Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

YAQUBOS · Mar 6, 2008

First, I would like to remember with you what Soul Searcher said on page 39 of this thread:

Don't bother.. I am done trying to converse with you. Perhaps someday i will try again maybe then you will have saw some light, until then

So, first, I would like to thank Soul Searcher for considering that I have seen some light...

Now, to his reply:

Soul Searcher said:
Amazing how you do not see what is right in front of you but do see what is not there. Read the passage carefully verse 15 says God placed man in the garden. Verse 18 says man should not be alone. Then verse 19 says that God created the animals. Now just in case you can not understand this 15 comes before 19 and 19 comes after 15. It is crystal clear.

OK. As you don't know what "context" means, then I will give you some hints.

You say verse 15 comes before verse 19, so inevitably what is in verse 19 must have happened after what happened in verse 15, right? Well, let's use your logic to study verses 1 to 4 that come BEFORE verses 15 and 19:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven." ( Genesis 2:1-4 )

So, according to your logic, man's creation must have happened:

1. AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth AND ALL THEIR HOSTS was COMPLETE.

2. AFTER the seventh day of creation.

3. AFTER God rested from creating. And this point is very important, because this means you think God created man and animals AFTER He rested from creating... And that shows how much your logic is strong...

I think you should ask yourself that question? The context is clear and it does say that man was created and placed in the garden then animals were created.

Where does the context say that?? On the contrary, the context clearly says that what is written in Genesis 2 is a general account about the creation of man and woman.

So you accept that both man and woman were created after all the animals and that man was created before the animals and woman afterwards? I suppose you do not see a problem with this but to most of us it is pretty clear.

The Bible clearly says that Adam was created after the animals were created. He was the summit of God's creation. He was to rule over all animals. And after He created Adam, God brought all the animals to Adam so that he may call them by names. But God didn't consider any of those animals that, as the Bible says, He created from the same ground of which He created Adam, able to be a helper suitable for Adam. So God made Eve from Adam.

That's the context of Genesis 1 and 2.

Do you really? It seems from your posts that you actually believe many things that the bible does not say while not believing many things that it does say. You seem to superimpose your own thoughs of perfect on the book and reinterpret the passages based on your own context which is unsupported by the text.

Give us ONE practical concrete example of what you are dreaming here.

So you are a mind reader as well now? It has nothing to do with anyone being more or less consistant that a book. What I see is that KC is more honest about it than you have been. He doesn't bury his head in the sand when faced with a contradiction and does not invent verses that do not exist.

I don't need to read minds. I just need to read this thread and other threads. KCDAD already clearly said that Jesus Christ and the Bible are not consistent in what they say.

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS

YAQUBOS · Mar 6, 2008

KCDAD said:
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam

Yes, the Bible says that OUT OF THE GROUND God created the animals. Put the accent on the ground and see

God created the animals AFTER noting that man needed a help meet. He then brings the animals to man who is already created. And man names them.

Show me that "AFTER" in the context. Of course, I don't ask for the WORD "after" in the context, like you usually do. I want the context saying that "after".

Yes, would you like me to explain it to you since apparently you don't?

Yes, please do explain.

They are two different stories by two different authors trying to
convey two different messages.

No, they both are the Word of God. God is their Author.

But instead of listening to God, you question His consistency...

Humble...

That is at least the third time you have posted this comment. At least you are consistent about that.
For the the third time, I am more consistent than you or the Bible.

I call Soul Searcher to comment on this... So I am not a mind reader nor a soul searcher, dear Soul Searcher

How sad to see creatures rebelling against their Creator and thinking that they are more intelligent and more consistent and wiser than Him...

YAQUBOS

KCDAD · Mar 6, 2008

So why in one is God called Elohim (plural) and in the other God is called Yahweh (which of course no one knew until Moses came down from the mountain)? The same author? Come on. Be reasonable.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e:author&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
The definition of author does not include one who inspires, except in the most figurative sense. Author means writer. God didn't write anything,

KCDAD · Mar 6, 2008

God created the animals and brought them to the man. It doesn't say God created the animals and waited around to create mana nd find out he needed a help meet and THEN brought them to the man.

