How can all be saved when jesus said...... (Bible, Israel, verse)

[Verna Perry]

Originally Posted by Phazelwood

What verse describes this?

We all, as individuals, should eagerly seek for ourselves, Truth, as if our eternal life with God in His Kingdom, depended upon it...because it does.

Searching means to make a thourough examination of or look over carefully examining and probing so as to come to KNOW...learning...seeking for Truth.

We are ALL responsible to search for ourselves, diligently, to provide proof of or disprove something. Some here do not practice this, to your own detriment. If you are one of these, then expect not to be taken seriously by others who DO provide the study that they wholeheartedly searched to compose...for YOU!

Seriously...how in the world can anyone expect to come to an understanding of Truth by reading ONE verse? You cannot! How do I know this? Because the Bible told me so! If you didn't know this......pray with a pure heart, earnestly, to God for your spiritual eyes to be opened by Him...to give you understanding, and revelation knowledge and start reading the whole Bible.

It's very easy to pose a question like: "What verse describes that..." (and I'm not singling you out pcamps...there are PLENTY of others that do this!) But I would that you and others who reply in this manner, go find it out for yourselves instead of depending upon others to find it for you! If your only reply in answering Jesus The King is, "I'm sorry LORD, I didn't know..." then I believe it's safe to say..."That is NOT going to cut it!" You are going to be standing all alone, with no one to blame but yourself...you will be held accountable for yourself...all by yourself.

Thankfully, for you, there are those who love the search! And I believe that God uses your "laziness" to encourage us to strive to go even deeper into Scripture than we would have, had it not been for your question. Personally, I don't mind searching for answers, because I learn even more...but what I do mind is not being appreciated, but instead told that, "Your replies are too long...etc, etc, etc"...and if the truth were to be told...the heartfelt studies that I do offer in love...they are not even being read by the very one's who asked for the proof...all the hard work falls upon deaf ears and blind eyes and heardened hearts. It's frustrating. So why do I or anyone else for that matter, continue?...(and believe me, I've asked myself this question many, many times) I continue because my heart tells me there is someone here...reading and truly wanting to know the Truth...God gave me the study for them.

So, in answer to your question Phazelwood, "What verse describes this?"...as you asked this of Miss Shawn when she stated that, "Scripture does not have to say word for word," I would say:

The LORD teaches us that we should study to show ourselves approved. The LORD teaches us that when we study correctly, we should be studying line upon line...precept upon precept...layer upon layer...comparing spiritual things with spiritual things to find what His Truth is. And here is the proof!:

Isaiah 28:9-17,22,23
(9) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand docrtrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts.

(so first, you have to be able to recognize and handle the truth...and I believe this faith comes from God alone for one to recognize, receive and then in wisdom, handle the truth)

(10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(11) For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
(12) To who he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause to the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: YET THEY WOULD NOT HEAR.
(13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared and taken.
(14) Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men...
(15) Because ye have said...we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
(160 Therefore thus saith the LORD GOD, Behold, I lay in ZION for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious stone, a sure foundation: HE THAT BELIEVETH SHALL NOT MAKE HASTE.
(17) JUDGMENT ALL WILL I LAY TO THE LINE, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS TO THE PLUMMET: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding places...
(220 Now therefore be ye not mockers...
(23) Give ear, and hear my voice: hearken, and hear my speech.

In Love,
Verna.

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by ALMOST2L8

This is another statement of condition, not a statement that some will not meet the condition. It only explains the condition. You cannot be forgiven if your unforgiving, nothing in the verse says "some will not be forgiven" That is changing the words.

You focus on only the part of the verse so it twists to your belief.


No, what you are doing is twisting. I know it doesnt say "some will not be forgiven" But it does say "if you are not forgiving, neither will your father forgive you"!!! PLAIN ENGLISH!!! No twisting necessary. If you need me to put it in spanish, chinese or any other laguage so that you can read what IT SAYS, I would be happy to do so!!!


There is no declaration that "Some will not enter" only a declaration that just saying Lord Lord is not enough "he that doeth the will of the father" is the condition.


