Why do you believe the 66 books deemed as canonical are inspired and true? (Gospel, Messiah)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The word is thelei, and it means deries, wishes, wills etc. If you wanted to know the truth, you would easily find it by looking at how the word is used in other verses like Mark 9:35. However, reading your comments here and on other threads, it is clear you are not interested in the truth, you are interested only in trying to prove the Bible is not accurate.
Oh boy. Here we go!
Finn, your objection is best directed at the people who translated the verses I quoted. Presumably, they are better scholars than you and knew how thelei best translated into English. And we all know which way you lean on the matter, so it's clear YOU are not interested in the truth, but only interested in trying to make people believe they will burn for eternity. The lid is being blown off that satanic lie---right before your eyes, my friend. The Fundamentalist Corporate Machine is being exposed for what it is: a lying, greedy, corrupt organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
He did preserve the bible. When they found the dead sea scrolls, and compared them to the present version of the bible the scientists were amazed to discover they were practically identical.
Yes, the Old Testament only. When scholars try to do the same for the New Testament documents, which number about 5,500 give or take they have an absolute mess on their hands. Scholars have counted more errors in those documents than there are words in the New Testament.
Again, that's why I said it is this hodgepodge that is responsible for the bitter debates we've had in here on ET, annihilation, and UR. Paul says souls will suffer everlasting destruction in 2 Thess. then he says all will be saved and come to the knowledge of truth in 1 Timothy. Jesus and John the Baptist say the wicked will be annihilated. You didn't bother to address this point, presumably because you have no good rebuttal to this fact.
I know you're not interested in the truth on this matter, Finn, but for those who are, this short article presents an honest and forthright view on how this belief in hell became so predominant and what the Word of God really teaches about hell. An excerpt:
Quote:
The popular concept of hell is a mixture of small bits of Bible truth combined with pagan ideas and human imagination. As we will see, this has produced a grossly inaccurate portrayal of what happens to the wicked after death.
Finn, your objection is best directed at the people who translated the verses I quoted. Presumably, they are better scholars than you and knew how thelei best translated into English. And we all know which way you lean on the matter, so it's clear YOU are not interested in the truth, but only interested in trying to make people believe they will burn for eternity. The lid is being blown off that satanic lie---right before your eyes, my friend. The Fundamentalist Corporate Machine is being exposed for what it is: a lying, greedy, corrupt organization. [\quote] sorry, but i said nothing about he'll. I only told you how the word is used in the new testament.
Quote:
Yes, the Old Testament only. When scholars try to do the same for the New Testament documents, which number about 5,500 give or take they have an absolute mess on their hands. Scholars have counted more errors in those documents than there are words in the New Testament
Here's a classic example of what we're talking about:
Let's assume Paul did write 1 Timothy. Now here are various translations
No we have four operative verbs here:
1.desires
2.wants
3.wills
4.will have
1. "desires" argument: God desires people to be saved but God can't get what He desires because His will is a slave to man's will; man who chooses to sin rather than come to the Light, so God, being frustrated in His desire to save all men, is left with no choice but to condemn them to an eternity of torment in the fires of hell.
Anyone see a problem with this? No?
2. "wants" argument: about the same as "desires". He desperately wants to save all men but again His will is weaker than man's will to sin and so He cannot have what He wants.
Again, anyone see a problem with this line of reasoning? No, again???
3. "wills" argument: this is a little better because God not only wants it but He "wills" its. "My word, which comes from my mouth will not come back to me void. It will accomplish whatever I want and achieve whatever I send it to do."Isaiah 55:11.
So if God wants all men to be saved He is not the type to not get what He wants.
4. "will have" argument: God will have what He desires and what He desires is for all men to be saved.
I honestly do not understand how people argue with this by claiming that, despite Him saying He "will have" what He desires, nevertheless His will is still subservient to man's will; or dancing around this fact by inventing something that's not even there: "Well, Paul is referring only to the saved and not to "all men" . "All" doesn't really mean all, it only means "some"
But the main point is that there's a problem not only with authorship, but also of translation. One is weak(1), one is very, very strong (4).
There is nothing wrong with all 66 books of the Bible. Some words over the time have changed in meaning and some language structure is awkward in the KJV version but by "compareing spiritual things with spritual things" the original content is easily understood in time.
God desires/wills/wants/wishes that no one murder,steal,or commit adultry but they do anyways. This spiritual truth when set along side, "God desires that all men be saved" should be enough to understand the meaning of it. Men thward the desires of God in the areas of where free will is given but make no mistake He has a will that is absolute and can not be changed.
Those who seek to tear down the 66 books of the Word of God by useing their own understanding rather than that of prayer and with much patience have the Spirit teach them over time are making a grave mistake and what they say has no power to save, transform others or for themselves to reap the silver and gold of the Spirit.
What has gone wrong? 1TIM 6:4 "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions andstrifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,---"
There is nothing wrong with all 66 books of the Bible. Some words over the time have changed in meaning and some language structure is awkward in the KJV version but by "compareing spiritual things with spritual things" the original content is easily understood in time.