The reason God created the animals was because man needed a help meet. End of discussion.
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' 19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

Soul Searcher · Mar 6, 2008

YAQUBOS said:
First, I would like to remember with you what Soul Searcher said on page 39 of this thread:

So, first, I would like to thank Soul Searcher for considering that I have seen some light...

I like to give people the benifit of a doubt but from what you wrote it appears that the light is still very dim.

OK. As you don't know what "context" means, then I will give you some hints.

Of course I know what context means.

You say verse 15 comes before verse 19, so inevitably what is in verse 19 must have happened after what happened in verse 15, right? Well, let's use your logic to study verses 1 to 4 that come BEFORE verses 15 and 19:

Just so you know Gen 2:1-3 are actually part of the book of Gen 1 Gen 2 is from a seperate work and actually begins at verse 4. If you were to pay attention to what is written you could see this clearly.

So, according to your logic, man's creation must have happened:

According to my logic the data is inconsistant with what is in Gen 1. If your "logic" points to somethign else then you should evaluate your logic as there would seem to be a problem with it.

1. AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth AND ALL THEIR HOSTS was COMPLETE.

2. AFTER the seventh day of creation.

3. AFTER God rested from creating. And this point is very important, because this means you think God created man and animals AFTER He rested from creating... And that shows how much your logic is strong...

Thus ends the book of Gen 1. Then begins a new book that has been merged with the old one and tells a different story abotu the same thing one that does not agree with the first one and very clearly shows that Adam was place in the garden before the first animal was created and only after all the animals were created and all were brought to Adam to name [this process would have literally taken at least several says if not years] then was woman created.

Recap Gen 1 says animals created then man and woman
Gen 2 says man created then animals then woman. They clearly do not agree with one another.

Where does the context say that?? On the contrary, the context clearly says that what is written in Genesis 2 is a general account about the creation of man and woman.

No it does not say what you claim. What you are calling context is reading two different accounts that are in disagreement from two different people, assuming that both were written by God and contain no error then twisting them into something which they do not say in effort to support your starting conclusion which was wrong fromt he begining and will always result in error.

The Bible clearly says that Adam was created after the animals were created.

It also clearly says that he was created and placed in the garden then the animals were created and brought to him to name and then woman was created. The accounts are conflicting plain and simple.

He was the summit of God's creation. He was to rule over all animals. And after He created Adam, God brought all the animals to Adam so that he may call them by names. But God didn't consider any of those animals that, as the Bible says, He created from the same ground of which He created Adam, able to be a helper suitable for Adam. So God made Eve from Adam.

That's the context of Genesis 1 and 2.

I guess you are unaware that what we know as the book of Genesis is made up of at least three seperate books and very likely as many as four.

Give us ONE practical concrete example of what you are dreaming here.

How many times have you claimed that Jesus said the bible is the word of god? How many times have you claimed that we have seen this? How many times have you claimed to have proven this? All are false and are easily saw simply by reading the thread.

I don't need to read minds. I just need to read this thread and other threads. KCDAD already clearly said that Jesus Christ and the Bible are not consistent in what they say.

I don't think KCDad said anything about Jesus being inconsistant. Nor do I think he said that he was more consistant than Jesus. I think KC has pointed out that the bible is inconsistant and I think you see what you want to see.
Fact: the bible is not Jesus.
Fact: Jesus did not write the bible.
Fact: The bible is inconsistant.

May the Lord bless you richly!

He already has.

KCDAD · Mar 6, 2008

Four more posts and I get promoted... what a country!!!

Anyway, just wanted to say: DITTO!

I don't think KCDad said anything about Jesus being inconsistant. Nor do I think he said that he was more consistant than Jesus. I think KC has pointed out that the bible is inconsistant and I think you see what you want to see.
Fact: the bible is not Jesus.
Fact: Jesus did not write the bible.
Fact: The bible is inconsistant.

What SS said.

YAQUBOS · Mar 7, 2008

KCDAD said:
So why in one is God called Elohim (plural) and in the other God is called Yahweh (which of course no one knew until Moses came down from the mountain)? The same author? Come on. Be reasonable.