So you admit that just saying Lord, Lord is not enough!!! But enough for what??? Perhaps enough to be saved!!! And "he that doeth the will of the father" is enough then right??? Your even contradicting yourself. I am not the one stating that the bible is full of parables, hidden meanings, and conditional statements. I have never changed words. NOT ONCE!! Maybe I do read most of what the bible says to be literal. Because I do believe that God's word is what it says it is. I have never checked on this "Youngs literal translation" but I find it funny that the word literal is even in his translations title. Yet you universalists look at most of the bible as anything but literal!! It boggles the mind how deceptive, not only universalists are, but the belief itself. Why do you guys push your beliefs so hard onto people?? Obviously, not to save people because your beliefs are that we are all already there. Well good luck on finding the real truth!!!


GOD BLESS!!!
ALMOST2L8

I think the problem here is the entire premise of the belief the two groups have. Universalist's take the Bible in it's entirety to be a story with a moral. Regardless of the actual events it is the moral of the story we are concerned with, thus not taken literally. The story of the 3 little pigs isn't taken literally but the moral of the story is.
Your stance is that it is a double entendre, thus the moral is as important as the literal story. If applied to the 3 little pigs it seems ridiculous but applied to the Bible somehow it's OK...

You are dealing with two levels of thought that will likely never meet because the starting points are different.

[Miss Shawn_2828]

Originally Posted by Phazelwood

Ancient greek is only known in a translated form. You need to take your objections to a universalist who argues all the time that the english version has been tainted. I've never stated anything of the kind.





Your not reading greek or hebrew, your reading it in a translated form, that's the only way you can read it. You have selected words that you accept and through those words it allows yourself to come to a conclusion without having to provide a scripture that is word for word what you say.


If you say "not all will come to God" it contradicts the following wording.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

So therefore you need different wording to draw your conclusion.

The problem is that your wording also causes another biblical contradiction but to many times your so busy defending points that are not word for word in scripture I wonder if you even care.

Who actually saves man, God, or does man save himself?

Actually, if you don't read the hebrew and greek first you are not taking the bible for what it is.

And I will correct you, I read hebrew and greek, I only picked out words, because I knew that you didn't read the language. I could have posted the entire scripture, but would you have been able to read it, I take it that you would not.

So, I am not picking certain words, you provided scripture, and I only gave you the scripture in greek and the meaning. It seems that you don't like what it says.

[spm62]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

I think the problem here is the entire premise of the belief the two groups have. Universalist's take the Bible in it's entirety to be a story with a moral. Regardless of the actual events it is the moral of the story we are concerned with, thus not taken literally. The story of the 3 little pigs isn't taken literally but the moral of the story is.
Your stance is that it is a double entendre, thus the moral is as important as the literal story. If applied to the 3 little pigs it seems ridiculous but applied to the Bible somehow it's OK...

You are dealing with two levels of thought that will likely never meet because the starting points are different.

I believe God will restore his creation and I believe the persons and events in the bible to be literal. For instance I believe all the prophets to be real people. I believe all the events that happened in Jesus`s time to be real events. However,some things like Eve eating a fruit I don`t take literally. A seven headed beast coming out of the sea,I don`t take literally. The lake of fire, is not literal. God being an all consuming fire, I don`t take literally etc.

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by Verna Perry

The LORD teaches us that we should study to show ourselves approved. The LORD teaches us that when we study correctly, we should be studying line upon line...precept upon precept...layer upon layer...comparing spiritual things with spiritual things to find what His Truth is. And here is the proof!:

I agree, what I am not scripturally obligated to consider is someone claiming that a phrase that is not in scripture must be the conclusion simply out of the laziness of "it doesn't have to say that"

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by Miss Shawn_2828

No, it is not my conclusion. I suggest you read the hebrew bible, it will be very useful to you. What I provided for you was not my words, but from the bible you choose to not believe. Read that same scripture in the hebrew bible and then look up the words and see what they mean.


That particular scripture is in greek, NT. Read it.

1 Tim 2:4 ὃς (who) πάντας (all) ἀνθρώπους (humans) θέλει ( is willing) σωθῆναι ( to be saved) καὶ (and) εἰς (into) ἐπίγνωσιν (on-knowledge) ἀληθείας (of-truth) ἐλθεῖν (to be coming).

Now if you study that scripture in its full text, you will get the full understanding of what it means.

NOw universalist want to argue all the time that english version has been tainted, but as you see, we are looking at the greek.

Who all humans is willing to be saved and into knowledge of the truth. So, what is this saying? Is it saying that all humans will be saved and brought into knowledge of the truth, or is this saying all humans who are willing to be saved into knowledge of the truth?

Look it up for yourself, so you don't think that I am making this up. I prefer to read the hebrew and greek and then go back into the english text.

