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.
Wow. I bet you could make the Bible say just about anything, playing word games like that!
But my guitar is peace when on fire. Therefore basketball is retroactive under the tree thought.
At least the person you showed the paper to saw a point. They're ahead of me.
As I said someone was taking liberties with the text, inserting words and removing others. The passage that you quoted as Gen 1:2 is part of 1:1 and 1:2 with part of it deleted and the insertion of the trinity and the son neighter of which exist in any English translation that I have saw and I have 10 of them. The bible does indicate that Jesus is the word. It does not say anything about "the trinity" That word is nowhere in the bible. And neighter the bible nor Jesus ever refers to the bible as the word of God only people like you do so.
Ok so now you are saying that baptism is not nessacary.
And Daivid was a murderer and an adulteror.
I am confused wasn't it you that said baptism was required or am I remembering incorrectly?
I guess notNone of those verses say that anyone shall not be saved. It is your interpretation that they mean this but they do not say this.
Your first verse uses the word eternal which is incorrect so that one can not be determined to mean what you seem to think it means.
For the record eternal means without begining and without end.
The word used means age or ages not eternal.
Also it is not talking about believers nor any who were baptised but those who do right by thier fellow man.
Your second verse talks about the lake of fire. Paul tells us that every man shall be tried by fire and they shall gain reward or suffer loss by he himself shall be saved as by fire. The verse does not say they shall not be saved but when interpreted in light of other scripture. It actually shows that they shall be saved.
We look at the meaning of the word translated torment and we see that it means to test the purity of Gold or sliver and then we look at Pauls writings and we see that the fire tests the works of the man be they gold and silver or hay and stubble but in either case the man shall be saved.
Your third verse also does not say anyone shall not be saved and I notice that even though the very next verse explains the condemnation you ommitted it. To simplify the condemnation is that they walk in darkness [ignorance] rather than light [truth].
None of those verse say that anyone will not be saved but as I said before there are verses which say everyone shall be saved.
What does that have to do with anything? First of all in regaurd to hell the bible plainly says that hell will give up the dead. Meaning that hell is not eternal and no one will be there forever yet that doesn;t stop people from saying otherwise. They talk of the lake of fire and use the word hell they know they are being dishonest and apparently do not care. It is difficult to believe a single word that comes from such people who seem to value honesty so little.
Secondly, I was refering to an instance where there was no if. It says I will... then he didn't. You apparently would rather change the subject than deal with that fact. Tells a lot.
A better question why did God repent?
It seems that you do not want to face the fact that either God lied when he said he would destory them knowing that he would not, or that he did not foresee that they would repent and be spared or the story is in error. It clearly says that God changed his mind and was sorry for having considered doing evil unto them.
So in other words God lied to Jonah and had Jonah lie to them. Saying that he would destory them and yet he did not. Jonah was mad at him for this reason because God lied to Jonah and made Jonah look like a fool.
or
There is a problem with the story.
Satan is making fun of you making things up?
And.. the word book and scriptures is mentioned in many places outside the bible as well. Bible however is not the same as book and it is not the same as scripture, while it does fall into a similar category in that it is a collection of books believed to be scripture by Christains. One can not interchange these words as they see fit then claim that that is what it actually says. We all know better.
Since that fact does not exist then I would say nothing.
Yet you say that Jesus said the Bible was the word of God, This bible did not exist at the time. He said no such thing nor anything that could be honestly interpreted to mean such a thing. Your fact is fiction.
That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The bible was written by men, it was copied, translated and compiled by men. It does not make any claim to be the word of God and it is not.
No he did not. You take a very liberal interpretation of what Jesus said and say he said something that there is no record of him actually saying at all. You have been told this several times yet you keep repeating it. You even claim to have shown this but not a single post actually shows this.
I read you message and I clearly see that he did not say this at all. I also searched 10 different translations and he does not say this in any of them. All you have is your interpretation of what is there and you arrive at your conclusion which is in error.
More accurately the book of John says this. However you claimed to be quoting Gen 1:2 which does not say what you said it does.The Bible clearly says that God created everything by His Word.
And the Bible clearly says that the Word is God.
I object to your misquoting of scripture.And you are objecting only to object
How long will you persist in this lie? You know as well as I do that Jesus said no such thing. For someone who believe the bible is the word of God you sure take a lot of liberties with its text.And we have seen how Jesus said that the Bible is the written Word of God.
