GOD CREATED EVIL, Period!

[OzSpen]

Zeena,

There are many points from your post that I could challenge but I don't have the time at the moment at this time of the year. I'll pick up just a couple of your challenges.

1. THE "SCANDAL" OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation (which is a legitimate translation methodology) and so gives the meaning of the text and not the word-for-word equivalent. I can quibble over a few of the NIV translations (I read and teach NT Greek), but as a general rule, the NIV is a reliable translation. Thus, translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" is a translation of the meaning in some of the passages you quoted.

The Bible is inspired, not infalliable. --> Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Tho, I might argue for the infalliability of the original text, what little we have that is)

I don't have the time to give a detailed exposition of the inerrancy/infallibility of the Scriptures in the original text. I refer you to the book edited by Norman L Geisler, Inerrancy (Zondervan 1979) and John W. Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word (Bethany House Publishers 1974). There are a number of articles on line that support this position of inerrancy in the original documents. See: www.bible.org, e.g.
The Bible: The inerrant Word of God
Inerrancy
My take on inerrancy

There is more than one intpretation, obviously.

That happens often when we do not have adequate information about linguistics, culture and context when interpreting Scripture.

For someone to state these facts, as they have come to know and believe, does not disqualify them from participating on Christian forums according to any rules that I'm aware of.

I have not stated or insinuated that. That is not my view.

 

[Zeena]

Zeena,

There are many points from your post that I could challenge but I don't have the time at the moment at this time of the year. I'll pick up just a couple of your challenges.

1. THE "SCANDAL" OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation (which is a legitimate translation methodology) and so gives the meaning of the text and not the word-for-word equivalent. I can quibble over a few of the NIV translations (I read and teach NT Greek), but as a general rule, the NIV is a reliable translation. Thus, translating "flesh" as "sinful nature" is a translation of the meaning in some of the passages you quoted.

Hrrm? Are you defending the use of 'flesh' rendered as 'sinful nature' in the NIV?

Because that's is not the meaning, nor the Spirit of the Author.

If it were many passages would read totally differently!

Such as;

[SIZE=+1]4. If the word "sarx" is properly translated "SINFUL NATURE", then the following verses would become blasphemies.[/SIZE]

Heb. 5:7 In the days of His SINFUL NATURE, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

Heb. 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His SINFUL NATURE,

1 Pet. 4:1 Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the SINFUL NATURE, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ {as} coming in the SINFUL NATURE. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

John 1:14 ¶ And the Word became SINFUL NATURE, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 6:54 "He who eats My SINFUL NATURE and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:55 "For My SINFUL NATURE is true food, and My blood is true drink.

John 6:56 "He who eats My SINFUL NATURE and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

2 Cor. 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the SINFUL NATURE, yet now we know {Him} {thus} no longer.

[SIZE=+1]5. If the word is properly translated "SINFUL NATURE", then the following verses would become absurdities.[/SIZE]

Rom. 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the SINFUL NATURE.

Eph. 5:31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one SINFUL NATURE.

2 Cor. 10:2 I ask that when I am present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the SINFUL NATURE.

2 Cor. 11:18 Since many boast according to the SINFUL NATURE, I will boast also.

Gal. 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with SINFUL NATURE and blood,

Gal. 6:13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your SINFUL NATURE.
​

[SIZE=+1]6. In the rest of the New Testament, the same greek word "SARX" is not translated as "SINFUL NATURE", but is properly translated as "FLESH". Thus the translation as "Sinful Nature" is inconsistent and unwarranted.[/SIZE]
​

Source --> THE "SCANDAL" OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Or, are you implying that 'sarx' is a mistype in Kione?
Because we have the Kione, and it says sarx.

Among whom also we all had our conversation (5648) in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling (5723) the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were (5713) by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

enoivkaihmeivpantevanestrafhmen(5648)poteentaivepiqumiaivthvsarkovhmwn,poiountev(5723)taqelhmatathvsarkovkaitwndianoiwn,kaihmeqa(5713)teknafuseiorghvwvkaioiloipoi;​

Bible Texts Calvinists misuse to attempt to prove "Inherited Sin

Why protest this unfortunate rendering of "sinful nature"? It has long been held a matter of logic that any teaching which implies a false doctrine is itself false. What ideas does "a sinful nature" suggest? If man has a "sinful nature," where did he get it? The first choice is that God created us that way. If so, then He can hardly expect us to do anything other than sin. If we all possess an uncontrollable urge to sin, and God put it there, how can He accuse us of choosing wrongly? Does anyone condemn a crippled man for not walking or a blind man for not seeing? Likewise, if God put within us an unfailing desire to sin, how then can we be justly blamed and condemned?

The Bible teaches that when God finished the Creation (including man), it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Such could not be said if man were created with a "sinful nature." In such a case, sin would have been waiting for a chance to express itself. Rather, we were created with free-will, which allows sin to be an option, but not a necessity.

That we have free will is the reason we are encouraged to make the right decision. God calls for us to obey (Mat. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We still have the choice to obey or disobey--even as God's people. Joshua commanded the people to choose whom they would serve (Jos. 24:14-15). If we fail to please God, it will be our fault. Freedom of choice is that which allows God to hold us accountable. Animals won't be judged; they cannot help being what they are; human beings can.

