier..

You can read in the word for word NASB for example, or the "thought for thought" of the NIV or NLT..

They all teach the same doctrine of salvation, and any other doctrine in scripture..

The translation one uses is not relevant. Again, this is where head knowledge vs heart knowledge comes into play.

Some people have head knowledge, but don't truly know Christ.

 

[Old Timer]

Ive heard the "you can only understand Gods word in the native language" argument before..

It doesn't hold weight..

The Greek is very precise in its meaning.. That's why our Bibles essentially say the same thing in different ways.


The translations in English that we have encompass the literal to the dynamic, in which we should be so lucky, this makes understanding the Bible even easier..

You can read in the word for word NASB for example, or the "thought for thought" of the NIV or NLT..

They all teach the same doctrine of salvation, and any other doctrine in scripture..

The translation one uses is not relevant. Again, this is where head knowledge vs heart knowledge comes into play.

Some people have head knowledge, but don't truly know Christ.

I got a chuckle out of the 'context' statement he made.. as he then fails to see the declared context of the things which are versus the things which shall be......

Gotta love the wisdom of the world I guess..

 

[shturt678s]

Are you telling me you think salvation in the GNT is somehow taught differently than in the modern translations??

Salvation taught even by the most accurate Bible translated (say 96-98% accuract) Text would result in diverse God's means of grace (diverse 'statements of faith' and/or 'born again') where each think they have the one valid means of grace due to their extreme interpretive nature.

I truly feel this is a cop out.. God gave us bibles in our languages so we had his word.

God also gave us ICor.12:10 for openers on how the Holy Spirit interprets the Word for us.

He didn't keep it "secretly" locked in context in the original texts that only "old jack" was capable of discerning for the world..

Ego much?

btw I glory in my abnegation hourly. Sadly the Parables are more veiled than ever before, ie, you wouldn't have the slightest idea regarding the simple inrterpretation of the Sower in Matt. (of great import due to dealing with the supreme concept in the N.T., ie, Kingdom of God), ie, no rocket science, or ego here, ie, just the facts.

Old Jack rechecking my id

 

[shturt678s]

Evidently..

Some have a truly difficult time understanding the difference between the things which are.. and the things which shall be hereafter..

Even when it tells you on the page in front of your face..

I still only see "1" more Coming of our Lord, ie, not 3 or 4 more? Jn.5:28, 29, ie, a reality.

Old Jack

 

[Shocker]

Salvation taught even by the most accurate Bible translated (say 96-98% accuract) Text would result in diverse God's means of grace

I doubt that.

Salvation comes one way, by Grace, through faith.

This simple truth is all one needs for salvation, to live with and know Christ.


I have little respect for those who claim the bible is so flawed we have to rely on the manuscripts to glean its truths.

End of the day, you will believe only what you want to believe, nothing more.

 

[Old Timer]

I still only see "1" more Coming of our Lord, ie, not 3 or 4 more? Jn.5:28, 29, ie, a reality.

Old Jack

I'm not sure what that has to do with understanding the difference between the things which are and the things which shall be hereafter?

Although with respect to how many times Christ is coming.. that's an interesting subject in itself.. and perhaps the primary reason Israel missed His coming the first time..

 

[Old Timer]

I have little respect for those who claim the bible is so flawed we have to rely on the manuscripts to glean its truths.

Hear Hear..

 

[Old Timer]

Here's a heads up..

The reason that some things are called the things which shall be hereafter.. might be because they are the things which shall be, here.. after..

 

[shturt678s]

I doubt that.

For example, the RCC has a totally different way of being "born again" than the RT camp that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Lutheran camp that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Southern Baptist that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Methodist that has a totally different way fo being "born again" your way and the list goes on and on, ie, just Google it up or look at the latest Gov't Census on Religions - btw I did, and do use both? You doubt that, ie, show me one place where I'm in error, and they are the same using God's means of grace?

Salvation comes one way, by Grace, through faith.

One valid way, yes!

This simple truth is all one needs for salvation, to live with and know Christ.

Shame on you, ie, where is "repentance"? You know better than that. Even the theif on the Cross was repentant.

I have little respect for those who claim the bible is so flawed we have to rely on the manuscripts to glean its truths.

The Text are not flawed, ie, they need an interpretation by the Holy Spirit.

End of the day, you will believe only what you want to believe, nothing more.

you're forgetting one thing, ie, I'm one of a very few that is heartfully refutable on the planet, ie, show me an error on my former posit? Show me where one setting is the same as another in my former posit and I'll gladly be refuted.

Old refutable Jack

 

[Shocker]

For example, the RCC has a totally different way of being "born again" than the RT camp that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Lutheran camp that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Southern Baptist that has a totally different way of being "born again" than the Methodist that has a totally different way fo being "born again" your way and the list goes on and on, ie, just Google it up or look at the latest Gov't Census on Religions - btw I did, and do use both? You doubt that, ie, show me one place where I'm in error, and they are the same using God's means of grace?



One valid way, yes!



Shame on you, ie, where is "repentance"? You know better than that. Even the theif on the Cross was repentant.



The Text are not flawed, ie, they need an interpretation by the Holy Spirit.



you're forgetting one thing, ie, I'm one of a very few that is heartfully refutable on the planet, ie, show me an error on my former posit? Show me where one setting is the same as another in my former posit and I'll gladly be refuted.

Old refutable Jack

Im sorry Jack, but faith is the only requirement for salvation, it cannot be of works of any kind.. Some of those in the OT understood this, and Christians should fundamentally grasp this.

We can get into semantics about what else would demonstrate a Christ like person, but lets be honest, nothing we can be or try not to be is to usurp our faith first and foremost.

Nothing we can offer, no act we can do, nothing substitutes the power that comes in faith in Christ.

Submission and repentance are intrinsically woven into ones salvation, if you are saved, you are always repenting. The flesh is sin.


There are probably over 150 verses that deal with faith specifically in this context.

If not more.

 

[shturt678s]

Im sorry Jack, but faith is the only requirement for salvation,

The demons believe that One is God, eg, the shema at Jam.2:19 and believed that Jesus was the Son of God (Matt.8:29). :o

Only a head's up, ie, all Lutherans, including even the moderns, when sola fide is used (Rom3:28) it means apart from works of law, ie, not works of faith where one is judged at the last day (Rev.20:12).

My heart goes out to you as when I had the professor's back pinned to the wall regarding an interpretation, they would come back accussing me of a reductio ad absurdum or a sematics issue, ie, almost lost my G.I. Bill over it.

it cannot be of works of any kind.. Some of those in the OT understood this, and Christians should fundamentally grasp this.

We can get into semantics about what else would demonstrate a Christ like person, but lets be honest, nothing we can be or try not to be is to usurp our faith first and foremost.

Nothing we can offer, no act we can do, nothing substitutes the power that comes in faith in Christ.

Submission and repentance are intrinsically woven into ones salvation, if you are saved, you are always repenting. The flesh is sin.


There are probably over 150 verses that deal with faith specifically in this context.

If not more.

I'll back off regarding 'repentance' and give you the same slack I gave the profs. long ago. Once one hits 50, a paradigm shift is almost impossible and again my heart goes out to you, ie, I'm almost 75 and absolutely impossible for me, ie, I'm just a little more honest than most due to not even wanting to offend a Living God in case He is watching.

Old Jack

Apprciate you and your words.