Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More of an authority than you it seems. Firstly theopneustos is a compound of two words and we know the meaning, scholars know the meaning. Even if the word was absent from the text it would still say all scripture is useful. Secondly 2 Tim is begun by Paul introducing himself as the author. Besides I was addressing your point about Paul’s revelation being from the risen Lord so your further doubts are even more unsubstantiated. Your disbelief is very strong indeed.So because the anonymous author decided to use some obscure Greek word nobody is exactly sure what it means (theopneustos: a neologism is scripture) we have to take your word for it that it means some kind of verbal inspiration? Why? what kind of authority are you?
No by demonstration that isnt the case, I have merely quoted scripture and people have said its just my interpretation. Oh and I am not bothered about being homophobic, homophobic is good, especially when one gets up out of bed at night to go and take ones gay friend to hospital, yes homophobia is good, your perverted hatred is the problem I thinkEverybody interprets the literal text; only some of us do it without our homophobic spectacles on.
I have merely quoted scripture and people have said its just my interpretation.
Firstly theopneustos is a compound of two words and we know the meaning,
So? That doesn't mean he wrote it. This is pseudipigrapha. The vast majority of NT scholars don't think he did. I'd rather go with people who know what they're talking about.Secondly 2 Tim is begun by Paul introducing himself as the author.
Even if the word was absent from the text it would still say all scripture is useful.
Too right. I don't worship the Bible, unlike fundamentalists and Pharisees everywhere (the ones Jesus addressed in John 5:39 as putting their trust in the scriptures.)Your disbelief is very strong indeed.
It is the response to quoting scripture as somehow the individual’s opinion that I am addressing concerning what the text literally says.
that’s just your interpretation, all I have done is quote the translated scripture, as I said. Besides my interpretation is that it is in literary and historical context.Quoting scripture in English, out of its literary and historical context is interpretation.
well it obviously does in this case otherwise it would be out of its literary and historical context.. and even you don’t like that it seemsPortmanteu words almost never mean one word + the other word.
It means that’s the only claim it makes about the author, do you not believe anything that is stated? What evidence have you got to support your doubt?So? That doesn't mean he wrote it.
on the contrary the vast majority of scholars believe Paul did write it and I will go with the vast majority of scholars who know what they are talking about.The vast majority of NT scholars don't think he did. I'd rather go with people who know what they're talking about.
Wheelbarrow is a long way from useful as well but the text doesn’t say wheelbarrow or inerrant, its says useful. So how is all scripture useful to you when you don’t believe it.?? The hammer I haven’t got is very useful to me?? Doesn’t make sense.Useful is very very long way down from "innerant." And I agree it's useful. Just not inerrant.
Too right. I don't worship the Bible, unlike fundamentalists and Pharisees everywhere (the ones Jesus addressed in John
I don’t worship the Bible either as I have explained before, I worship the one whose testimony is recorded in the Bible, so I have no idea who you are judging.5:39 as putting their trust in the scriptures.)
No. One may quote the scripture because one believes it is in context, if another disagrees it is in context they may say so, but the scriptural text still says what it says, I am addressing the response to scripture as personal opinion. In short just because you for example don’t believe the scripture is in context doesn’t make it not in context, the person who thinks it is may be right, if you disagree argue why don’t just dismiss the other person’s point of view just because you think you are right all the time.Quoting an isolated scripture, out of context, and in English, is an individual opinion.
Well thats the Bible my friend, what you mean is you dont believe the Bible but cal your disbelief interpretation.Quoting scripture in English, out of its literary and historical context is interpretation.
If you don't believe a carpentary tool, 3 day reconstruction of a physical building verses are literal, why believe the 7 days of non bigbang cosmology/non evolution biology creation is literal?You could possibly be fighting a tough battle here. As I was basically told yesterday, if you don't believe that Jesus will get out all the carpentry tools and rebuild the temple in 3 days after it is destroyed then u are not a biblical literalist. Lol to that by the way, as not only are the liberal definitions being molded around to suit everyone's needs, but apparently so are the conservative's.
Everybody interprets the literal text; only some of us do it without our homophobic spectacles on.
only in your interpretation.Those "some" are those with a boatload of sin that are only too willing to carry on their own backs, rather than repent and let the Saviour of the world take them. so the emaning of salvation is totally lost on their blind, unreceiving hearts.
The Bible isn't a comic book, folks. It's a living document, full of power of the Holy Spirit to convince men of their sin. Unconvinced ones are the spiritually blind--they need prayer, and a miracle.
only in your interpretation.
God loves homosexuals. Deal with it.
Sorry but did you say God doesnt love homosexuals? I thought you said it was homosexual practice. Is EnemyPartyII correct?only in your interpretation.
God loves homosexuals. Deal with it.
Dear FloatingAxe,
Sorry but did you say God doesnt love homosexuals? I thought you said it was homosexual practice. Is EnemyPartyII correct?
If you don't believe a carpentary tool, 3 day reconstruction of a physical building verses are literal, why believe the 7 days of non bigbang cosmology/non evolution biology creation is literal?
Yes I do, I was just hoping EnemyPartyII might read it.What do you think, Phinehas? Do you not know what I think by now?
What despicable thing? I don't understand this post.Are you the one that reported me for flaming. then what do you call it when you do this dispicable thing to my savior who died and shed his blood for me, you need some serious
I did not write the post to which you responded here. Please direct your response to the person whom you are actually quoting. Thanks.Dear Ohioprof,
that’s just your interpretation, all I have done is quote the translated scripture, as I said. Besides my interpretation is that it is in literary and historical context.
well it obviously does in this case otherwise it would be out of its literary and historical context.. and even you don’t like that it seems
It means that’s the only claim it makes about the author, do you not believe anything that is stated? What evidence have you got to support your doubt?
on the contrary the vast majority of scholars believe Paul did write it and I will go with the vast majority of scholars who know what they are talking about.
Wheelbarrow is a long way from useful as well but the text doesn’t say wheelbarrow or inerrant, its says useful. So how is all scripture useful to you when you don’t believe it.?? The hammer I haven’t got is very useful to me?? Doesn’t make sense.
I don’t worship the Bible either as I have explained before, I worship the one whose testimony is recorded in the Bible, so I have no idea who you are judging.
No. One may quote the scripture because one believes it is in context, if another disagrees it is in context they may say so, but the scriptural text still says what it says, I am addressing the response to scripture as personal opinion. In short just because you for example don’t believe the scripture is in context doesn’t make it not in context, the person who thinks it is may be right, if you disagree argue why don’t just dismiss the other person’s point of view just because you think you are right all the time.
And besides quote the scripture you believe is in context.
Why would God hate homosexuality?I wasn't even referring to homosexuals in that post--it was generic.
But, now that you bring up the infernal subject again:
God loves everyone...he HATES homosexuality. There is no saving of unrepentant sinners. Deal with that---hopefully before it's too late.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?