Moses wrote Genesis.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e:author&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
The definition of author does not include one who inspires, except in the most figurative sense. Author means writer. God didn't write anything,

I am not talking about a human work or human literature, but about the Bible, the Word of God.

But anyway, let me quote that link you gave:

"An author is any person(s) or entity(s) which originates and assumes responsibility for an expression or communication."

Yes, God assumes all responsibility for anything written in the Bible.

"Person or corporate body, such as a government agency or business firm, chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a work."

When a manager makes his secretary write something, it is not the secretary who assumes the responsibility for anything written in that document, but only the manager.

Have a nice day!

YAQUBOS

YAQUBOS · Mar 7, 2008

KCDAD said:
God created the animals and brought them to the man. It doesn't say God created the animals and waited around to create mana nd find out he needed a help meet and THEN brought them to the man.

Yes, God created animals.

No, God didn't wait for anything.

No, man didn't need anything. Adam only didn't have a helper suitable for him. And although God created the animals from the same ground of which Adam was created, and yet none of those animals could be a helper suitable for Adam.

If you noticed, in my sentence, I talked about the creation of the animals AFTER I talked about Adam not having a helper suitable for him. But this doesn't mean that I am saying that animals were created after Adam. That's the same way Genesis 2 is talking. It is mentioning the fact that the animals were created from the same ground as in a parenthesis.

The reason God created the animals was because man needed a help meet.

Where did you read that THIS was the reason?

Then what was the reason for creating man?

End of discussion.
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' 19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

You see? God formed the animals from the GROUND

By the way: How does this mean that you can be saved from the eternal fire of hell without repenting???

YAQUBOS

YAQUBOS · Mar 7, 2008

Soul Searcher said:
I like to give people the benifit of a doubt but from what you wrote it appears that the light is still very dim.

Poor fellow...

Of course I know what context means.

Just so you know Gen 2:1-3 are actually part of the book of Gen 1 Gen 2 is from a seperate work and actually begins at verse 4. If you were to pay attention to what is written you could see this clearly.

Any part of the Bible is part of any chapter YOU want, your majesty...

According to my logic the data is inconsistant with what is in Gen 1. If your "logic" points to somethign else then you should evaluate your logic as there would seem to be a problem with it.

We have already seen in whose logic the problem is...

Thus ends the book of Gen 1. Then begins a new book that has been merged with the old one and tells a different story abotu the same thing one that does not agree with the first one and very clearly shows that Adam was place in the garden before the first animal was created and only after all the animals were created and all were brought to Adam to name [this process would have literally taken at least several says if not years] then was woman created.

OK. If you wish we may also add Matthew 5 as part of Genesis 1, your majesty...

Really humble...

Recap Gen 1 says animals created then man and woman
Gen 2 says man created then animals then woman. They clearly do not agree with one another.

Genesis 2 doesn't say that.

No it does not say what you claim. What you are calling context is reading two different accounts that are in disagreement from two different people, assuming that both were written by God and contain no error then twisting them into something which they do not say in effort to support your starting conclusion which was wrong fromt he begining and will always result in error.

Yes, the context says that.

Let me give you two passages. Please, tell me if, according to your logic, they agree with each other. And please tell me if you think they are written by the same person:

1. God created everything in six days. On the sixth day, He created the animals. And then He said that He wants to create man in His image, according to His likeness. So He created man from the ground, and He created them male and female.

2. When God made a garden and put man in it to cultivate it and keep it, He said that it is not good for the man to be alone, and that He will make him a helper suitable for him. And although God had formed the animals from the ground of which Adam was formed, and brought them to Adam, and yet there was not a helper suitable for Adam. So God made Eve from Adam.

Do I disagree with myself??

It also clearly says that he was created and placed in the garden then the animals were created and brought to him to name and then woman was created. The accounts are conflicting plain and simple.

I don't see that bold "then" in the context.

I guess you are unaware that what we know as the book of Genesis is made up of at least three seperate books and very likely as many as four.

OK, your majesty. Whatever you say is right, and no need for you to give us proofs, ok?

...

How many times have you claimed that Jesus said the bible is the word of god? How many times have you claimed that we have seen this? How many times have you claimed to have proven this? All are false and are easily saw simply by reading the thread.

