Let's Talk About Hell (6)

gradyll said:

I have heard a pastor once say, the reason why Adam sinned was to be cursed with eve, because He loved Her. I don't know how accurate it is but it's possible. But I believe Adam was not deceived like the Bible states.

Click to expand...

then you dont put 2 and 2 together and come to a conclusion.


1+1=1 to you

IOWLBNIF said:

then you dont put 2 and 2 together and come to a conclusion.


1+1=1 to you

Click to expand...

"Stop Applying a doctrine you read, or heard about, to the Bible

And apply the Bible to your doctrine. To see if it Stands UP in the FIRE"

"King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

1 tim 2:14

gradyll said:

Oh, didn't read that one, but the ignore button is just for that purpose. So ignore away.

btw if you dont' want contact why do you keep contacting me?

lol

Click to expand...

Me responding to your taunts is not really contacting you. I know that I should rise above your taunts, but I maintain hope that you will see what you are doing and change.

You are wrong via fallacy...


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

wikipedia

Click to expand...

Again, no. If I said you were wrong because of some negative characteristic that you have, that wouldn't be an effective argument. You can still be wrong despite any characteristics that you possess. What I was saying is that if you wanted to be more convincing in your argument, you could be nicer.

I've proven you wrong repeatedly using scripture as proof. This has nothing to do with ad hominum.

IOWLBNIF said:

then please o please answer the question.


If adam was not deceived, then how did he sin? One only sins if they are deceived into thinking its ok.


How does sin come through the man and not the woman, if you are right

Click to expand...

The first problem with the false modern gospel is a watered-down definition of “sin.” Sin is not an “honest mistake”; it is an honest choice from a sinful heart to do what you know is wrong. Would a good judge describe the crimes of a vicious murderer as “honest mistakes”? While it sounds ridiculous to call murder and rape “honest mistakes,” God sees hatred to be as wicked as murder (1 John 3:15), and lust as deceitful as adultery (Matt 5:28). In God’s world, those who lie are liars. If we have stolen, we are thieves. If we have broken God’s Law in any way (in word, thought, or deed) we are Lawbreakers. God defines sin in His Word: “Sin is transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). We are on the hook for our sins, and God doesn’t view us as innocent misguided victims of our “honest mistakes”. In God’s holy eyes, our hearts are “desperately wicked and deceitful” (Jer. 17:9) and are “by nature, children of wrath.”

Ignorance of God’s Law is no excuse, because He has written it upon our hearts. (Romans 2:15) We have a conscience. We know right from wrong. When we lie, it isn’t an honest mistake. Stealing and lusting, hating and blaspheming, idolizing, coveting, and dishonoring our parents are not honest mistakes either. The Bible says that we have actually angered God by violating His Law, and made ourselves “enemies of God,” and therefore, are “by nature, children of wrath,” “storing up wrath for ourselves that will be revealed on the Day of Wrath.”

We are not doing sinners any favors when we minimize the seriousness of their sin. George Whitefield, a famous preacher once said, “First, then, before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must be made to see, made to feel, made to weep over, made to bewail, your actual transgressions against the Law of God.” It is only when a person sees his sin as wicked and understands the seriousness of offending his Creator, that he can find a place of true repentance and surrender to the Savior.

Within the last 100 years, a new gospel has crept into our churches. It has been designed to not offend you. It has been carefully crafted not to be too “in your face.” It gently suggests that you open your heart to Jesus if your current lifestyle isn’t working for you, and try God “when the time is right for you.” This “seeker centered” and “no offense” approach is no gospel at all; it is “another gospel”. If we continue to define sin as “honest mistakes”, we will continue to fill our churches with “backsliders” and false converts who fail to repent because they don’t see the seriousness of their sin. We will give them a cruel false hope, and make them comfortable aboard the “Jesus loves you” pleasure cruiser, singing songs to the Captain, while they blindly speed toward the iceberg of Eternal Justice.

The Captain has already lowered the life boats of salvation, but they are mostly empty. God help us to stop the music, and sound the air-horns. We must tell the passengers about the iceberg and direct them to the emergency exits of repentance. Time is slipping away, and those who die in their sins will perish. If we are faithful servants to the Captain of our Salvation, we will obey his Commands and preach the pure gospel, the only gospel that can save souls.

from
ray comfort
Sin-My Honest Mistakes?

