Poll on salvation. Eternal security (osas) vs. works and grace are both required.

FreeGrace2 said:

You've got to choose between the two. They CONTRADICT each other.

The correct translation of Gen 1:2 creates NOT contradiction with Isas 45:18.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth, BUT the earth BECAME a wasteland (tohu).

Therefore, God did NOT create the earth yohu. Agreeing with Isa 45:18.

Why don't you address the contradiction your opinion creates with Isa 45:18?

Click to expand...

I have addressed the issue of meaning of both Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18; In Isaiah, God is telling of his purpose in creating the Cosmos, and particularly the earth, as a place to not be void or empty (both legitimate meanings of tohu) of inhabitants but rather to be finally inhabited, particularly with mankind. If I apply this to Gen 1:2, as I interpret it, then the tohu is merely a stage in the process of creating the earth, and not a completed state. On the other hand, if we apply Isa to Gen as you see it, then there is a necessary implication that the former completed earth was inhabited by men, which means, among other things, that Adam was not the first man on earth! Such assumptions are not in evidence, nor are they warranted. Occam's razor precludes such imaginary foundations.

Doug

FreeGrace2 said:

Nothing I've posted is a theory. It's exegesis of Scripture.

Click to expand...

And what authority do you have to pronounce it to be a non-theory? While I firmly believe that my position is the most logical and hermeneutically consistent, I do not think it to be the only possible option, thus, is is a working theory of what is being said. The majority point of theorizing, indeed, but still yet a theory!

Doug

Doug

TibiasDad said:

Are you asserting that there has been an agenda for over 6,000 years of translation

Click to expand...

Where do you get "6,000 years" of transation? Moses didn't write the Pentateuch 6,000 years ago. More like 1,400 - 1450 BC. Let's not exaggerate.

over which time probably 99% of the translating and commentary of such has been in favor of the traditional view?

Click to expand...

You have no idea how many translations have been done since Moses wrote Gen 1 or in how many languages. So your "probably" is merely another opinion.

(That is why, after all, that it is called the traditional view; meaning implicitly that all other points of view are non-traditional!)

Click to expand...

This is funny. The TT of Gen 1:2 CREATES a HUGE CONTRADICTION with Isa 45:18. Yeah, that's real smart of the TT.

As for "lack of information" and "stupidity", the former cannot be logically held for the scholars of the last 6,000 years. Certainly, those such as you and me, those with no formal training in Hebrew language (And to my understanding, it is a quite difficult language to understand), there is a lack of knowledge, or ignorance, but it can not be said of those who undertake translation of the Bible, especially today, in which these efforts are undertaken by a diverse and bi-partisan group of individual scholars who will not suffer a deliberately biased translation.

Click to expand...

Are you calling "BUT the earth BECAME a WASTELAND" a "deliberately biaswed translation? Seriously? I've already proven from the use of those SAME key words in v.2 that they are translated quite differently in the other uses in the OT. That's HARDLY a "biased translation".

This is really weird. You admit the earth is way older than Adam, but your fav TT leads directly to a very young earth. Don't you see your own problem here?

TibiasDad said:

I have addressed the issue of meaning of both Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18; In Isaiah, God is telling of his purpose in creating the Cosmos, and particularly the earth, as a place to not be void or empty (both legitimate meanings of tohu) of inhabitants but rather to be fimally inhabited, particularly with mankind.

Click to expand...

First, 'tohu' isn't translated as "void" anywhere else where it occurs. Didn't you do your research? So, I'll have to do it for you. Here are all the verses with 'tohu':

1 Samuel 12:21
HEB: יַצִּ֖ילוּ כִּי־ תֹ֥הוּ הֵֽמָּה׃
NAS: futile things which
KJV: nor deliver; for they [are] vain.
INT: deliver because things like

Job 26:7
HEB: צָפ֣וֹן עַל־ תֹּ֑הוּ תֹּ֥לֶה אֶ֝֗רֶץ
NAS: over empty space And hangs
KJV: the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth
INT: the north over empty and hangs the earth

Isaiah 24:10
HEB: נִשְׁבְּרָ֖ה קִרְיַת־ תֹּ֑הוּ סֻגַּ֥ר כָּל־
NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;
KJV: The city of confusion is broken down:
INT: is broken the city of chaos is shut Every

Isaiah 34:11
HEB: עָלֶ֛יהָ קַֽו־ תֹ֖הוּ וְאַבְנֵי־ בֹֽהוּ׃
NAS: it the line of desolation And the plumb line
KJV: upon it the line of confusion, and the stones
INT: over the line of desolation and the plumb of emptiness

Isaiah 44:9
HEB: פֶ֤סֶל כֻּלָּם֙ תֹּ֔הוּ וַחֲמוּדֵיהֶ֖ם בַּל־
NAS: are all of them futile, and their precious things
KJV: a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things
INT: A graven are all futile and their precious no