I take scripture for what it says not what it doesn't say.

Ummmmm....I can understand taking one word in translation and turning to the original greek but the language as a whole has rules of grammar just like english and is morphologically complex. Therefore you are twisting the passage by taking each word in order. Unless you are fluent in ancient greek and understand its grammar the translation you give is incorrect. I would stick the to translation given in any given version if I were you. At least they were language scholars familiar with greek grammar...

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by spm62

I believe God will restore his creation and I believe the persons and events in the bible to be literal. For instance I believe all the prophets to be real people. I believe all the events that happened in Jesus`s time to be real events. However,some things like Eve eating a fruit I don`t take literally. A seven headed beast coming out of the sea,I don`t take literally. The lake of fire, is not literal. God being an all consuming fire, I don`t take literally etc.

This is good. However, in my experience what the seven headed beast does in the same verse is taken literally by some.
For example, Rev. 14:1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
In this verse some would say the Lamb is not literally a lamb but Christ and is not standing on a literal mountain but heaven (or something similar) but there will literally be 144,000 and literally be a name written on foreheads (as in the mark of the beast in other passages) as well....
This is where I differ from others as they interpret the Bible. If a vision contains apocalyptic verse can we take any of it literally or is it the message that is important? Isn't that the whole purpose of this type of writing? To not be taken literally but to gain a message from it?

[Miss Shawn_2828]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Ummmmm....I can understand taking one word in translation and turning to the original greek but the language as a whole has rules of grammar just like english and is morphologically complex. Therefore you are twisting the passage by taking each word in order. Unless you are fluent in ancient greek and understand its grammar the translation you give is incorrect. I would stick the to translation given in any given version if I were you. At least they were language scholars familiar with greek grammar...

It's funny you can tell people who don't want to study the scriptures for themselves. I for one am one who study for more understanding.

I never took the scripture out of context, I provided the entire scripture, not just one word, but the entire scripture.

[spm62]

Originally Posted by Miss Shawn_2828

It's funny you can tell people who don't want to study the scriptures for themselves. I for one am one who study for more understanding.

I never took the scripture out of context, I provided the entire scripture, not just one word, but the entire scripture.

The point is you are reading the greek or hebrew and using your English rules of grammar to read it. Some words come before other words but using that languages style of grammar, that is not how it is read. You can read a spanish book and if you read it literally with English rules of grammar a lot of it would not make any sense. Some words come before others but that is NOT how it is read. You would have to be fluent in that language to understand it. If you as an an English speaking person had a spanish book read to you word for word some of it would sound funny. Words would seem out of order,etc. That`s because that is not how a spanish person would read it.

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by Miss Shawn_2828

Actually, if you don't read the hebrew and greek first you are not taking the bible for what it is.

When it comes to looking at each individual ancient hebrew and greek word and looking at all the meanings the word can have. Yes I agree.

And I will correct you, I read hebrew and greek,

Saying you read Ancient Hebrew and Greek is irrelevant in and of itself. Memorizing the greek and hebrew symbols and pronoucing the words means thats all you have done. You will have to associate the symbol and the pronunciation with a translated meaning, there are no exceptions to this.

For each ancient greek and Hebrew symbol there are various meanings that could be used.

I only picked out words, because I knew that you didn't read the language. I could have posted the entire scripture, but would you have been able to read it, I take it that you would not.

What you picked out IS how you actually are reading the language in any meaningful way.

So, I am not picking certain words, you provided scripture, and I only gave you the scripture in greek and the meaning. It seems that you don't like what it says.

There would unlikely be different translations if there was only the one meaning that you conclude when "reading". You provided the meaning you accept and it has nothing to do with being able to "read" hebrew or greek.


The ancient languages is more about pronunciation so let's talk about "reading" ancient hebrew and greek.


1 timothy 2:4 hos pas anthropos thelo sozo kai eis epignosis alethia erchomai

Even while your fluently pronunciating the words you are translating as you read it.

thelo

to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas G1014
properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations),
i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be
inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense,
to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:--desire, be disposed (forward),
intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, - ling(-ly)).

As you pronounce or read the Ancient Greek word "thelo" you will be thinking about the meaning you have accepted. "Thelo" doesn't mean a thing until you recognize what it has been translated to.

So, your "meaning" doesn't have any more significance than the translation I used and posted.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I believe this verse, YOUR explanation using different words contradicts another scripture, so I have no choice but to reject your conclusion that "Some will not come to God".