So it is but it isn't. In other words you really don't have a clue do you?No, I never said this. But make sure you know what is the necessity of baptism. It is not necessary TO BE saved, but it is necessary IN Salvation.
Why is a door so essential? A door with no lock allows easy access to thieves does it not? Would not a window work just as well, or a draw bridge? or Gaurd animals, booby traps.. I would imagion that the list of alternatives could grow rather large.Take the example of a door. You can enter a house if the door is not there, but you can't continue to live there without a door, because the thiefs will steal some thingsThe door is not essential TO ENTER that house, but it is essential if you plan to live IN that house.
But was he baptised? Did he believe in Jesus?And he repented.
If you refer to the baptism by fire then I might agree but that I think is not what you mean so I do not agree. The bath is symbolic only and has no saving power. It is not the door to enter nor the lock to keep out the theives it is a ritual and nothing more.Baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation.
The bible does not say that anyone will be in hell forever. It says the opposite.Ah, ok... Saying that someone will be in hell forever doesn't mean he is not saved... Well, let's see what it means in YOUR interpretation...
Chaning words? The English translators have did this. I might add that you butchered Gen 1:2 pretty badly a few posts back as well and that you keep insisting that Jesus said the bible is the word of God even though no where in the text is such a stament made nor even eluded to.So you want to change the words of the Bible... interesting...
Eternal literally means without begining and without end. Of course it is used in language to mean without end as well but it is actually incorrect to do so as we have a different word that conveys that meaning. Yet both words are often used for periods of time that would be very short.Nop. Eternal can mean without end ( only ) . There are two words for that in many languages, and specially in semitic languages.
As usual you would be wrong in your guess. Aionion comes from Aion which means age, Aionion means ages or of the ages. In the Greek version of the OT which word do you think is used to describe how long Jonah was in the whale? It is true that modern lexicons give a defintion of eternal, without end, forever and so on for aionion but these are based on the way they thought they were used in the bible and theology plays a big part in this as well as the translation of the KJV.I guess you have never passed near the Greek language... "aionion" literally means "eternal" in this context. In Greek, it is "kolasin aionion" which means "punishment eternal". If we take your erroneous translation, it will mean "punishment ages"... Interesting translation...
Thats like saying that yearly means every 100 years. Look at language it is not just the root word it is a form of the same word just like yearly is a form of year in our language.Your problem is that you don't understand that if we use the same root in different words, this doesn't mean that all the words mean what the root means. "aion" means age. But the form "aionion" means eternal.
You then shall not be saved? No verse says that anyone will not be saved. Only poor interpretations yeild this result and those very same interpretations ignore many other verses which plainly say that thier interpretation is wrong.So there are people who will not be saved. I was not talking about the baptized in particular.
Yes Paul was talkign about the fires of Judgment. He begins by saying that every man shall be judged by what he has done. Ironically Revelation also speaks of judgment, fire, and every man being jduged by what he has done. Revelation is a prophecy and the bible tells us that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and that we must interpret scripture with scripture. There are only two places in the NT where we see where we see this judgment of fire and when we let scripture interpret scripture we can see the meaning.Paul was not talking about the lake of fire. Paul only talked about the fire of judgment. I don't see where you came up with the word "lake" in the context of Paul. But those who want to contradict God can bring any word anywhere and then accuse others of adding words to the text.
Primary definition of the Greek word used.Ah, torment means test the purity... That's new...
Really? See definition above. It does mean just as I have said and this is the same thing Paul is speaking of when he speaks of judgment.And, no, dear friend, torment doesn't mean test the purity, because God has already declared them impure!
If he was pure would he need to be tested? Do you believe the devil is some real seperate entity or a spirit that resides in man? A metaphor perhaps? What is the devil in your mind?God is not testing the purity of the devil, my friend, because the devil is not pure.
Sorry.. I made a mistake here. For some reason I did not notice that you had quoted Mark 16 [a verse I might add that should not even be in our bibles as it was added after the fact by an unknow copiest] I was thinking of John. Who does explain what the condemnation is.I don't see that in the next verse of the third verse that I quoted. Maybe you can show us.
How do you know this? Are you saying that hell is empty at the moment? Or that people have been thrown into hell without even being judged? What are you getting at.The coming Judgment is not something that is happening now. Now, they are walking in darkness. Then, they will be judged for continuing in darkness and lie.