Timothew said:

Me responding to your taunts is not really contacting you. I know that I should rise above your taunts, but I maintain hope that you will see what you are doing and change.

Again, no. If I said you were wrong because of some negative characteristic that you have, that wouldn't be an effective argument. You can still be wrong despite any characteristics that you possess. What I was saying is that if you wanted to be more convincing in your argument, you could be nicer.

I've proven you wrong repeatedly using scripture as proof. This has nothing to do with ad hominum.

Click to expand...

If you believe a brother to be in sin and disruptive you are to apply church discipline to them, not politely argue with them: (put them on ignore for one)

here is an example of church discipline, say a man is sleeping with His step mother and wont repent....

"If there is no response in repentance and obedience, then the sinning believer is to be rebuked publicly and members of the body are to withhold intimate fellowship through the process and procedure of group disapproval and social ostracism as prescribed in the next section, Procedures for Church Discipline below (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; !@#$%^&*. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20). This action has a two-fold objective:

It is to indicate to the offender that his/her action has dishonored the Lord and has caused a rupture in the harmony of the body. The goal is always restoration and the person is still to be counted as a brother (2 Thess. 3:14-15).
It is to create fear in the rest of the flock as a warning against sin (1 Tim. 5:20).

(6) If there is still no response in repentance and obedience, the church is to apply the procedures of excommunication as directed in Matthew 18:17."

from

Church Discipline | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

gradyll said:

If you believe a brother to be in sin and disruptive you are to apply church discipline to them, not politely argue with them: (put them on ignore for one)here is an example of church discipline,

Click to expand...

Just push the ignore button if he does not know how to address an individual verse or discuss each single line like Ecc 9:5

Matt Slick is slick alright, bypassing the entire content so he can get rid of things he does not wish to address. Perhaps Matt Slick overlooked the fact that "Let the dead bury their own dead" means that those who die without Christ are forgotten, gone, exterminated. They are not walking around as zombies burying the dead.

Luk 9:60
Leave the dead to bury their own dead (aphes tous nekrous thapsai tous heautōn nekrous). This paradox occurs so in Mat_8:22. The explanation is that the spiritually dead can bury the literally dead. [VWS]

John 5:24 directs you to the proper interpretation
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life

and John 5:29 makes it explicit that all of those before you can have grace, in the grave, must have heard what Christ said, and be a believer in Christ.
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.

John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Though he die (kan apothanēi). "Even if he die," condition (concession) of third class with kai ean (kan) and the second aorist active subjunctive of apothnēskō (physical death, he means). Yet shall he live (zēsetai). Future middle of zaō (spiritual life, of course). [RWP] He will be resurrected.

Dan 12:1 ..that is every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to infamy and everlasting abomination.

Notice that it does not say all shall be resurrected, but Many, and that not all of the many will make it. Only all of those found written in the book of Life will receive the grace eternally.

Excuses will not work with God and to publish the wrong gospel, that the dead are alive in any physical way and can feel any punishment and are tortured, is to deny Christ.

gradyll said:

The first problem with the false modern gospel is a watered-down definition of “sin.” Sin is not an “honest mistake”; it is an honest choice from a sinful heart to do what you know is wrong. Would a good judge describe the crimes of a vicious murderer as “honest mistakes”? While it sounds ridiculous to call murder and rape “honest mistakes,” God sees hatred to be as wicked as murder (1 John 3:15), and lust as deceitful as adultery (Matt 5:28). In God’s world, those who lie are liars. If we have stolen, we are thieves. If we have broken God’s Law in any way (in word, thought, or deed) we are Lawbreakers. God defines sin in His Word: “Sin is transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). We are on the hook for our sins, and God doesn’t view us as innocent misguided victims of our “honest mistakes”. In God’s holy eyes, our hearts are “desperately wicked and deceitful” (Jer. 17:9) and are “by nature, children of wrath.”

Ignorance of God’s Law is no excuse, because He has written it upon our hearts. (Romans 2:15) We have a conscience. We know right from wrong. When we lie, it isn’t an honest mistake. Stealing and lusting, hating and blaspheming, idolizing, coveting, and dishonoring our parents are not honest mistakes either. The Bible says that we have actually angered God by violating His Law, and made ourselves “enemies of God,” and therefore, are “by nature, children of wrath,” “storing up wrath for ourselves that will be revealed on the Day of Wrath.”

We are not doing sinners any favors when we minimize the seriousness of their sin. George Whitefield, a famous preacher once said, “First, then, before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must be made to see, made to feel, made to weep over, made to bewail, your actual transgressions against the Law of God.” It is only when a person sees his sin as wicked and understands the seriousness of offending his Creator, that he can find a place of true repentance and surrender to the Savior.

Within the last 100 years, a new gospel has crept into our churches. It has been designed to not offend you. It has been carefully crafted not to be too “in your face.” It gently suggests that you open your heart to Jesus if your current lifestyle isn’t working for you, and try God “when the time is right for you.” This “seeker centered” and “no offense” approach is no gospel at all; it is “another gospel”. If we continue to define sin as “honest mistakes”, we will continue to fill our churches with “backsliders” and false converts who fail to repent because they don’t see the seriousness of their sin. We will give them a cruel false hope, and make them comfortable aboard the “Jesus loves you” pleasure cruiser, singing songs to the Captain, while they blindly speed toward the iceberg of Eternal Justice.

The Captain has already lowered the life boats of salvation, but they are mostly empty. God help us to stop the music, and sound the air-horns. We must tell the passengers about the iceberg and direct them to the emergency exits of repentance. Time is slipping away, and those who die in their sins will perish. If we are faithful servants to the Captain of our Salvation, we will obey his Commands and preach the pure gospel, the only gospel that can save souls.

from
ray comfort
Sin-My Honest Mistakes?

Click to expand...

another commentary i see...

Sadly, you still havent answered my question and in no way was i saying what adam did an "honest mistake."

answer the question in your own words

gradyll said:

"Stop Applying a doctrine you read, or heard about, to the Bible

And apply the Bible to your doctrine. To see if it Stands UP in the FIRE"

"King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

1 tim 2:14

Click to expand...

use some logic my friend.


if adam was standing right there with eve and the evil one was talking to eve and eve ate from the tree and she didnt die

then he decideds to eat from it as well.

then he has been deceived, for eve didnt die, just like the evil one said, and adam saw she didnt die, and then ate from the tree.

decpetion is deception.


Do you not know the bible is written in a style called parallelism....

Look at the previous verse. Adam was created first not eve, Eve was decieved (first) not adam.

They were both deceived, the order doesnt matter.


you cant answer the question. If adam wasnt decieved into sinning, then why does sin come through the man and not the woman.

if adam listened to his wife because of what he saw/she said, then he too was decieved lol.....your not being logical

your being legalistic.

so are you telling me God created man with a wicked heart?

IOWLBNIF said:

another commentary i see...

Sadly, you still havent answered my question and in no way was i saying what adam did an "honest mistake."

answer the question in your own words

Click to expand...

Sin is not an “honest mistake”; it is an honest choice from a sinful heart to do what you know is wrong. Would a good judge describe the crimes of a vicious murderer as “honest mistakes”? While it sounds ridiculous to call murder and rape “honest mistakes,” God sees hatred to be as wicked as murder (1 John 3:15), and lust as deceitful as adultery (Matt 5:28). In God’s world, those who lie are liars. If we have stolen, we are thieves. If we have broken God’s Law in any way (in word, thought, or deed) we are Lawbreakers. God defines sin in His Word: “Sin is transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). We are on the hook for our sins, and God doesn’t view us as innocent misguided victims of our “honest mistakes”. In God’s holy eyes, our hearts are “desperately wicked and deceitful” (Jer. 17:9) and are “by nature, children of wrath.”

Ignorance of God’s Law is no excuse, because He has written it upon our hearts. (Romans 2:15) We have a conscience. We know right from wrong. When we lie, it isn’t an honest mistake. Stealing and lusting, hating and blaspheming, idolizing, coveting, and dishonoring our parents are not honest mistakes either. The Bible says that we have actually angered God by violating His Law, and made ourselves “enemies of God,” and therefore, are “by nature, children of wrath,” “storing up wrath for ourselves that will be revealed on the Day of Wrath.”

We are not doing sinners any favors when we minimize the seriousness of their sin. George Whitefield, a famous preacher once said, “First, then, before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must be made to see, made to feel, made to weep over, made to bewail, your actual transgressions against the Law of God.” It is only when a person sees his sin as wicked and understands the seriousness of offending his Creator, that he can find a place of true repentance and surrender to the Savior.

again where did i say sin is an honest mistake


please show me



and why cant you answer the questions or address the explanations.

IOWLBNIF said:

use some logic my friend.


if adam was standing right there with eve and the evil one was talking to eve and eve ate from the tree and she didnt die

then he decideds to eat from it as well.

then he has been deceived, for eve didnt die, just like the evil one said, and adam saw she didnt die, and then ate from the tree.

decpetion is deception.


Do you not know the bible is written in a style called parallelism....

Look at the previous verse. Adam was created first not eve, Eve was decieved (first) not adam.

They were both deceived, the order doesnt matter.


you cant answer the question. If adam wasnt decieved into sinning, then why does sin come through the man and not the woman.

if adam listened to his wife because of what he saw/she said, then he too was decieved lol.....your not being logical

your being legalistic.

so are you telling me God created man with a wicked heart?

Click to expand...

here is another commentary on genesis, read up. You won't listen to me so here ya go.

"Those who believe Adam was present with Eve (the Woman) during the temptation point to the fact that Genesis 3:6 states that Eve gave some fruit to her husband who was “with her.” At first glance, this seems to settle the matter, but arguments have been raised against this.

First, the Scripture does not necessarily state that Adam was with Eve when she was deceived. It only mentions Adam when she ate. Many believe the phrase “with her” is out of context when applying it to the events in the previous section.

Many believe a small amount of time passed to permit Adam to arrive on the scene to see her pick the fruit, eat it, and give some to him to eat. Part of the reason for this small amount of time is due to events that took place between Eve speaking to the serpent and Adam eating. For example, Eve saw that the fruit was good to eat. How could she know the fruit was good to eat? Perhaps she saw an animal eat some of the fruit—maybe even the serpent. Keep in mind that man was forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the Bible gives no indication that the animals couldn’t have eaten from it.

Then in Genesis 3:17, God rightly charges Adam of heeding the voice of his wife. This likely indicates there was a conversation between Adam and Eve after her discussion with the serpent. This will be covered in more detail in the coming paragraphs.

In fact, the Bible never says the serpent spoke to Adam and Eve but only to Eve. Only Eve responded, and it is highly unlikely that Adam wouldn’t respond at all if he was involved in the conversation—especially with the blatant errors spoken in the conversation. Logically, it is easier to deceive one person than two. Note the clever deception by the serpent in that he did not go by the Lord God’s created order. He did not go to Adam first, but instead went directly for Eve.

There was probably some small amount of time between the temptation and Eve’s eating the fruit, so the question arises whether or not it was enough time for Adam to arrive. Expositor Dr. John Gill wrote the following regarding Genesis 3:6:

and gave also to her husband with her; and gave also to her husband with her; that he might eat as well as she, and partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and her. The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done:1

Gill believed there was a discussion between the Woman and Adam after her deception. He even believed the Woman was indeed alone when deceived:

And he said to the woman; being alone, which he took the advantage of; not the serpent, but Satan in it; just as the angel spoke in Balaam’s !@#$%^&*;2

John Calvin stated the following in his commentary:

“And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived. Others refer the particle (immah,)“with her,” to the conjugal bond, which may be received. But because Moses simply relates that he ate the fruit taken from the hands of his wife, the opinion has been commonly received, that he was rather captivated with her allurements than persuaded by Satan’s impostures. {1} For this purpose the declaration of Paul is adduced,

‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’ (#1Ti 2:14).

But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with her. And truly Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam himself, (#Ro 5:12). Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows ‘Behold, Adam is as one of us,’ clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was lawful, and gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word of God.”3

Poole’s commentary agrees with Calvin's:

Gave also unto her husband with her, who by this time was returned to her, and who now was with her; or, that he might eat with her, and take his part of that fruit.4

So, these men didn’t see that Adam needed to be with Eve when she was deceived. Even Trapp’s commentary leaves open the possibility that Adam wasn’t with Eve the whole time:

And gave it also to her husband. It is probable, saith the same author, that Adam stood by all the time of the disputation; therefore his sin was the greater, that he rebuked not the serpent, &c. And again, I cannot believe, said he, but that the devils in the serpent did as well tempt Adam as Eve, though first they began with her, as a further means of enticing him. Others {e} are of another mind, as that the tempter set upon the woman alone and apart from her husband, as she was curiously prying into the pleasures of the garden; that the serpent crept into Paradise unseen of Adam, who was to keep beasts out of it; that he remained there without being seen by him, and crept out again when he had done his feat; that when she gave him the fruit, she gave him also a relation of the serpent’s promise concerning the force of that fruit, that it would make them wise as God, knowing good and evil, &c., whence he is said to have hearkened to her voice. {#Ge 3:17} And surely, every Adam hath still his Eve, every David his Bathsheba, a tempter in his own bosom, his own flesh, whereby he is so soon “drawn away, and enticed” as a fish by the bait, —beauty {f} is a hook without a bait, {g} as one saith, —till “when lust hath conceived,” as here it did in Eve, “it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death”. {#Jas 1:14,15} Satan hath only a persuasive sleight, not an enforcing might. It is our own concupiscence that carrieth the greatest stroke.5

In The Genesis Record, Henry Morris wrote the following:

As the prototype of all sinners, Eve felt impelled to lead Adam to participate in the same sin. She therefore plucked more of the fruit and brought it to her husband, urging him to eat it as well. No doubt, she used the same arguments the serpent had used, also adding the personal testimony that she had eaten the delicious fruit herself without harmful effect.
Adam, however, “was not deceived” (I Timothy 2:14). Whether this statement by the Apostle Paul means that Adam was fully aware that he was willfully defying God, or whether it simply means that Adam was not the initial one whom Satan attacked with this deception, may not be completely clear.6

Concerning Adam and Eve, Paul stated the following:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

The passage says Eve, and not Adam, was deceived—but this still doesn’t shed light on whether Adam was with Eve or if he showed up afterwards. In both cases (Adam with Eve or Adam not with Eve), 1 Timothy 2:13–14 could easily apply. If Adam was not with Eve, then obviously he wouldn’t have been deceived. He could have eaten knowing he was sinning, regardless of knowing the serpent had deceived Eve.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17)

There is no indication that Adam listened to the voice of the serpent, but he did listen to the voice of his wife. Since God said that Adam listened to the voice of his wife, then two scenarios could apply:

He listened to her voice when she responded to the serpent (scenario one).
This was a conversation after she spoke with the serpent (scenario two).

Analyzing Scenario One

If Adam listened to the voice of his wife when she responded to the serpent, then why didn’t he correct her when she misquoted God’s command?7 She said this to the serpent:

We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” (Genesis 3:2–3; emphasis mine)

Eve left out some key words and then added to God’s Word:
Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:16–17; emphasis mine)

She removed “every” and “freely” but added “or touch it” and even misstated “surely die” as merely “die.” If Adam listened to his wife’s erroneous words here, then he could have been deceived into believing something other than what God said. However, 1 Timothy states that Adam was not deceived, so this is likely not the case.

Also, since he was not deceived, Adam should have corrected his wife’s mistaken response, especially since he knew what was right (James 4:17). If this were the case, he would have been sinning before he ate, yet the Lord didn’t mention it or give a rebuke for these potentially failed actions.8

But take note, that if Adam only listened what Eve said to the serpent (Genesis 3:2–3), and heeded it, then he would not have even touched the fruit, let alone eat it!

Analyzing Scenario Two

Eve conversed with Adam and he ate (but not by deception), thus with this scenario they had to have a conversation soon after the Woman conversed with the serpent which is what Gill, Calvin, Trapp, Morris, and others have pointed out.

God said nothing of Adam listening to the voice of the serpent, but only that he listened to Eve. In fact, Adam only blamed his wife, not the serpent, which may indicate that he wasn’t aware of the serpent’s discussion with her.

Though this conversation between Adam and his wife is not mentioned in the early portions of the text in Genesis 3, it does give further support that the time reference in verse 6 indicates that time had passed between Eve’s conversation with the serpent and her taking a bite and giving some to her husband. Apparently, there were events that were not entirely recorded in detail, such as this conversation.

This time reference and new conversation between Eve and Adam is further support that the phrase “with her” in Genesis 3:6 would be out of context with the prior events—when she was being deceived by the serpent. So scenario two seems much more plausible, though one should not be dogmatic.

Regardless, this whole event surely didn’t take long, from the serpent’s deception to when Eve desired the fruit and spoke to her husband and then ate.9 We should refrain from being dogmatic that Adam was there the whole time because so little is given in Scripture.

Without question though, Adam was with his wife when she ate, so he had no excuse for not knowing what he ate. He knew it was fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and knowingly sinned when he ate. "

Was Adam With Eve When She Spoke to the Serpent? - Answers in Genesis

i said i dont listen to commentaries.

i never said anything about not listening to you


in fact i say explain it in your own words.




please show me where i said i dont talk to people who are unsaved.


and show me where i said i dont want to listen to you

this is what i mean........

here is what i found and stopped when starting to read this commentary:


Keep in mind that man was forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the Bible gives no indication that the animals couldn’t have eaten from it.




if animals ate from it, then they wouldnt have sex with their mothers and practice sexual immorality...


commentaries are ridiculous, there is no way to test the people giving them.

So because they went somewhere and you regard them in high esteem based upon how "wise" you think they are...

you end up getting deceived

IOWLBNIF said:

i said i dont listen to commentaries.

i never said anything about not listening to you


in fact i say explain it in your own words.




please show me where i said i dont talk to people who are unsaved.


and show me where i said i dont want to listen to you

Click to expand...

that was a long time ago, we are past that, just answer the post with the commentary. It's good for you.

IOWLBNIF said:

this is what i mean........

here is what i found and stopped when starting to read this commentary:


Keep in mind that man was forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the Bible gives no indication that the animals couldn’t have eaten from it.




if animals ate from it, then they wouldnt have sex with their mothers and practice sexual immorality...


commentaries are ridiculous, there is no way to test the people giving them.

So because they went somewhere and you regard them in high esteem based upon how "wise" you think they are...

you end up getting deceived

Click to expand...

they are not all right, none of them are. but just because they are wrong, doesn't mean you don't listen to them. A lot of commentators are actually pastors and they are preaching a sermon, get it?

gradyll said:

they are not all right, none of them are. but just because they are wrong, doesn't mean you don't listen to them. A lot of commentators are actually pastors and they are preaching a sermon, get it?

Click to expand...

um ok?


just because your a pastor and your preaching a sermon, you dont think that they should be tested?


i dont care what someone tells me who they are.....

i will test that person to see if they are who they say they are.


we are commanded to test all spirits.......im doing my job........are you doing yours?



so because someone is partially right, i should listen to them?

Should i listen to someone who is wrong and then take everything else they say to be correct?

when someone lies, would you trust what else that person has to say?

same concept.


Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

IOWLBNIF said:

um ok?


just because your a pastor and your preaching a sermon, you dont think that they should be tested?


i dont care what someone tells me who they are.....

i will test that person to see if they are who they say they are.


we are commanded to test all spirits.......im doing my job........are you doing yours?

Click to expand...

so because your pastor says one thing wrong, you walk out? Nice.

gradyll said:

so because your pastor says one thing wrong, you walk out? Nice.

Click to expand...

here goes your legalism.


is that what im saying? or is that what you think im saying?


Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

IOWLBNIF said:

here goes your legalism.


is that what im saying? or is that what you think im saying?


Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

Click to expand...

commentaries are the same way, you take them for what they are worth....just a sermon. Some sermons are bad, and others are good. But you don't toss them out unless the majority of them are bad.

gradyll said:

commentaries are the same way, you take them for what they are worth....just a sermon. Some sermons are bad, and others are good. But you don't toss them out unless the majority of them are bad.

Click to expand...

honestly,


i cant even stand to sit there and read a complete commentary


here is why i dont like commentaries.

Because someone searching for an answer will go read a commentary, and because of who that person is and his position, they will believe what that person is saying, and then they will derive a whole doctrine or belief just because of what they read.


you (not you personally necessarily) people need to have some patience and prayer if you dont understand something in the bible.


not everyone has the same level of discernment, not everyone knows how to test people.

so when those same people read a commentary, then, again, they develop a whole doctrine based upon what they read

when the bible goes in complete contradiction of their understanding.

and instead of telling me (or anyone) what the verse is saying and the bible is saying instead of what they think it saying , in their own words.

they post a commentary.....






if one thinks that animals ate from the tree, and doesnt apply any logical sense as to why that isnt the case, then based upon that one "understanding" they well develop a doctrine because they beleive that "animals ate from the tree, so this must mean what i think it means"


The bible doesnt say if animals ate from the tree or not....

So does that mean you ignore what your pet does? If your pet has knowledge of Good and evil, then why do they commit sexual immorality


you (not you personally) need to use that brain that God gave you along with what the Scriptures say, not what you want/think it is saying.