We have seen how clear it is.

I don't think KCDad said anything about Jesus being inconsistant.

Read his replies.

Nor do I think he said that he was more consistant than Jesus.

Do I need to quote him?

I think KC has pointed out that the bible is inconsistant and I think you see what you want to see.
Fact: the bible is not Jesus.
Fact: Jesus did not write the bible.
Fact: The bible is inconsistant.

He already has.

Yes, he thinks he is more consistent than Jesus and the Bible.

Really humble, no?

By the way, as you understand KCDAD better than me, can you please tell me how is he planning to prove by all this that we may be saved from eternal hell without repentance?? Because when he began to talk about all this, we were talking about eternal life and eternal hell... Do you agree with me that he is never able to continue an argument until the end??

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

Soul Searcher · Mar 7, 2008

YAQUBOS said:
Any part of the Bible is part of any chapter YOU want, your majesty...

I guess when one has no legs to stand on they resort to such snide remarks.

We have already seen in whose logic the problem is...

Most clearly so and it is squarely on your shoulders my man.

OK. If you wish we may also add Matthew 5 as part of Genesis 1, your majesty...

Really humble...

What I stated was truth and has nothing to do with being humble. Your left handed remarks onyl go to show how little you understand and that you are not capable of presenting a valid argument on the subject.

Genesis 2 doesn't say that.

Yes it does. I will not continue to argue the point though it is painfully clear to me that you think the bible says whatever you want it to say regaurdless of what words are actually there. You have proven that beyond any measure of doubt.

Yes, the context says that.

In your little world maybe, but in the real world it is not even close.

Let me give you two passages. Please, tell me if, according to your logic, they agree with each other. And please tell me if you think they are written by the same person:

Of course they were written by you but they have no bearing on the conversasion. You have simply paraphrased in such a way as to make it appear the way you would like it to.

I don't see that bold "then" in the context.

Of course not, no one said that the word "then" was there. The order of events are there 1 then 2 then 3 then 4 the then is understood from the sequence of events as written. Surely you must understand this simple thing but then you also claim that Jesus said the bible is the word of God when he did not say anythign even remotely close to this so I should not be surprised that you do not see what is written.

OK, your majesty. Whatever you say is right, and no need for you to give us proofs, ok?

It is clear from the text all you need to do is read.

We have seen how clear it is.

You keep making this comment as though to imply that everyone sees what you claim is there and are lieing about it or something. Get this through your head. It is not there. The bible says no such thing, not in any passage, no where at all. None of us have seen this imagionary phrase including you. When will you actually show some integrity and admit it is not there?

Read his replies.

I have and I have saw no such comment. What I have saw repeatedly is you misreading and misrepresenting what anyone and everyone says including the bible.

Do I need to quote him?

Yes, he thinks he is more consistent that Jesus and the Bible.

Do you really not know what you are saying or are you just intentionally trying to provoke other people. I would suggest that if you don't know you should stop posting and if you do know then you should stop telling such lies.

Really humble, no?

By the way, as you understand KCDAD better than me, can you please tell me how is he planning to prove by all this that we may be saved from eternal hell without repentance?? Because when he began to talk about all this, we were talking about eternal life and eternal hell...

There is no such thing as eternal hell. You will notice if you actually read what the bible says that the phrase eternal hell does not exist in the bible. It does however say that hell shall give up the dead that are in it and then hell itself shall be cast into the lake of fire, but then you seldom seem to talk about what the bible really says.

Do you agree with me that he is never able to continue an argument until the end??

I would be surprised if anyone was able to continue an argument for very long given your tatics fo twisting words, repeated falsehoods and name calling.

BTW technically anyone who takes any part in an arguement does continue until the end as when they stop that is the end.

KCDAD · Mar 7, 2008

Moses wrote Genesis.

Not a chance.

I am not talking about a human work or human literature, but about the Bible, the Word of God.

Then you are talking about something that doesn't exist except in your mind. The Bible was written by human beings. It did not just "poof" appear in the dust of the Middle East one day. It was written over 3 centuries from stories as old as perhaps 10,000 years old. It was written by several authors at several different times. There was much more written that is not in your Bible, because it has been lost, destroyed or not given Canon status and excluded by some 3rd and 4th century Catholics.