I find this statement rather insulting. You do not know me at all and I will wager that I live a more Godly life than do you based on your lies which I see repeatedly posted here and judgmental attidtudes you show in your posts. Perhaps it is time for you to start digging away at that log in your eye before you blind someone.Repent and come to the light, before it is too late!
No they do no. In fact they do not even mention hell. You misinterpret fire as hell. As usual you are wrong.We have seen that those verses and many others that I have not quoted yet say clearly that there is an eternal condemnation of hell to all those who stay in their sins.
Keep your self righteous judgment to yourself dude and worry about your own sins.Please, don't stay in your sins.
Really?The Bible never says that Hell will give up its dead.
Once again you puff yourself up like you know the status of another man. You know nothing. You openly and repeatedly lie, misquote scripture and insist over and over again that we have all seen something that is simply not there.And this has much to do with what we are talking about, because you will go to hell if you don't repent like the people of Nineveh.
I fail to see how you interpret this as you do.And who told you that the story of Nineveh doesn't contain an "if"??? Did you read it carefully?
"When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry.
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity." ( Jonah 3:10-4:2 )
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.The prophet Jonah knew that God was sending him there to preach repentance so that they may repent. Do you now see the "if"? Jonah knew it from the beginning.
Hmm yet we have a few instances in the OT where it says that God repented. So it would seem that the author is wrong in at least some cases now wouldn't it? You claim the author is God and that would mean that God has lied to us. I claim it was man you just got it wrong."God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" ( Numbers 23:19 )
Yet the text saying nothing about I shall do this unless you repent but rather that it shall be done and then it goes on to say that he repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them.You prefer to believe YOUR interpretation of the word "repented" in this context, rather than believe what God means by it. God meant by it that He relented concerning the calamity He would bring upon them if they didn't repent. In other words, He accepted their repentance.
Since God did not write the bible I agree that he did not lie. But the the implications of believing that God wrote the bible and that he forsees the future is that he lied, you can twist it, sugar coat it, change the words but you can not change the truth.God didn't lie, that's why He relented concerning the calamity He would do. If He didn't act compassionately, He would be lying. He said He would destroy that city because of their sin. If He didn't accept their repentance, then we would know that there was no reason for destroying that city. If sin is the reason, then repenting from sin is the solution. And that's what they did.
You interpret a passage that simply uses the word this as meaning that both God and Jonah new the out come in advance? hmm Why do you suppose Jonah looked for a good seat to watch the destruction and why do you suppose he was angry afterward when the destruction did not come.And I have already quoted the passage that shows that God foreknew their repentance, and that's why He sent Jonah who also knew it from the beginning.
I have already quoted Jonah saying that he knew FROM THE BEGINNING that God would accept their repentance. So you invented that part of Jonah being angry of God because He lied to him...As usual: Inventions...
Of course they do not say any such thing and you know it.We have it clearly in this thread. Just open it and read it. No interpretation is needed. The verses say it clearly.
Well, yes, actually, because it's spectacularly patronising. But it doesn't actually impinge on our rights, so I guess you can do as you please.
Cool, thanks. But until you can prove to me that you have a monopoly on Truth, I'll keep searching for what that "real God" is. No offense, but I'm not just going to mindlessly follow whatever dogma you insist on.
Seriously, you're just being deliberately obtuse now, aren't you? How hard is this to understand? I'll make it as simple as I can:
- we (KCDAD & I) are trying to start with your beliefs (as best we understand them) and logically follow them through
- when we do, we find that God is an extremely nasty entity
- we feel that this means *you* are the one that disrespects God, since you are happy to hold beliefs that make God out to be a jerk
- we, OTOH, *do* respect God and therefore hold different beliefs; beliefs that are consistent with a great, loving, beautiful and holy God worthy of the name.
Now, you always say that your God is the "God of the Bible". OK, but the problem remains. So either God is a jerk, or your interpretation of the Bible is not perfect, or the Bible is not inerrant. I'm happy with either of the latter two, but, for the record, the first is not an option for me. (Or KCDAD, I expect, but here he must speak for himself.)
He changes it in an inhuman way? Didn't you just say that The Lord does not change? (Rhetorical question. Yes, you did. It's quoted above.) So why the qualifier ("in the human way")? Looks like a setup for you to dodge around the upcoming problems. But maybe I'm just being paranoid.
OK, God doesn't change. Doesn't change His mind. Are we agreed? Good...
Since you love quoting the Bible so much, mind if I do?
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
God just said that everything's going to get whacked. But Noah isn't. So either Noah found favor and was therefore spared, meaning God changed the plan, or that was the plan all along was to spare Noah, in which case God made a false statement (in verse 7).