The second way that man might have obtained a sinful nature is through the "fall." Somehow, when man sinned, he became depraved and incapable of doing good. The nature of man changed at that moment, Calvinists say. But there are a few problems with this theory. The first is that hereditary total depravity is unnecessary to explain why people sin today. Ask a Calvinist for the reason, and he will answer: "Depravity." Then ask: "Is that why Adam sinned?" "Oh, no; Adam was made in the image of God. Mankind only became depraved after the 'fall.'" If Adam did not need depravity in order to sin, why do we? Free-will explains both situations; depravity explains neither.

Also, the "fall" rationale carries with it the same basic problems the first theory has. How is mankind benefited if Adam was not created depraved, but we are? We still would not be able to help it; our sinfulness would not be our fault. God could still not hold us accountable. Besides, God told even Cain (after the "fall") that he had a choice: he could do well or give in to sin (free-will).
Somebody could perform a real service by polling the NIV translators. It would be interesting to find out how many of them believe in the tenets of Calvinism and how many of them think that man is born in a depraved condition. Where else would they get the idea of "sinful nature"? Their repeated use of this phrase disqualifies the NIV as a reliable, accurate, or unbiased translation.

Source --> A REVIEW OF THE NIV

I don't have the time to give a detailed exposition of the inerrancy/infallibility of the Scriptures in the original text. I refer you to the book edited by Norman L Geisler, Inerrancy (Zondervan 1979) and John W. Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word (Bethany House Publishers 1974).

What? Nothing from the Apostles or even the first fathers?

There are a number of articles on line that support this position of inerrancy in the original documents. See: www.bible.org, e.g.
The Bible: The inerrant Word of God
Inerrancy
My take on inerrancy

This doctrine is only come about in the last two hundred years!

That happens often when we do not have adequate information about linguistics, culture and context when interpreting Scripture.

So then, which denomination is right?

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

I have not stated or insinuated that. That is not my view.

OK then, I must appologise for misconstruding your speech.

I am glad you say that you do not hold that view.

And it seems evident our brother took no offense, so again, I appologise.

God bless you.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Zeena]

I read over that small but important bold part. I agree totally. If I could add something, I believe Free Will, given by God, is the choice to choose to worship Yeshua as Savior, or Satan as savior. This is our free will; everything else falls into play. The privilege we had to do anything we wanted was taken away when we overstepped the boundary of good and evil (i.e. when we sinned).

Then how is someone who has been hardened by sin able to repent?

And more importantly.. Why?
WHY should man repent?

 

[Zeena]

Free will is a delusion. No created being can do anything without God's permission.

This is anti-Scriptural teaching;

Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

And this is EXACTLY what your doctrine of preordination amounts to;

A denial of the free agency of man, and his responsability for his own sins.
Instead, you lay the blame on God, saying He is the cause of all sin in this world!

What is man? Is he but a waif on the great sea, driven by winds he has no power to control or resist? Is he the object of a preordination changeless as God? By the fall, hath he "wholly lost all ability of will, to any spiritual good, accompanying salvation?" If so, what can we advise him, but to wait patiently and watch the issues of irresistible currents, and accept his foreordained and irreversible destiny, whether of eternal life or eternal death? But if not, he who teaches these dogmas is doing an incalculable wrong.

Source --> http://www.gospeltruth.net/rationaltheology.htm

 

[UnionJack]

GOD DID NOT CREATE EVIL

Evil is the lack of GOOD. Just like how cold is from lack of HEAT. How darkness is from lack of light. You cannot say, turn on the dark please. You can say turn off the lights, in which case you will have darkness. Similiarly, when there is a lack of good (light) there is evil (darkness).

 

[Zeena]

*snip*

we were cursed

Where?

Where is this found in the Scripture?

It is not!

 

[Zeena]

we really blew it lol

You really blew it when you sinned.

[me too]

 

[Zeena]

Because the action we did (sinning) cause us to be in a continuous state of evil. It changed our holy nature to a nature of rebellion. As a result, either we have to repent and work uphill to be holy again, or we can stay in our evil rebellious ways and follow satan. But, even those hardened by sin are playing a role in God's will. If they are supposed to be His followers, they will come to it in the end, when it's the right time. Everything in between is the progress of life.

But, we repent to wash us clean so that we can, with the help of Yeshua, regain our holy nature we once had.

Is it possible for you to exchange the word 'we' for 'I'?

Is it not a personal salvation you are experiencing, being saved from your own sins?

[I will assume the answer is yes, if not, please feel free to correct me]

Why then, the need to blame it all on Adam?

2 Peter 2:11
Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

 

[Zeena]

:o why so mean?

Is that a no?

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Zeena]

I believe it is implied in Genesis 3:14.

That Scripture is speaking of the curse of Satan, not man

Genesis 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

I told you it wasn't there.

God never cursed man.
He cursed the ground because of him.

Since Satan was directly cursed, surely Adam and Eve were affected to some degree?

Man is not made in Satan's image, but God's.

Hebrews 2:16-18
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Zeena]

Yes, it is not there. It is speculation.

Do you always base your doctrine on speculation?

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.