"An author is any person(s) or entity(s) which originates and assumes responsibility for an expression or communication."

Yes, God assumes all responsibility for anything written in the Bible.

Who do you think you are to say what God claims responsibility for? Does God claim for responsibility for some things and not others?

"Person or corporate body, such as a government agency or business firm, chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a work."
When a manager makes his secretary write something, it is not the secretary who assumes the responsibility for anything written in that document, but only the manager.

That's it? So no secretary ever makes a mistake? Interprets a message wrong? Leaves out a line or embellishes another? God is "up there" giving dictation to the authors of the Bible? So... did God get tired of giving dictation, or just has nothing to say about anything now?

YAQUBOS;44375600Yes, God created animals.
No, God didn't wait for anything.
No, man didn't need anything. Adam only didn't have a helper suitable for him. And although God created the animals from the same ground of which Adam was created, and yet none of those animals could be a helper suitable for Adam.

If you noticed, in my sentence, I talked about the creation of the animals AFTER I talked about Adam not having a helper suitable for him. But this doesn't mean that I am saying that animals were created after Adam. That's the same way Genesis 2 is talking. It is mentioning the fact that the animals were created from the same ground as in a parenthesis.

I noticed you are unbelievably irrational.

Where did you read that THIS was the reason?

Verse 18 followed by 19 REMEMBER????????
End of discussion.
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' 19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

Then what was the reason for creating man?

Genesis doesn't say, does it? Probably so God could send him to hell... hell was created before man... right?

You see? God formed the animals from the GROUND

You have mentioned this several times... so what?

By the way: How does this mean that you can be saved from the eternal fire of hell without repenting???

Nice change of subject... there is no hell to be saved from. You forgot already?

KCDAD · Mar 7, 2008

Do I need to quote him?

Yes. you need to quote me. If you do not it will prove you are lying... and everyone will know it.

KCDAD · Mar 7, 2008

YAQUBOS said:
By the way, as you understand KCDAD better than me, can you please tell me how is he planning to prove by all this that we may be saved from eternal hell without repentance?? Because when he began to talk about all this, we were talking about eternal life and eternal hell... Do you agree with me that he is never able to continue an argument until the end??

You do not have to be saved from something that doesn't exist... just like you don't have to be saved from the flying pink unicorns circling your house.

ALTHOUGH it is apparent you need to be saved from your ideas about eternal hell.

MasterOfKrikkit · Mar 7, 2008

Er, random question: Why did God bring all the animals before Adam?

No doubt another wonderful ad hoc explanation exists (not naming any names!), but that raises a question in my mind -- one that popped up before, but I didn't develop or pursue fully:

- plenty of well-meaning, honest, good-hearted people have found issues with the apparent contradictions in the Bible (the Creation stories, Noah, Jonah, etc)
- suppose that the ad hoc explanations are correct, but one of these aforementioned people applies Occam's Razor and figures that the apparent contradictions are actually contradictions
- this person then dismisses the Bible as the work of Man, not God
- consequently, this person rejects a key point of doctrine (either because it appears to be contradicted by another point, or because they view the Bible as fallible) that turns out to be critically important
- an omniscient God surely knows that this person's non-salvation comes because of ambiguity in the Bible
- so why wouldn't God be more specific?
- surely an omniscient and omnipotent God is capable of writing a book that is completely clearly free of any possible misunderstanding, misinterpretation, ambiguity, etc. So why didn't God do that?

ETA: D'Oh, I'm an idiot! Completely forgot to mention: the reason I even dropped by was to tell you that I've added a link to a lecture on hell (and why it's a crap idea). New thread in the unorthodox forum. Check it out!

Soul Searcher · Mar 7, 2008

MasterOfKrikkit said:
Er, random question: Why did God bring all the animals before Adam?