Similarly, He then goes on to tell Noah to build an ark b/c He's "going to put an end to all people". Now... aren't we people? So again what are the options?
- God lied to Noah
- God changed His mind
How is this not a problem? OK, now that's your cue to come up with some lovely ad hoc work-around -- go:
Because He's then creating creatures knowing they are destined for eternal torment.
You are quite sure that I am destined for hell, right (b/c I don't respect God and so on and so forth)? So (your) God created me, knowing that my fate was eternal torment.
Now, yes, that's my choice and all, but that's not the point.
We're not discussing free will; the point here is that God knew my fate before I was born, right? If not, then something changed, which we've already ruled out ("The Lord does not change").
So: God made me, knowing I would burn in hell for all eternity.
How is it not obvious to you that any fair-minded person would immediately ask: "then why make me?" What kind of sadistic entity creates something just to torture it?
And don't say that it's my choice -- that's irrelevant, as I've already established. I felt no pain prior to my birth. No pleasure, either, but that's outweighed by the infinite suffering I will endure due to being created.
(Your) God doesn't seem to have thought this through very well. Why not find a way to avoid, or at least mitigate my suffering?
And if that can't be done, don't make me in the first place! (Unless, you actually believe God is a sadist?)
Well, sure, you can always claim that "God knew this would happen" in any of the stories. But then they don't make a lot of sense. Noah, as discussed above.
With Sodom, why does God put Abraham through that "what if there are X holy ones?" routine? Why not just say "Look, mate, the city's a ****hole, and I'm going to fry it; there aren't even 10 righteous people in the whole place"? Seems all a bit melodramatic to go through the whole bargaining thing.
The problem isn't that God clearly changed His mind about something, but rather: either God changed His mind OR ... something else unpleasant. Why does He "harden Pharaoh's heart" since the result is mass slaughter of innocent Egyptians?
Again, either He's making it up as he goes along (which we've ruled out), or He's going along with this grand play knowing that Bad Stuff is going to happen in Act IV.
Again, this is all utterly irrelevant (although, admittedly, I used the word "fallible" loosely). The problem isn't that God created us *able* to sin, but that God created us able to sin and *knowing that we would*.
This is a pretty simple argument, so let me make it one last time to be clear:
- God is omniscient, right?
- So God knows our fate (nothing to do with free will here, just knowledge of our future actions)
- Under some set of circumstances (not being baptized or not sacrificing two doves on a Thursday, or whatever), those that sin are condemned to eternal punishment, right?
- Again, God has foreknowledge of who will suffer that fate
- But God creates those creatures and lets them suffer infinitely anyway.
See why that doesn't make God look too good?
Even as an ignorant mortal I can see the design flaw.
So why wouldn't a perfect God spot it and correct it? Oh, right, He would! Conclusion: that scenario above isn't quite right. So take your pick as to which you choose:
- God is a jerk
- God is limited
- God can change His mind
- God won't punish us infinitely
And before you give your standard reaction about disrespecting God, remember: I'm using your theology and logic, and those are the options we get.
Have done, thanks.
Apparently not:
Probably because I'm not a True Scotsman, right?
And since you're so keen on reading the Bible carefully (and with no interpretation, either!), how about Jonah 4:2-4?
"I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live." 4 But the LORD replied, "Have you any right to be angry?"
So, reading carefully, Jonah says God "relents from sending calamity" (ie changes His mind).
God chastises Jonah but does not say that He doesn't relent. So, God allowed an uncorrected misstatement about Him into the Bible. Or He does relent.
Wow. I bet you could make the Bible say just about anything, playing word games like that!
I thought you might say that. So now who's not reading carefully? Did you miss the bit about preventing the disease in the first place...?
So when were Adam & Eve baptized? Biblical citation, please.
Why? No finite amount of joy can make up for infinite suffering. Non-existence implies neither suffering nor joy. Therefore non-existence is better than infinite suffering. If that's my fate, then non-existence is better than existence.
But my guitar is peace when on fire. Therefore basketball is retroactive under the tree thought.
See? I can string words together, too.
At least the person you showed the paper to saw a point. They're ahead of me.
Then why does anyone end up in hell? Either no-one does, or some do. Can't have it both ways. If anyone goes to hell, then... see above.
Er, what now? Again, seems like your analogy is making our point for us. Your idea of God handed humanity the biggest, sharpest knife there is. Doesn't seem like a wise God, by your own analogy.
Again, irrelevant, but since you ask: no, I want Him, being an infinite and perfect being, to come up with a better system to start with. Why have this bizarre setup where someone has to die to satisfy God's justice, but that person can be God and then everyone can just say some magic words and take a bath, and that's good enough? Why can't an almighty God just say "ok, you know what, just say 3 Hail Marys, have someone kick you in the groin, and we'll call it good". Or better yet: "I forgive you". It amounts to the same thing in the end, except nobody has to be killed. Or perhaps God could actually require some serious penance -- seems fair to me: you commit the crime, you do the time, then you're good to go. But infinite suffering because I was, eg, born in Thailand and the idea that taking a magic bath would save me seemed so absurd that I didn't do it...? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Um, nope, sorry I missed that bit. It could be, but I didn't see explicit proof that it was the bath that did the magic. Just that this was a ritual sign that would indicate my true repentance.
OK, but why can't there be another sign? Like standing on a street corner and handing out business cards that say "I really repented"? Or better yet, helping the homeless and hungry, perhaps. Why the magic dunking or nothing?
I look through the red words... but I don't see the word "all". Strange. What I see is reference that one group of people did more baptisms than another group.
Now, again, which of us insists on reading the Bible carefully?
So Judas I. was baptized? So then why does baptism matter? You've just said that TRUE discipleship (whatever that might mean -- continuing in My word, I guess, whatever that might mean) is the essential part. Let me quote that again: "the essential is to become a TRUE disciple". Not baptism, then. Oops.
More accurately the book of John says this. However you claimed to be quoting Gen 1:2 which does not say what you said it does.
I object to your misquoting of scripture.
How long will you persist in this lie? You know as well as I do that Jesus said no such thing. For someone who believe the bible is the word of God you sure take a lot of liberties with its text.
So it is but it isn't. In other words you really don't have a clue do you?
Why is a door so essential? A door with no lock allows easy access to thieves does it not? Would not a window work just as well, or a draw bridge? or Gaurd animals, booby traps.. I would imagion that the list of alternatives could grow rather large.
But was he baptised? Did he believe in Jesus?
If you refer to the baptism by fire then I might agree but that I think is not what you mean so I do not agree. The bath is symbolic only and has no saving power. It is not the door to enter nor the lock to keep out the theives it is a ritual and nothing more.
The bible does not say that anyone will be in hell forever. It says the opposite.
Chaning words? The English translators have did this. I might add that you butchered Gen 1:2 pretty badly a few posts back as well and that you keep insisting that Jesus said the bible is the word of God even though no where in the text is such a stament made nor even eluded to.
Eternal literally means without begining and without end. Of course it is used in language to mean without end as well but it is actually incorrect to do so as we have a different word that conveys that meaning. Yet both words are often used for periods of time that would be very short.
As usual you would be wrong in your guess. Aionion comes from Aion which means age, Aionion means ages or of the ages.
In the Greek version of the OT which word do you think is used to describe how long Jonah was in the whale? It is true that modern lexicons give a defintion of eternal, without end, forever and so on for aionion but these are based on the way they thought they were used in the bible and theology plays a big part in this as well as the translation of the KJV.
I do not want to go into a big debate on the meaning of the word here but I could give you a link that explains it in great detail if you like.
Thats like saying that yearly means every 100 years. Look at language it is not just the root word it is a form of the same word just like yearly is a form of year in our language.
You then shall not be saved? No verse says that anyone will not be saved. Only poor interpretations yeild this result and those very same interpretations ignore many other verses which plainly say that thier interpretation is wrong.
Yes Paul was talkign about the fires of Judgment. He begins by saying that every man shall be judged by what he has done. Ironically Revelation also speaks of judgment, fire, and every man being jduged by what he has done. Revelation is a prophecy and the bible tells us that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and that we must interpret scripture with scripture. There are only two places in the NT where we see where we see this judgment of fire and when we let scripture interpret scripture we can see the meaning.
Primary definition of the Greek word used.
basanismos
Thayer Definition:
1) to torture, a testing by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
Really? See definition above. It does mean just as I have said and this is the same thing Paul is speaking of when he speaks of judgment.
And yes we all all impure and we will all undergo this process some will suffer more than others but all will be saved. This is what the bible actually says.
If he was pure would he need to be tested?
Do you believe the devil is some real seperate entity or a spirit that resides in man? A metaphor perhaps? What is the devil in your mind?
Sorry.. I made a mistake here. For some reason I did not notice that you had quoted Mark 16 [a verse I might add that should not even be in our bibles as it was added after the fact by an unknow copiest] I was thinking of John. Who does explain what the condemnation is.
How do you know this? Are you saying that hell is empty at the moment? Or that people have been thrown into hell without even being judged? What are you getting at.
I find this statement rather insulting. You do not know me at all and I will wager that I live a more Godly life than do you based on your lies which I see repeatedly posted here and judgmental attidtudes you show in your posts. Perhaps it is time for you to start digging away at that log in your eye before you blind someone.
No they do no. In fact they do not even mention hell. You misinterpret fire as hell. As usual you are wrong.
Keep your self righteous judgment to yourself dude and worry about your own sins.
Of course but you were claiming to quote Gen 1:2 not John and even John does not say what you actually wrote.Isn't the Book of John part of the Bible??
As of verse 3 yes it does say and God said let there be light. What you seem to be missing is that you supposedly quote Gen 1:2 yet your quote was more nothing like Gen 1:2 It rolled in some of John, some of Gen and stuck in the Trinity from somewhere.Plus, Genesis 1 clearly says that God created everything by His Word. He said, and it was.
Is that what you call it when you butcher it as you have done?Actually, you object to my quoting the Scripture...
See SS, this is why I think he is a Poe. He is intentionally lying and distorting traditional Christian beliefs to make Christians look ridiculous.Of course they do not say any such thing and you know it.
It is plain that you have no regaurd for truth and you continue to repeat the same lie over and over while judging others and you claim to be preaching the word of God. God does not lie. You do. therefore the conclusion is simple.
Really?
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [KJV]
After hell is empty hell is cast into the lake of fire impiling its destruction. So I do not know what you refer to as the bible nor do I know what you refer to as hell but the bible does say exactly what I said it does.
Once again you puff yourself up like you know the status of another man. You know nothing. You openly and repeatedly lie, misquote scripture and insist over and over again that we have all seen something that is simply not there.
I fail to see how you interpret this as you do.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
There is no if here. It says shall be done.
Then the King says.
Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
and then
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Hmm yet we have a few instances in the OT where it says that God repented. So it would seem that the author is wrong in at least some cases now wouldn't it? You claim the author is God and that would mean that God has lied to us. I claim it was man you just got it wrong.
Yet the text saying nothing about I shall do this unless you repent but rather that it shall be done and then it goes on to say that he repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them.
nâcham
BDB Definition:
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
Since God did not write the bible I agree that he did not lie. But the the implications of believing that God wrote the bible and that he forsees the future is that he lied, you can twist it, sugar coat it, change the words but you can not change the truth.
You interpret a passage that simply uses the word this as meaning that both God and Jonah new the out come in advance? hmm Why do you suppose Jonah looked for a good seat to watch the destruction and why do you suppose he was angry afterward when the destruction did not come.
Get this through your head.
God said He would destroy the city in 40 days.
Jonah told them this.
Jonah went up on the hill to watch.
God did not destory the city.
Jonah was very angry that God had not did what he said he would do.
Granted the word lie is not there but in our language when someone says they will do something and then do not do it it is known as telling a lie.
God is a Trinity. The Father created the heavens and the earth by His Word ( the Son ) and "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." ( Genesis 1:2 )
Of course but you were claiming to quote Gen 1:2 not John and even John does not say what you actually wrote.
As of verse 3 yes it does say and God said let there be light. What you seem to be missing is that you supposedly quote Gen 1:2 yet your quote was more nothing like Gen 1:2 It rolled in some of John, some of Gen and stuck in the Trinity from somewhere.
Is that what you call it when you butcher it as you have done?
See SS, this is why I think he is a Poe. He is intentionally lying and distorting traditional Christian beliefs to make Christians look ridiculous.
Essential in but not for...
Jesus said...
God said...
The Bible says that the Bible is written by God...
The universe was created by the Word of God which is the Bible so the Bible created itself...
baptism is a door but it isn't the door...
the plural of power means Army...
an age means eternity...
you know, like the bronze age or the age of reason... or the dark ages... eternal ages.
Need I remind you that this is what you quoted as Genesis 1:2
This is what is actually written.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Is doesn't take much to see that what you have written barely resembles what is actually there.
You have both removed from and added to the verse in question and yes I do object to that especially when you are not honest enough to admit that you have done so. Now perhaps you only meant part of that to be a quote but that is unclear from your statement. I do know that the word Trinity does no occur in the bible though and the way you strung the sentence together is at best buchery not quoting.
Just a note: I was not calling you to know any dogma, but to know the real God.
Because He judges your sin? Well, yes, He does. If you don't repent, you will go to eternal Hell, whether you call God nasty or sweety.
God is Holy and Righteous, that's why a sinner like you calls Him a jerk! You don't want to repent. But this doesn't mean that I must lie to you because of that. This is not a game! You are going to hell because of your sins. You need to repent and turn to the real God, instead of continuing to hell on the way of your sins.
If you don't like the true God of the Bible, then you need to repent and begin to know Him.
What does your holy god say about sin? Something different of what the real God of the Bible says?
You like an interpretation where there is no judgment of sin...
Well, I don't interpret the Bible
I'm just going to cut all these. We've covered this. Seriously, stop it.God says that if you continue in your sins, you will go to eternal hell. And God says that He is ready to accept your repentance. You choose now between life and death.
You're equivocating. Is it a change of mind or not? The point that is being made relating to this is that either God knows a priori what will happen, or God does not know until it happens. The latter denies omniscience. Therefore, I think we all agree that we have to go with option 1.Yes, God does not change His mind the way you do. God accepts your change of mind and heart when you repent, and that accepting can be called a change of mind. But this doesn't mean that God changed anything in Him.
Wow. I can just reach into the bag of logical fallacies and pick one at random for this one. But let's go with red herring. The Bible verse I quoted said "I will wipe mankind". Doesn't say anything about who's righteous or not. "I will wipe mankind", no qualifiers. So now who's not doing any interpreting, hmm? Or is God lying? Or perhaps just equivocating? I'd expect more precise language from a perfect deity, actually.Where did God ever say that He would wipe the RIGHTEOUS also from the face of the earth???
Yes, I did read carefully; it's you who's adding to the text (which, I thought was a sin, but I digress). Oh, then there's an ad hominim. And another red herring. Yes, sin => flood. But that doesn't avoid the fact that God said "I will wipe mankind... from the face of the earth".Do you read carefully? Or maybe you just show yourself to be so simple? Don't you see that God is wiping them from the face of the earth because of their sins?
I have no problem with this.And if sin is the problem, then repentance must be the solution. If you want God to refuse repentance, please tell us from now, before we go any further...
You don't? Did you *read* what you just wrote? "God put an end to all the people" and "we are people"... so... we don't actually exist? But, bizarre as this statement of yours is, it's still a red herring. To say it again: God said "I will wipe mankind from the face of the earth" but clearly didn't. If we insist on God's omnipotence, the remaining options are: (1) God lied, (2) "I will wipe...etc" means something other than I think it does, (3) the Bible isn't word-for-word inerrant, but, rather, written by flawed humans. (There may be other options, and I'm willing to hear them, but Occam's Razor makes me think these are the most likely.) (1) is objectionable to me, and obviously I can't work out how to reconcile (2), so ... (3) it is. I don't see why that freaks so many people out.We are people, the children of Noah. So God really has put an end to all the people, and saved Noah and his family in the Ark. I don't see where is your problem.
A big NO! God didn't create us knowing that we all WILL go to hell. And the first proof against this is that Adam and Eve, the first humans, are not going to hell.
So I don't know where you came up with that imaginary assumption.
Oh look, another red herring. Seriously, man, open a fish market.You are not Adam. You were BORN of a father and a mother, and not CREATED as Adam was ( by the way, do you know the difference between being born and being created? ) . You were created in Adam, but you were born from your parents. You are called to repent and not go to the eternal torment. And nobody's obliging you to go to Hell.
Good, finally a straight answer: God did know my choice a priori. Aaaand then, a total strawman. If the fish market folds, go into farm supplies. Why does God have to kill anyone? An omnipotent God can't prevent my birth without killing? Or, given that I'm not alone in my journey to hell, why create humanity in the first place?Yes, God knew what you would choose. Did He then have to kill Adam in whom you were created? Or maybe kill also your parents??
Strawman. Not kill. Just not create. We wouldn't have lost anything -- we would never have existed. Or come up with a different system, such as finite punishment and refinement that purifies us of sin and allows us to become worthy of God's presence? Or... any other of an infinite set of possibilities, for that matter.God knew that all the descendants of Adam would be sinners. Well, would it be better if He killed Adam from the first place?
Seriously. Stop it. Not kill. And no more proselytizing, either. I mean it.NO, friend! God is Love. He waits patiently that you repent. God knows if you will continue to refuse to repent. But that doesn't mean that He will kill all people because of you, because others want to repent.
You know nothing about my parents or my relationship with them. Do not speak about what you don't know. And to answer your question: if they believed what you believe, then, yes, I'd say they should not have had me, unless they were sadists.Ask your parents... Are they sadistic?
And those who don't perform this one, specific act end up with infinite suffering. Why? Please explain the logic of this. Why is this better than, say, allowing everyone to continue to perfect themselves post mortem? Thus, true effort is required, and we still suffer the consequences of our sins, as we have to struggle with our sinful natures, separated from God in the spiritual realm; God's justice is satisfied, and all can eventually be purified and achieve the perfection in which we were originally created. Please explain to me why this is worse than God having to crucify Himself at a specific point in human history, with everyone coming after required to genuinely profess a belief in this system and taking a magic bath to prove it.He found: The cross. Didn't you see how much Jesus Christ suffered for all those who will repent and trust Him for their Salvation?
Ditto. If I can be bothered, since I suspect I'm wasting my time. KCDAD and SS seem to be interested in bouncing around ideas and searching for the Truth. You don't. You think you've found it already and seem to have no purpose here except to browbeat heretics (ie everyone else). I hope I'm wrong.I continue my reply in the next post.
OK, let's get a few basics out of the way first.
You keep going on about "the real God" and "the God of the Bible". That's great. But. The Bible is a written work. All written works must be interpreted. You read words, you try to understand what they mean, you then decipher the meaning of the text. I don't care if the text says "the cat sat on the mat" or something about God, hell, salvation and baptism, it is still necessary to interpret it. And that means two people can interpret it differently. You can argue that your interpretation is correct, but that's the whole point of a discussion like this: demonstrating the correctness of your interpretation via logical argument. Therefore making blanket assertions about "the God of the Bible" are pointless and offensive. Everyone in this discussion is trying to understand Who the God of the Bible is. Your language implies that you and you alone know that, ergo you have a monopoly on Truth. If you believe that, fine: go away and leave the rest of us alone to discuss the matter with the humility to realize that nobody is perfect in understanding. (Oh, and check out those 7 deadly sins -- I think you'll find pride in there somewhere.)
I am getting mightily sick of your attitude. Do you or do you not possess the humility to believe that someone else might have useful input to a discussion? If not, have the guts to say so, so that I can ignore you from now on. If so, how about demonstrating it? The other participants in this discussion raise interesting points and bring something new to me. I appreciate their input. So far, you have brought nothing but logical fallacies, non-sequiturs, red herrings, and semantic quicksand, not to mention self-righteousness, threats of hell, and accusations. Which brings me to:
Yaqubos, consider this your official cease and desist. You will stop (1) threatening me with hell,
(2) bearing false witness against me (being contrary to one of those 10 command thingies, IIRC),
(3) questioning my salvation or the sincerity of my beliefs. Apart from being repugnant behavior, they are also violations of the CF conditions of use. I have been patient so far and will not report you unless you continue to act in this way.
From now on, I intend to name your logical fallacies (if I can remember to). Let's start with a strawman, shall we. I do not believe this, nor have ever said so. If you honestly believe that's my position then you are guilty of a false dichotomy. There can be judgment without eternal punishment. Soul Searcher has made this point.
That's a straight-out falsehood. Everyone interprets everything they read. How else do they understand it?
I'm just going to cut all these. We've covered this. Seriously, stop it.
You're equivocating. Is it a change of mind or not? The point that is being made relating to this is that either God knows a priori what will happen, or God does not know until it happens. The latter denies omniscience. Therefore, I think we all agree that we have to go with option 1.
Wow. I can just reach into the bag of logical fallacies and pick one at random for this one. But let's go with red herring. The Bible verse I quoted said "
I will wipe mankind". Doesn't say anything about who's righteous or not. "I will wipe mankind", no qualifiers. So now who's not doing any interpreting, hmm? Or is God lying? Or perhaps just equivocating? I'd expect more precise language from a perfect deity, actually.
Yes, I did read carefully; it's you who's adding to the text (which, I thought was a sin, but I digress). Oh, then there's an ad hominim. And another red herring. Yes, sin => flood. But that doesn't avoid the fact that God said "I will wipe mankind... from the face of the earth".
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?