Isaiah 45:18
HEB: כֽוֹנְנָ֔הּ לֹא־ תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָ֖הּ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת
NAS: it [and] did not create it a waste place, [but] formed
KJV: it, he created it not in vain, he formed
INT: established not a waste create to be inhabited

Isaiah 45:19
HEB: לְזֶ֥רַע יַעֲקֹ֖ב תֹּ֣הוּ בַקְּשׁ֑וּנִי אֲנִ֤י
NAS: Seek Me in a waste place; I, the LORD,
KJV: Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD
INT: to the offspring of Jacob a waste Seek I

Isaiah 59:4
HEB: בָּט֤וֹחַ עַל־ תֹּ֙הוּ֙ וְדַבֶּר־ שָׁ֔וְא
NAS: They trust in confusion and speak
KJV: they trust in vanity, and speak
INT: trust in confusion and speak lies

Jeremiah 4:23
HEB: הָאָ֔רֶץ וְהִנֵּה־ תֹ֖הוּ וָבֹ֑הוּ וְאֶל־
NAS: and behold, [it was] formless and void;
KJV: the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void;
INT: the earth and behold formless and void and to

Regarding Jer 4:23, let's look at the whole context:
5 “Announce in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem and say: ‘Sound the trumpet throughout the land!’ Cry aloud and say: ‘Gather together! Let us flee to the fortified cities!’
6 Raise the signal to go to Zion! Flee for safety without delay! For I am bringing disaster from the north, even terrible destruction.”
7 A lion has come out of his lair; a destroyer of nations has set out. He has left his place to lay waste your land. Your towns will lie in ruins without inhabitant.
11 At that time this people and Jerusalem will be told, “A scorching wind from the barren heights in the desert blows toward my people, but not to winnow or cleanse;
12 a wind too strong for that comes from me. Now I pronounce my judgments against them.”
13 Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined!
15 A voice is announcing from Dan, proclaiming disaster from the hills of Ephraim.
16 “Tell this to the nations, proclaim concerning Jerusalem: ‘A besieging army is coming from a distant land, raising a war cry against the cities of Judah.
20 Disaster follows disaster; the whole land lies in ruins. In an instant my tents are destroyed, my shelter in a moment.
23 I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
27 This is what the LORD says: “The whole land will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely.

Note all the red words: disaster, ruin, terrible destruction, destroyer. The blue words don't fit the context. The better fit is "wasteland", uninhabitable wilderness or waste place.

If I apply this to Gen 1:2, as I interpret it, then the tohu is merely a stage in the process of creating the earth, and not a completed state.

Click to expand...

But you have a huge contradiction. For Gen 1:2 says God created the earth tohu, but Isa 45:18 says God did NOT create the earth tohu.

So, however you finagle the meaning of 'tohu' you've got a problem as long as to cling to the TT.

On the other hand, if we apply Isa to Gen as you see it, then there is a necessary implication that the former completed earth was inhabited by men, which !eans, among other things, that Adam was not the first man on earth!

Click to expand...

Now comes the theory. I've made no such suggestion of humans before Adam. In fact, I reject such an idea. But you're probably getting closer to the truth about life on planet earth before Adam. But we just don't know, because God didn't tell us.

But again, I am just amazed that you believe in a very old earth but cling to the TT of Gen 1:2, which leads directly to a very young earth.

I don't think you've thought through your theories very much.

Such assumptions are not in evidence, nor are they warranted. Occam's razor precludes such imaginary foundations.
Doug

Click to expand...

I've made no assumptions. But you have, all through this discussion. You're the one with assumptions. Like above.

But you can't shake the contradiction with the TT of Gen 1:2 and isa 45:18. No matter how hard you may try.

I said:
"Nothing I've posted is a theory. It's exegesis of Scripture."

TibiasDad said:

And what authority do you have to pronounce it to be a non-theory?

Click to expand...

By the authority of truth. Please show me ANY part of my understanding of Gen 1:2 that can be called a "theory". That should be rich.

I've addressed the key words in v.2 and have shown from lexicons what they mean in other verses in the OT. How is any of that "theory"?

You're just backed into a corner, and desperate to get out of it. But calling my position a "theory" is ridiculous.

You're the one who has tried to insert theories into this discussion, and I'm the one who has repeatedly noted that NO ONE knows what happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. So, I've got NO theories. To claim such is absurd.

While I firmly believe that my position is the most logical and hermeneutically consistent

Click to expand...

But you haven't shown that. Not even close to that.

I do not think it to be the only possible option, thus, is is a working theory of what is being said. The majority point of theorizing, indeed, but still yet a theory!
Doug

Click to expand...

You are full of theories, but I have NONE. I have the Hebrew language, and I even brought in the Greek word 'ktisis' and showed from a lexicon that it properly means "create from a state of disorder and wildness".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2936: κτίζω

κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly, to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.