No doubt another wonderful ad hoc explanation exists (not naming any names!), but that raises a question in my mind -- one that popped up before, but I didn't develop or pursue fully:

- plenty of well-meaning, honest, good-hearted people have found issues with the apparent contradictions in the Bible (the Creation stories, Noah, Jonah, etc)
- suppose that the ad hoc explanations are correct, but one of these aforementioned people applies Occam's Razor and figures that the apparent contradictions are actually contradictions
- this person then dismisses the Bible as the work of Man, not God
- consequently, this person rejects a key point of doctrine (either because it appears to be contradicted by another point, or because they view the Bible as fallible) that turns out to be critically important
- an omniscient God surely knows that this person's non-salvation comes because of ambiguity in the Bible
- so why wouldn't God be more specific?
- surely an omniscient and omnipotent God is capable of writing a book that is completely clearly free of any possible misunderstanding, misinterpretation, ambiguity, etc. So why didn't God do that?

ETA: D'Oh, I'm an idiot! Completely forgot to mention: the reason I even dropped by was to tell you that I've added a link to a lecture on hell (and why it's a crap idea). New thread in the unorthodox forum. Check it out!

Good questions.. I think it is pretty clear that God did not write the bible and those who did write the books of the bible did not see things the same way.

Surely God would have been able to create a book that was consistant and likely in a tongue that every man could read and fully understand without the need for translations and interpretations.

The bible is one of the most missunderstood and confusing books of all time resulting in much division amongst the believers and bloodshed as well. People often say that God is the author of the bible but the bible does not. It does say that God is not the author of confusion though.

YAQUBOS · Mar 8, 2008

Soul Searcher said:
I guess when one has no legs to stand on they resort to such snide remarks.

Yes, so maybe that's why you said that part of Genesis 2 is a part of Genesis 1 WITHOUT giving any proof

What I stated was truth and has nothing to do with being humble. Your left handed remarks onyl go to show how little you understand and that you are not capable of presenting a valid argument on the subject.

I didn't read any argument showing that a part of Genesis 2 is part of Genesis 1. So I don't need to reply to anything. There's nothing to prove here.

Yes it does. I will not continue to argue the point though it is painfully clear to me that you think the bible says whatever you want it to say regaurdless of what words are actually there. You have proven that beyond any measure of doubt.

We have read the Bible together, and we have seen what Genesis 2 really says. You are the one who is adding "then" in the context.

Of course they were written by you but they have no bearing on the conversasion. You have simply paraphrased in such a way as to make it appear the way you would like it to.

So you didn't understand my question, therefore you didn't answer it.

Of course not, no one said that the word "then" was there. The order of events are there 1 then 2 then 3 then 4 the then is understood from the sequence of events as written. Surely you must understand this simple thing but then you also claim that Jesus said the bible is the word of God when he did not say anythign even remotely close to this so I should not be surprised that you do not see what is written.

I already explained the matter of 1 then 2 then 3, so I don't need to repeat it, as your majesty want to make a part of Genesis 2 part of Genesis 1.

By the way, just in case you forgot, I posted a detailed reply where I quoted Jesus saying that the Bible is the Word of God.

It is clear from the text all you need to do is read.

No, what you say is not in the context.

You keep making this comment as though to imply that everyone sees what you claim is there and are lieing about it or something. Get this through your head. It is not there. The bible says no such thing, not in any passage, no where at all. None of us have seen this imagionary phrase including you. When will you actually show some integrity and admit it is not there?

Read my reply carefully.

By the way, someone visiting this forum told me that he sees that.

There is no such thing as eternal hell.

We have seen that there is. We have read it together in the Bible.

You will notice if you actually read what the bible says that the phrase eternal hell does not exist in the bible. It does however say that hell shall give up the dead that are in it and then hell itself shall be cast into the lake of fire, but then you seldom seem to talk about what the bible really says.

Yes, Hades ( and not Gehenna = Hell ) will give up the dead that are in it. Read carefully, and learn some Greek if you want.

YAQUBOS

YAQUBOS · Mar 8, 2008

KCDAD said:
Not a chance.

I believe in God, not in chance

Then you are talking about something that doesn't exist except in your mind. The Bible was written by human beings. It did not just "poof" appear in the dust of the Middle East one day. It was written over 3 centuries from stories as old as perhaps 10,000 years old. It was written by several authors at several different times. There was much more written that is not in your Bible, because it has been lost, destroyed or not given Canon status and excluded by some 3rd and 4th century Catholics.