God desires/wills/wants/wishes that no one murder,steal,or commit adultry but they do anyways. This spiritual truth when set along side, "God desires that all men be saved" should be enough to understand the meaning of it. Men thward the desires of God in the areas of where free will is given but make no mistake He has a will that is absolute and can not be changed.
Those who seek to tear down the 66 books of the Word of God by useing their own understanding rather than that of prayer and with much patience have the Spirit teach them over time are making a grave mistake and what they say has no power to save, transform others or for themselves to reap the silver and gold of the Spirit.
What has gone wrong? 1TIM 6:4 "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions andstrifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,---"
True. Anyone who wants to understand tough verses, will compare scripture to scripture and see how the words are used in other verses, and will study the context. It is not hard. People who read the Bible with the goal of finding error will never understand it.
Finn, your objection is best directed at the people who translated the verses I quoted. Presumably, they are better scholars than you and knew how thelei best translated into English. And we all know which way you lean on the matter, so it's clear YOU are not interested in the truth, but only interested in trying to make people believe they will burn for eternity. The lid is being blown off that satanic lie---right before your eyes, my friend. The Fundamentalist Corporate Machine is being exposed for what it is: a lying, greedy, corrupt organization. [\quote] sorry, but i said nothing about he'll. I only told you how the word is used in the new testament.
and this is so just because you say so???
Yes!
Actually, no. Most bible scholars acknowledge the number of errors, but the fact is that most of these mistakes are minor enough to be inconsequential to the overall texts, except for major blunders like the glaring contradiction in Paul's theology of eternal damnation in 2 Thess. and universal redemption in 1 Timothy, which you keep dodging, but don't feel bad about that. No scholar can explain it without inventing all sorts of rubbish to rationalize the flaw. The likely answer is that both books were written by two individuals using Paul's name---a very common practice in those times---each with a specific viewpoint on the matter that was at odds with the other person. Quite simply, one believed in the Jewish/pagan concept of eternal torment, while the other more "enlightened" individual recognized God's true boundless loving nature.
Put even more simply: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference in these two statements:
Quote:
They [who] will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power
and
Quote:
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
both purportedly written by the same man. I mean, cone one, Finn. Are you actually saying you see no difference between the two statements? Or are you going to fall back on that worn-out stance, "Well, when Paul says "all" he doesn't really mean everybody, only some--like Clinton's, "It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Even a person with 20/200 vision can see the different in these two theologies. Anyone who claims they can't is only fooling themselves. But fooling one's self is infinitely preferable to what that corrupt organization, the Fundamentalist Corporate Machine run by the likes of scoundrels likes of the Crouches, John Hagee, Ken Copeland, and Benny "The Jet" Hinn do, deliberately using propaganda like eternal torment in order to keep their feet on the necks of the congregation by threatening them with eternal fiery torture so they can wring every last penny out of them that they can to fund their private jets and lavish lifestyles. I bleed for people psychologically trapped in this utter garbage. I really do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garya123
There is nothing wrong with all 66 books of the Bible. Some words over the time have changed in meaning and some language structure is awkward in the KJV version but by "compareing spiritual things with spritual things" the original content is easily understood in time.
God desires/wills/wants/wishes that no one murder,steal,or commit adultry but they do anyways. This spiritual truth when set along side, "God desires that all men be saved" should be enough to understand the meaning of it. Men thwarts the desires of God in the areas of where free will is given but make no mistake He has a will that is absolute and can not be changed.
Those who seek to tear down the 66 books of the Word of God by useing their own understanding rather than that of prayer and with much patience have the Spirit teach them over time are making a grave mistake and what they say has no power to save, transform others or for themselves to reap the silver and gold of the Spirit.
What has gone wrong? 1TIM 6:4 "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,---"
garya, read the bold in your quote and notice the glaring contradiction in your own words: God's will is absolute, BUT He cannot overcome man's will if man chooses to sin. If God's will to save him cannot overcome man's will to condemn himself, then God's will CANNOT be absolute. YAHHHHHHH! How do people rationalize this stuff??????????
Put even more simply: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference in these two statements:
That's right. Rocket science cannot prove scripture. Anyone who wants to understand it, will understand it. Perhaps one day you will understand it, but based on your comments you have not yet understood it.
Quote:
both purportedly written by the same man. I mean, cone one, Finn. Are you actually saying you see no difference between the two statements? Or are you going to fall back on that worn-out stance, "Well, when Paul says "all" he doesn't really mean everybody, only some--like Clinton's, "It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Again, if you compared scripture to scripture you would see the meaning, but since you don't want to do that, you won't see the truth.
This thread needs to be moved to the atheist section.
That's right. Rocket science cannot prove scripture. Anyone who wants to understand it, will understand it. Perhaps one day you will understand it, but based on your comments you have not yet understood it.
Again, if you compared scripture to scripture you would see the meaning, but since you don't want to do that, you won't see the truth.
This thread needs to be moved to the atheist section.
I agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I bleed for people psychologically trapped in this utter garbage. I really do. 
How do people rationalize this stuff??????????