So from 2 independent Greek lexicon sources, this Greek word for ‘creation’ refers to a creation from a state of disorder and wildness. Or, to make something habitable that wasn’t habitable before.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.

The major mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse) are all parallel accounts, with the names changed among the 3, which is best explained by understanding that Genesis 6 involved fallen angels contaminating the human race, which led God to destroy it, save 8 people; Noah and his family.

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations. So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology & Exegesis, by Sylva, notes that κτίζω is used in the the Septuagint for the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra 5:17. It further notes that the word group for κτίζω is used always of divine creation, with 1 exception, in 1 Pet 2:13.

Silva also connects κτίζω with the believer being a new creation. This point is also noted in Kittel’s text. This parallels the restoration of the earth in Gen 1 with regeneration of the believer.

All this just sinks your boat.

I've used scholarly texts and lexicons that support my claim. You've used only theories that don't apply to my claim.

And your view is full of a huge contradiction between the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18.

It seems you aren't even aware of that, even though I've pointed it out multiple times.

FreeGrace2 said:

Where do you get "6,000 years" of transation? Moses didn't write the Pentateuch 6,000 years ago. More like 1,400 - 1450 BC. Let's not exaggerate.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, so let's say 3,500 years of translation. The point still stands, agendas do not last that long!

Doug

TibiasDad said:

Fair enough, so let's say 3,500 years of translation. The point still stands, agendas do not last that long!

Doug

Click to expand...

Again, no. Not 3,500 years of translation. Moses wrote Genesis. When do you think translations began to show up?

Furthermore, where do you get the notion that I have an "agenda" anyway? All I've spoken of are some key words in Gen 1:2 and how they are used elsewhere in the OT, to show how translators understood them.

There is NOTHING I've posted that can be linked to an "agenda". That is ludicrous.

My understanding of Gen 1:2 is solidly based on HOW the key words are used elsewhere. That's not an agenda. That's the FACT.

And, my understanding supports my view of earth age.

Yours certainly doesn't. Which is weird.

So, you've got 2 contradictions going on.

First one: you accept the TT of Gen 1:2 which leads to a very young earth, yet you believe in a very old earth. That's a contradiction.

Second one: The TT of Gen 1:2 directly contradicts Isa 45:18.

God either created the earth 'tohu' or He didn't. So the TT of Gen 1:2 cannot be true. Or Isaiah isn't true.

Yet, the Holy Spirit INSPIRED both Moses and Isaiah in their writings. So, I guess the buck stops with the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe He has contradicted Himself?

Anyway, stop with your "agenda" nonsense. I have none. I believe the earth is very old, and it is based on Gen 1:2, but just not the TT. And it supports my view of earth age.

You can't even say that. How do you explain a very old earth AND accept the TT of Gen 1:2? They are incompatible.

FreeGrace2 said:

Note all the red words: disaster, ruin, terrible destruction, destroyer. The blue words don't fit the context. The better fit is "wasteland", uninhabitable wilderness or waste place.

Click to expand...

And yet, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs at Biblehub.com discussing tohu:

תֹּ֫הוּ noun masculine1Samuel 12:21 (AlbrZAW xvi (1896), 112) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness (primary meaning difficult to seize; Vrss usually Κενόν, οὐδέν, μάταιον, inane, vacuum, vanum; compare LagOr. ii. 60; BN 144); —
1 formlessness, of primaeval earth Genesis 1:2 (P), of land reduced to primaeval chaos Jeremiah 4:23 (both + וָבֹהוּ and voidness), Isaiah 34:11 ׳קַותֿֿ ("" אַבְנֵי בֹהוּ), Isaiah 45:18 בְרָאָהּ ׳לֹא ת ("" לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָתּ); Isaiah 24:10 ׳קִרְיַתאתּ city of chaos (of ruined city); = nothingness, empty space, Job 26:7 תֹּלֶה אֶרֶץ ׳עַלתּֿ; of empty, trackless waste Deuteronomy 32:10 ("" מִדְבָּר), Job 6:18; Job 12:24 = Psalm 107:40.

2 figurative of what is empty, unreal, as idols 1 Samuel 12:21 (collective: אֲשֶׁר ׳אַחֲרֵי הַתּ לֹא יוֺעִילוּ), 1 Samuel 12:21; Isaiah 41:29 נִסְכֵּיהֶם ׳רוּחַ וָת, Isaiah 44:9 (of idol-makers), groundless arguments or considerations, Isaiah 29:21 צַדִּיק ׳וַיַּטּוּ בַתּ, Isaiah 59:4 moral unreality or falsehood ׳בָּטוֺחַ עַלאתּ ("" וְדַבֶּרשָֿׁוְא); = a thing of nought (compare Ecclus 41:10 מתהו אל תהו), Isaiah 40:17 ("" אַיִן אֶפֶס), Isaiah 40:23 עָשָׂה ׳שֹׁפְטֵי אֶרֶץ כַּתּ ("" לְאַיִן), worthlessness Isaiah 49:19 וְהֶבֶל כֹּחִי כִלֵּיתִי ׳לְת ("" לְרִיק יָגַעְתִּי); as adverb accusative Isaiah 45:19 I said not, תֹּהוּ בַקְּשׁוּנִי seek me emptily, to no purpose. compare Isaiah 29:13 ᵐ5 וְתֹהוּ for וַתְּהִי.


Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. Desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain -- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

Furthermore, regarding Jer 4:23, " I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone." Do you think that the lights of heaven were really gone? Jeremiah is using hyperbole to describe the coming utter destruction, so he uses an image from another point of reference, when God has yet to complete his creation, when it was not yet habitable, before God had made it ready for human or animal life! The image would have been very familiar to the Hebrew mind!

Doug

FreeGrace2 said:

First one: you accept the TT of Gen 1:2 which leads to a very young earth, yet you believe in a very old earth. That's a contradiction.

Click to expand...

The TT does not necessarily lead to a "very young earth", especially if you take verses 3-31 as a poem, and that as a poem "yom" is to be taken figuratively, not literally. There was evening (a starting point/first half) and morning (second half/ending of the period/day).

FreeGrace2 said:

First, 'tohu' isn't translated as "void" anywhere else where it occurs. Didn't you do your research? So, I'll have to do it for you. Here are all the verses with 'tohu':

Click to expand...

And Jer 4:23 in all the examples NAS, KJV, and interlinear use the term "void".

Doug

TibiasDad said:

And yet, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs at Biblehub.com discussing tohu:

תֹּ֫הוּ noun masculine1Samuel 12:21 (AlbrZAW xvi (1896), 112) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness (primary meaning difficult to seize; Vrss usually Κενόν, οὐδέν, μάταιον, inane, vacuum, vanum; compare LagOr. ii. 60; BN 144); —
1 formlessness, of primaeval earth Genesis 1:2 (P), of land reduced to primaeval chaos Jeremiah 4:23 (both + וָבֹהוּ and voidness), Isaiah 34:11 ׳קַותֿֿ ("" אַבְנֵי בֹהוּ), Isaiah 45:18 בְרָאָהּ ׳לֹא ת ("" לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָתּ); Isaiah 24:10 ׳קִרְיַתאתּ city of chaos (of ruined city); = nothingness, empty space, Job 26:7 תֹּלֶה אֶרֶץ ׳עַלתּֿ; of empty, trackless waste Deuteronomy 32:10 ("" מִדְבָּר), Job 6:18; Job 12:24 = Psalm 107:40.

Click to expand...

OK, here's what I read:
"primary meaning difficult to seize". No doubt because no one wants to translate Gen 1:2 CORRECTLy. It makes the YEC very uneasy.
"of land REDUCED to...CHAOS"
"ruined city"
"trackless waste".

Are you paying any attention to BDB?

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. Desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain -- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

Click to expand...

Right. Amen. Are you finally getting the point? Do you understand what "lie waste" means? If not, how about "lay waste"? Same thing.

I'm waiting for you to address the huge condraction you have with the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18. Or do you even understand that there is one?

TibiasDad said:

The TT does not necessarily lead to a "very young earth"

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?? Of course it does! Clearly it does. But you're just in denial.

The TT says "God created the earth tohu".

Yet, Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create the earth tohu".

especially if you take verses 3-31 as a poem, and that as a poem "yom" is to be taken figuratively, not literally. There was evening (a starting point/first half) and morning (second half/ending of the period/day).

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but you pointed out that it takes a sunrise and sunset to determine a 24 hour day. Well, you've got 3 specific days AFTER the sun was created.

So, what is clear is that you just don't want to admit that God's days are literal.

And Jer 4:23 in all the examples NAS, KJV, and interlinear use the term "void".

Doug

Click to expand...

Again, 13% of the 27 English translations (nearly 50%) translated 'tohu' in Isa 45:18 as "chaos, waste place" etc. Quit hiding behind Jer 4:23. And I gave you the whole context before v.23. Nothing but destruction.

You are just kidding yourself.

So why do you prefer the TT of Gen 1:2 when it contradicts Isa 45:18?

Did God create the earth tohu?

Or, did God NOT create the earth tohu?

Which one is it?

Your view is contradicted. Mine is not. God did NOT create the earth tohu, regardless of how that word is used in either verse.

The earth BECAME tohu. Obviously.

FreeGrace2 said:

Excuse me, but you pointed out that it takes a sunrise and sunset to determine a 24 hour day. Well, you've got 3 specific days AFTER the sun was created.

So, what is clear is that you just don't want to admit that God's days are literal.

Click to expand...

I said that, according to you, the literal interpretation is sunset to sunrise (evening/morning =1 day=24 hours) and that the designation of this is sunset to sunrise. But there is no sun and moon in the literal version until Day 4, so the literal means of determining a Day is not available for the first three days so how can we apply the literal standard of measurement?

I have never asserted that I thought that is the measurement, for I do not. I think the "yom" is is a figurative image that God employs to establish the concept of a work week and a Sabbath day of rest. If the first six days are literal, then so is the seventh, but the seventh is still ongoing, so there can be no literal sense of meaning.

Doug

FreeGrace2 said:

Did God create the earth tohu?

Or, did God NOT create the earth tohu?

Which one is it?

Your view is contradicted. Mine is not. God did NOT create the earth tohu, regardless of how that word is used in either verse.

The earth BECAME tohu. Obviously.

Click to expand...

This will, more than likely, be my final comment on this subject because is has become redundant in its redundancies! I posted a link to an short eight page article countering Mr. Custance's stance on tohu, here is one point of that article:


Linguistics of ‘become’ / ‘became’

[8] hyth becomes ‘became’ only when it is accompanied (more often followed) at some point within the sentence by an additional linguistic component, like the Hebrew letter ‘l’ (‘lamed’). Without this additional (prepositional) ‘l’ component hyth could not have the sense of ‘became,’ it would remain ‘was.’

This additional ‘l’ element acts as a preposition: ‘to’ (sometimes there may be another preposition. See [11](a), and n.5). In ‘became’ translations this Hebrew ‘l’ (‘lamed’), in English ‘to,’ is rarely apparent. This is because ‘became’ is a composite of ‘l’ (or some other preposition) combined with the verb ‘to be’ (e.g., ‘was’). It could be put literally as: ‘it was to’ = ‘became.’

In fact, in Gen 2:10 the translators actually have gone further and added ‘(in)to’ in their ‘became’ rendering!

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

Of course, hundreds of instances of this ‘became’ (= ‘was’ plus ‘to’) construction exist in the Hebrew Bible.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that none of the 27 versions listed on Biblehub renders tohu as became. Not one, including the JPS Tanakh 1917 or Young's Literal translation! Why, is a question for you to deal with, not me, but it seems that both older and newer contemporary translation efforts have all come to the same academic conclusion as to the proper translation of the words. So until I learn Hebrew, I'll have to trust in the hundreds , if not thousands, of years worth of knowledge and experience represented by those who did the work of translating and all ended up at the same place! That's not an agenda, that is a miracle!

Doug

FreeGrace2 said:

I asked:
"Thank you for your concern about what Jesus taught, but I must ask why to continue to reject what He taught about those who are given the gift of eternal life on the basis of believing in Him for it; that they SHALL NEVER PERISH."

First, you have ignored my question.

Second, it is true that hearing and obeying and following WILL result in inheriting eternal life, but that's not what I said. I said being given the gift of eternal life.

So you have shown you cannot discern between being the gift of eternal life and inheriting eternal life. They are different. One is salvation, and the other is eternal reward for faithfulness.


The red words are a description of what His sheep DO. Recall that they are already His sheep. So there are NO CONDITIONS here that result in a result. I recommend you do some remedial studying on what a conditional clause is and how to recognize one.

The blue words is what Jesus does for His sheep.

The green words are the result of being given eternal life.

And you cannot prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sorry Freegrace, we must trust Jesus and Jesus alone if we are to inherit eternal life.


Jesus is the only One we trust and no one else for salvation.

Which is why we are to obey Him and no one else.

After all we have confessed Him as our Lord, so we need to trust Him and obey Him as our Lord. He wants us to love His people; the people of His kingdom, and do what is right toward them.

That being said let's discuss some scriptures that speak to our position that we both agree upon.

And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16


If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 1 John 4:20


“If you love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15


If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 1 John 15:10


Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15


He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 2:4


Everything in these scriptures involves trusting Jesus and therefore living our life in the way of loving and trusting Him, and therefore loving and our neighbor.


Do you agree?

TibiasDad said:

I said that, according to you, the literal interpretation is sunset to sunrise (evening/morning =1 day=24 hours) and that the designation of this is sunset to sunrise. But there is no sun and moon in the literal version until Day 4, so the literal means of determining a Day is not available for the first three days so how can we apply the literal standard of measurement?

I have never asserted that I thought that is the measurement, for I do not. I think the "yom" is is a figurative image that God employs to establish the concept of a work week and a Sabbath day of rest. If the first six days are literal, then so is the seventh, but the seventh is still ongoing, so there can be no literal sense of meaning.

Doug

Click to expand...

You still don't admit your contradiction with the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18. Why?

I asked:
"Did God create the earth tohu?

Or, did God NOT create the earth tohu?

Which one is it?"

TibiasDad said:

This will, more than likely, be my final comment on this subject because is has become redundant in its redundancies!

Click to expand...

No. Rather, you've run out of excuses and have no defense for your contradiction!

I posted a link to an short eight page article countering Mr. Custance's stance on tohu, here is one point of that article:

Linguistics of ‘become’ / ‘became’

[8] hyth becomes ‘became’ only when it is accompanied (more often followed) at some point within the sentence by an additional linguistic component, like the Hebrew letter ‘l’ (‘lamed’). Without this additional (prepositional) ‘l’ component hyth could not have the sense of ‘became,’ it would remain ‘was.’

Click to expand...

Why don't you understand that "become/became" isn't even the issue here? The issue is that the TT of Gen 1:2 CONTRADICTS Isa 45:18. Just look at my question again.

Both statements cannot be true. Anyone can see that. The issue is 'tohu'. Either God DID create the earth tohu or He didn't create the earth tohu.

The TT of Gen 1:2 says God DID. Ia 45:18 says God DIDN'T.

You've got a huge problem on your hands, but it seems you don't even seem to notice.


[/QUOTE]Whatever the reason, the fact remains that none of the 27 versions listed on Biblehub renders tohu as became. Not one, including the JPS Tanakh 1917 or Young's Literal translation![/QUOTE]
Have you not done your research again? Let's look at Isa 45:18-

New Living Translation
For the LORD is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the LORD,” he says, “and there is no other.

New American Standard Bible
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Christian Standard Bible
For this is what the LORD says--the Creator of the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, the one who established it (he did not create it to be a wasteland, but formed it to be inhabited)--he says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Good News Translation
The LORD created the heavens--he is the one who is God! He formed and made the earth--he made it firm and lasting. He did not make it a desolate waste, but a place for people to live. It is he who says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other god.

International Standard Version
For this is what the LORD says, who created the heavens— he is God, and the one who formed the earth and made it, and he is the one who established it; he didn't create it for chaos, but formed it to be inhabited— "I am the LORD and there is no other.

NET Bible
For this is what the LORD says, the one who created the sky--he is the true God, the one who formed the earth and made it; he established it, he did not create it without order, he formed it to be inhabited--"I am the LORD, I have no peer.

New Heart English Bible
For thus says the LORD who created the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, who established it and did not create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

JPS Tanakh 1917
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens, He is God; That formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else.


New American Standard 1977
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.

American Standard Version
For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.

Darby Bible Translation
For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else.

English Revised Version
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; he is God; that formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


World English Bible
For thus says Yahweh who created the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, who established it and didn't create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited: "I am Yahweh; and there is no other.

So much for the JPS Tanakh. And 13 of the 27 translated 'tohu' as above.

You have no case. The TT of Gen 1:2 contradicts 50% of the English translations in Isa 45:18.

And, once again, your confusion over preferring the TT of Gen 1:2 which leads directly to a very young earth, even though you believe ina very old earth.

Amazing.

I asked:
"Thank you for your concern about what Jesus taught, but I must ask why to continue to reject what He taught about those who are given the gift of eternal life on the basis of believing in Him for it; that they SHALL NEVER PERISH."

JLB777 said:

Sorry Freegrace, we must trust Jesus and Jesus alone if we are to inherit eternal life.

Click to expand...

Why do you continue to ignore my question?

And, inheriting eternal life is based on faithfulness and obedience, but the gift of eternal life is based on grace and faith in Jesus Christ alone for it. But you've shown no discernment in that area.

Jesus is the only One we trust and no one else for salvation.

Click to expand...

Which is why we are to obey Him and no one else.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not for salvation. For reward.

Everything in these scriptures involves trusting Jesus and therefore living our life in the way of loving and trusting Him, and therefore loving and our neighbor.

Do you agree?

Click to expand...

Yes, these verses do involve this. But NONE of them involve lifestyle for salvation.
What you seem unable to discern is that salvation is a free gift and eternal reward is earned.

You've conflated the 2 issues into 1 mess.

FG2: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. John 10:27-28

In Response: The context & explanation:

NKJ John 10:24—30 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 "I and My Father are one."

In verse 24-25 The issue being intensely discussed in J10 is whether or not someone (generally speaking) believes Jesus is the Christ. This is the context as this discussion proceeds:

Jesus tells those He is speaking to that they do not believe [He is the Christ] – 25

In the context of who does, or doesn’t believe Jesus is the Christ, at the end of verse 26, Jesus tells those He’s speaking to that He has said to them before, at minimum what’s in verse 27. Then, once more, He tells them in verse 27 what those He knows as His sheep do: Jesus tells them again that His sheep hear His voice & follow Him, and that He knows them. A couple things to note here: (1) hear His voice & follow Him are parallel statements and thus are essentially unified; (2) He knows them (His sheep) is the central point in verse 27 as Jesus is telling those who He is speaking to that He knows His sheep and He in effect thus knows who are not His sheep. It’s like saying: I know who you are and are not, and I’m explaining how/why I know it.

In verse 26 the word translated as “because” is the Greek word “gar,” which is mainly a marker of cause, or reason, or clarification. Mostly, it’s translated as “for,” which to me can be a bit nebulous. SO, to paraphrase:

You don’t believe Jesus is the Christ for you are not of His sheep / you do not hear His voice and follow Him as His sheep do. He does not know you.

You do not believe Jesus is the Christ because you are not of His sheep / you do not hear His voice and follow Him as His sheep do. He does not know you.

You do not believe Jesus is the Christ – the reason is you are not of His sheep / you do not hear Him & follow Him as His sheep do. He does not know you.

You do not believe Jesus is the Christ – Explanation: You are not of His sheep / you do not hear His voice & follow Him as His sheep do. He does not know you.

No matter what your choice of translating gar is, it all tells us essentially the same thing: If you do not hear Jesus voice & follow Him, then (1) you do not believe Jesus is the Christ; (2) you are not of His sheep; (3) He does not know you.

IOW those not of His sheep / those who don’t hear & follow Him <> don’t believe He is the Christ.

IOW being one of Jesus’ sheep equates to hearing & following Him & believing He is the Christ AND believing Jesus is the Christ & hearing & following Him equates to being one of His sheep.

To make this point another way: If you do not hear Jesus voice & follow Him and Jesus does not know you, then you do not believe Jesus is the Christ.

In verse 28 Jesus states what He gives to and provides for those He knows who: (1) believe He is the Christ; (2) hear His voice & follow Him.


FG2: The red words are a description of what His sheep DO.

In Response: Agree provided this in context is also what those who believe Jesus is the Christ do, since those He knows as His sheep—those who hear His voice & follow Him are the same ones as those who believe He is the Christ.


FG2: Recall that they are already His sheep.

In Response: Apart from explanation, unclear what this means, or what it means to this discussion.

John 10 has the most mention of sheep in the New Covenant Writings and it’s in an intense Old Covenant based discussion between Jesus and some of the Pharisees (9:40). There’s nothing I see in these John 10 verses that says exactly how one becomes of Jesus’ sheep. It just says that His sheep hear, know & follow – His sheep believe.

SO, if “recall that they are already His sheep” means what John10 is saying throughout: that His sheep are (or in context, were) in existence and He was sent out to find them, I’d likely find agreement. In context, J10 is mainly about the Jewish Remnant (with an additional sheepfold mention in J10:16).

One thing about John10:28 that is clarified earlier in John10:4 is: Jesus’ sheep follow Him because (“hoti” not “gar”) they know His voice. SO, in the context of John 10: Jesus’s sheep are there in Israel (including some not of “this sheepfold” 10:16); He comes & they hear His voice & follow Him because they know His voice. We can research Scripture to see how believing He is the Christ fit’s in here and if there’s some sequence to the process – such as: hear > know > believe > follow, but it’s clear that “follow” is vital to what’s being stated.


FG2: So there are NO CONDITIONS here that result in a result.

In Response: Also unclear what this is meant to mean.

Certainly, there are some clearly implied, even asserted, conditions here. The receipt of the things stated in 10:28 are only for 1 of 2 groups under discussion - only for those described as being of Jesus’ sheep – those who hear His voice & follow Him & are known by Him & who believe He is the Christ.

Since Jesus is drawing a distinction between those who do & do not fit this description – and He then states that the 10:28 things are given (only is clearly implied) to those who do fit this description – clearly 10:28 is conditioned upon fitting this description.


FG2: I recommend you do some remedial studying on what a conditional clause is and how to recognize one.

In Response: Consider the source, see below re: the green words, and realize that conditions are not always spelled out by certain words that explicitly denote the presence of a conditional clause.


FG2: The blue words is what Jesus does for His sheep.

In Response: Agree, but, based on what Jesus says in verses 29-30, I’d add the Father into the equation. The main issue in this J10 intense discussion is who Jesus is and that Jesus & the Father are one (10:30). And for saying this, Jesus opponents wanted to kill Him (10:31).


FG2: The green words are the result of being given eternal life.

In Response: There is no wording here that indicates a result. The only repeated word tying these 3 things together in this verse is the word “and.”

SO, there’s no indication in the wording that the last 2 things stated, are a result of the first thing stated, nor that any 1 of the 3 is the result of another.


FG2: And you cannot prove otherwise.

In Response: Disagree, although I do acknowledge that some truth cannot be proven to some people. I’d also state that, in my experience in teaching, discussing, and in self-experience in my process, the hardest ones to get through to are those who have been taught under a given theological system.

GDL said:

FG2: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. John 10:27-28

FG2: The red words are a description of what His sheep DO.

In Response: Agree provided this in context is also what those who believe Jesus is the Christ do, since those He knows as His sheep—those who hear His voice & follow Him are the same ones as those who believe He is the Christ.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

FG2: Recall that they are already His sheep.

In Response: Apart from explanation, unclear what this means, or what it means to this discussion.

Click to expand...

If anyone is unclear what it means to be "His sheep", they have a huge problem.

John 10 has the most mention of sheep in the New Covenant Writings and it’s in an intense Old Covenant based discussion between Jesus and some of the Pharisees (9:40). There’s nothing I see in these John 10 verses that says exactly how one becomes of Jesus’ sheep. It just says that His sheep hear, know & follow – His sheep believe.

Click to expand...

The problem is STILL the FACT that there is NO conditional clause to link hearing and following as requirements for being His sheep.

One thing about John10:28 that is clarified earlier in John10:4 is: Jesus’ sheep follow Him because (“hoti” not “gar”) they know His voice. SO, in the context of John 10: Jesus’s sheep are there in Israel (including some not of “this sheepfold” 10:16); He comes & they hear His voice & follow Him because they know His voice. We can research Scripture to see how believing He is the Christ fit’s in here and if there’s some sequence to the process – such as: hear > know > believe > follow, but it’s clear that “follow” is vital to what’s being stated.

Click to expand...

All this is quite obvious to me. I don't know what your point is.

FG2: So there are NO CONDITIONS here that result in a result.

In Response: Also unclear what this is meant to mean.

Click to expand...

In v.27, there are NO WORDS that constitute a conditional clause. iow, there is no "IF one listens and follows the Lord, THEN they will be one of His sheep". That kind of statement.

Certainly, there are some clearly implied, even asserted, conditions here. The receipt of the things stated in 10:28 are only for 1 of 2 groups under discussion - only for those described as being of Jesus’ sheep – those who hear His voice & follow Him & are known by Him & who believe He is the Christ.

Click to expand...

Again, quite obvious, so where are you going with this?

Since Jesus is drawing a distinction between those who do & do not fit this description – and He then states that the 10:28 things are given (only is clearly implied) to those who do fit this description – clearly 10:28 is conditioned upon fitting this description.

Click to expand...

While v.28 isn't stated a a conditional clause, it should be clear to everyone that the basis for never perishing is being given eternal life. Go back to my color coded wording of v.28. The green words are the result of being given eternal life.

It could be said this way: IF Jesus gives you eternal life, THEN you shall never perish.

FG2: I recommend you do some remedial studying on what a conditional clause is and how to recognize one.

In Response: Consider the source, see below re: the green words, and realize that conditions are not always spelled out by certain words that explicitly denote the presence of a conditional clause.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I already noted that the green words are the result of a condition: being given eternal life.

FG2: The blue words is what Jesus does for His sheep.

In Response: Agree, but, based on what Jesus says in verses 29-30, I’d add the Father into the equation. The main issue in this J10 intense discussion is who Jesus is and that Jesus & the Father are one (10:30). And for saying this, Jesus opponents wanted to kill Him (10:31).

Click to expand...

Once again, what's your point?

FG2: The green words are the result of being given eternal life.

In Response: There is no wording here that indicates a result. The only repeated word tying these 3 things together in this verse is the word “and.”

Click to expand...

It IS obvious to anyone with an open mind. Jesus said "I give them eternal life", and He continues "and they shall never perish". If you don't see this statement as a cause and effect, then you just aren't looking. And since you believe that salvation can be lost, it is rather obvious that you DON'T want to see it. But it's clear enough anyway.

SO, there’s no indication in the wording that the last 2 things stated, are a result of the first thing stated, nor that any 1 of the 3 is the result of another.

Click to expand...

This is an absurd statement. Of course never perishing is the result of possessing eternal life. If you continue with such thinking, there is no reason to discuss anything with you, because what you've posted here is NOT RATIONAL. I do not deal with irrational people. There's no point.

FG2: And you cannot prove otherwise.

In Response: Disagree, although I do acknowledge that some truth cannot be proven to some people. I’d also state that, in my experience in teaching, discussing, and in self-experience in my process, the hardest ones to get through to are those who have been taught under a given theological system.

Click to expand...

Here's the reality. You don't want to accept the truth.

By your claim that there is "no indication" of a result in v.28 proves that you are closed minded, and probably irrational.

When Jesus gives eternal life, it should be obvious that eternal life CANNOT die, so what follows; "and they shall never perish" is just a very obvious statement.

And Jesus added that for people just like yourself; those who are confused and think that salvation can be lost.

So when John 10:28 is presented to those like yourself, they deny reality. That's the only way to get around the obvious truth of the verse.

Eternal life cannot die. That means those who possess it SHALL NEVER PERISH.

FreeGrace2 said:

You still don't admit your contradiction with the TT of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18. Why?

Click to expand...

You're right, I don't admit it, because I don't have a contradiction between them. There is only a contradiction if I accept your way of approach, which I do not, so no problem!

Doug