What you wrote here is wrong historical information. Just in case you want to know the true story, you can pm me.

Who do you think you are to say what God claims responsibility for? Does God claim for responsibility for some things and not others?

God said He does assume responsibility for everything He has written in the Bible.

That's it? So no secretary ever makes a mistake? Interprets a message wrong? Leaves out a line or embellishes another? God is "up there" giving dictation to the authors of the Bible? So... did God get tired of giving dictation, or just has nothing to say about anything now?

When the secretary writes it, the infallible Author is guiding. So no risk of mistakes.

God already said everything He wants to say about now and always. The Word of God is the eternal truth.

Verse 18 followed by 19 REMEMBER????????
End of discussion.

Yes, and both those verses follow the verses 1 to 4.

Remember???

End of discussion.

Genesis doesn't say, does it? Probably so God could send him to hell... hell was created before man... right?

Genesis and the whole Bible says why God created man. But you still didn't have time to read the Bible humbly. You still think you are more consistent than the Word of God...

You have mentioned this several times... so what?

Yes, so what??? You keep re-quoting the passage that says that the animals were created from the same ground from which Adam was created. Why do you keep quoting that? Do you think I don't believe that God created animals from the ground?

By the way, in Genesis 2, did you notice the construction of the sentence:

"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." ( Genesis 2:19 )

Why didn't the passage say: "God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky out of the ground"?

Did you notice that the passage puts the accent on the ground??

And, by the way, there is no "then" in this sentence...

Nice change of subject... there is no hell to be saved from. You forgot already?

Read the Bible. It says there is eternal hell where you will go if you don't repent and believe the Gospel.

By the way, just in case you forgot what the subject of this thread is, you can read it above, in the title of this thread.

Have a nice time!

YAQUBOS

GregoryTurner · Mar 8, 2008

Animals???

I thought this was about baptism's neccesity for salvation?!?!?!?!

YAQUBOS · Mar 8, 2008

I am glad that some people are not being able not to read this thread ( not naming any names!! )

MasterOfKrikkit said:
Er, random question: Why did God bring all the animals before Adam?

No doubt another wonderful ad hoc explanation exists (not naming any names!), but that raises a question in my mind -- one that popped up before, but I didn't develop or pursue fully:

- plenty of well-meaning, honest, good-hearted people have found issues with the apparent contradictions in the Bible (the Creation stories, Noah, Jonah, etc)
- suppose that the ad hoc explanations are correct, but one of these aforementioned people applies Occam's Razor and figures that the apparent contradictions are actually contradictions
- this person then dismisses the Bible as the work of Man, not God
- consequently, this person rejects a key point of doctrine (either because it appears to be contradicted by another point, or because they view the Bible as fallible) that turns out to be critically important
- an omniscient God surely knows that this person's non-salvation comes because of ambiguity in the Bible
- so why wouldn't God be more specific?
- surely an omniscient and omnipotent God is capable of writing a book that is completely clearly free of any possible misunderstanding, misinterpretation, ambiguity, etc. So why didn't God do that?

ETA: D'Oh, I'm an idiot! Completely forgot to mention: the reason I even dropped by was to tell you that I've added a link to a lecture on hell (and why it's a crap idea). New thread in the unorthodox forum. Check it out!

The Bible is clear:

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." ( 2 Peter 3:16 )

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 )

YAQUBOS

YAQUBOS · Mar 8, 2008

GregoryTurner said:
Animals???

I thought this was about baptism's neccesity for salvation?!?!?!?!

Yes, dear friend, as you can see, some people cannot concentrate on the topic of this thread, and they ask many irrelevent questions.

Maybe it's because they have many questions and they were glad to find someone who wants to give them the biblical answers???

Anyway, I have called them many times to open a thread about each question or problem that they have. But they insist on talking about everything in this thread.

OK. So let's go back to our topic. The Bible says that, although baptism is a necessary part of Salvation, but it is not essential FOR Salvation.

YAQUBOS

Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The kingdom is within

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

The kingdom is within

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

The kingdom is within

Regular Member

Regular Member

Ezekiel 33

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency