'Mousetrails' and the dark side of the Old Testament

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Because you "dealt with it" doesn't automatically mean you made a convincing case.

Alright, go back to that thread where we were discussing judgement and come back here and tell me the part where you have a problem with my explanation.

My hermeneutics is one of literal interpretation.

Why don't you explain this and what it means exactly?

I never had a "problem" understanding your explanation. I don't think it trumped the plain-text reading of Revelation. And you can look up the term Biblical Hermeneutics if you want to, it's not hard to do.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's madness.

I take it from this comment that you did not take my advice and read up on Erasmus. Don't believe Wikipedia, if you don't want to but go to the library and check out some biographies of Erasmus and read those and get educated, dude. You are listening to propaganda and don't understand what happened and I'm trying to help you out but you need to break away from your cult long enough to read actual history.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I don't think it trumped the plain-text reading of Revelation.

What do you think I was doing?
I was reading it and saying what it clearly says, without all the mythology and philosophy attached which you have been indoctrinated in, by your cult of dispensationalism.

Just let the rage out, not good to keep that bottled up inside. Good for you.


"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

2 Corinthians 5:21



And you're flat out wrong, only two books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Latin, the NT and the OT were translated from the Greek and Hebrew respectively. The 1611 AV used to include the Apocrypha, it no longer does today.

Translation

Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently), but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word..

Old Testament

For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation...

New Testament

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate. For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.

Since you think Wikipedia is an authoritative source for information.


(P.S. For virtually all the verses for the last 3 pages I have been using the ESV not the KJB. So, not only have I been showing you my theology agrees with your Adventist's stated theology on "adventist.org", I have also been using a modern version (ESV) for posted scriptures since you were horrified over the use of the KJB.)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Just let the rage out, not good to keep that bottled up inside. Good for you.

I don't know who you are thinking of but it is not me. I don't having such rage. I am a bit annoyed that you don't do some actual research to check what I am saying and instead repeat nonsensical stuff not even relevant to what I was presenting.
No, I have actual compassion and that's why I am taking the trouble to try to explain things.
You were talking about fall-backs earlier and I saw one you were pulling yesterday which is using the term AV, so you are making an appeal to authority in a blatant way, calling the KJV, the Authorized version. That has about as much affect with me as saying the authorized version of the Trinity from the Council of Nicea.

P.S. For virtually all the verses for the last 3 pages I have been using the ESV not the KJB.

More irrelevant stuff. If you wanted to refute me, instead of showing how you do not understand where your Bible comes from, you could argue the actual point. One way would be to say something like, "Of course I would never think that there could be any merit in my having faith. My salvation is not based on my having faith because I would just be replacing one type of works-based salvation for another, if that was what I thought."

reply to post by jmdewey60

My salvation is not based on my having faith because I would just be replacing one type of works-based salvation for another, if that was what I thought."

How so? Faith is given to us by God. No man searches for God on his own, ("No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:44 & John 6:65). The only reason any of us has faith is because it was given to us in grace by the Father. And "whosoever" who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21). The Father first draws a man, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, and the Father assigns a measure of faith (Romans 12:3) in His Son Jesus. And no one whom the Father has drawn to His Son will ever be cast out (John 6:37). You're correct, faith is a "work".. A work of GOD.


"For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned."

Romans 12:3

"But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift." Ephesians 4:7


"Faith" is a work of God through the Holy Spirit. God assigns faith. Not a work of my own desire and flesh.

Theology fail

reply to post by NOTurTypical

God assigns faith.

So God just chooses those He desires to have faith, and then gives it to them? So you are backing away from the idea that faith could be a product of your own efforts or a gift that you can either exercise to salvation or ignore and let stagnate, to your peril? So it is none of those?
Just a sort of predestination where faith is like a stamp on ones to not get thrown into the fire? Faith is not anything you need to do anything with?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

God assigns faith.

So God just chooses those He desires to have faith, and then gives it to them?

Yes, God saves, we don't save ourselves. God assigns each of us a measure of faith. (Romans 12:3) No man can come to Jesus Christ unless God the Father draws him. "No man" means no man.

So you are backing away from the idea that faith could be a product of your own efforts

I never said my faith in Christ was a result of my own efforts. God assigned me a certain measure of faith, and the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and need for a Savior.

or a gift that you can either exercise to salvation or ignore and let stagnate, to your peril?

It's a gift from God, that's what grace is, unmerited favor from heaven. To not just the undeserving, but the ill-deserving.

Just a sort of predestination where faith is like a stamp on ones to not get thrown into the fire?

You marvel that God saves some for His own sovereign glory and eternal plans, my trouble is in understanding how God could save ANY of us. We're evil, we're rebellious, we're sinners, we're enemies of God right from our mother's wombs... fair enough God, I don't have my sworn enemies over to live at my house forever either.

Heaven is scandalous!

Faith is not anything you need to do anything with?

Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, be led by the Holy Spirit to do the good works He saved us to do. Not saved us for doing on our own.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


OK good! From this day forward, we will never bring up faith as having anything to do with salvation whatsoever.
It is just this esoteric concept of unwarranted salvation seeing how if things were done strictly by the book, none would be saved. There is grace that enters into the situation which allows a certain number to be saved, based on the merits of the life and death of Jesus. But a person having faith as an actual personal quality is forever tossed out the window, never to be seen again. Agreed?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

OK good! From this day forward, we will never bring up faith as having anything to do with salvation whatsoever.
It is just this esoteric concept of unwarranted salvation seeing how if things were done strictly by the book, none would be saved. There is grace that enters into the situation which allows a certain number to be saved, based on the merits of the life and death of Jesus. But a person having faith as an actual personal quality is forever tossed out the window, never to be seen again. Agreed?

edit on 22-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Hmmm, interesting. So God assigns a certain measure of nothing to people as His good will decides??? (Romans 12:3)

You're just dead set upon sharing the glory with Christ, the Father, and His Spirit for your salvation aren't you??

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Hmmm, interesting. So God assigns a certain measure of nothing to people as His good will decides??? (Romans 12:3)

You need to take these two verses together because the phrase, "you may discern what is the will of God," ESV indicates how to interpret the word, pisteōs, in the next verse. In this case the word translated as faith means an ability to understand, and specifically, God, which a person not given this ability would not be able to discern.

Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to every one of you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think, but to think with sober discernment, as God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith.

The conclusion being that this one instance of the word Faith is a special case and not to be confused with other uses of the word.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Why is it so? Jesus explains the will of the Father in the gospels, and He says it's to believe on the one He sent. (Jesus).

Is that not "faith"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical
I kind of grew up in this debate over the Reformation message and I was more in the camp of the justification by faith crowd. I would read different people getting in on the argument and talk about the errors the Reformers made and that we know better now and that's why you don't see serious scholars reading them to gain enlightenment into truths but to analyze where they went wrong. I thought these guys were just some deniers and poor sports or something and I studied the writings of the great historical men and realized they were going on false assumptions based on antiquated renderings of the scriptures. I gave my explanation for where the source of the problem was. But this is not just me being a smart ass, it is something I studied as hard as I could and among the very best minds in the world who were putting out theological journals and going to endless lectures and traveling and meeting with these modern day great reformation theology leaders of men.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so? Jesus explains the will of the Father in the gospels, and He says it's to believe on the one He sent. (Jesus).

Is that not "faith"?

No, look at the verse.
“This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ESV

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so? Jesus explains the will of the Father in the gospels, and He says it's to believe on the one He sent. (Jesus).

Is that not "faith"?

No, look at the verse.
“This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ESV

Hmmm, interesting. I was referring to this:

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I kind of grew up in this debate over the Reformation message and I was more in the camp of the justification by faith crowd. I would read different people getting in on the argument and talk about the errors the Reformers made and that we know better now and that's why you don't see serious scholars reading them to gain enlightenment into truths but to analyze where they went wrong. I thought these guys were just some deniers and poor sports or something and I studied the writings of the great historical men and realized they were going on false assumptions based on antiquated renderings of the scriptures. I gave my explanation for where the source of the problem was. But this is not just me being a smart ass, it is something I studied as hard as I could and among the very best minds in the world who were putting out theological journals and going to endless lectures and traveling and meeting with these modern day great reformation theology leaders of men.

I'm neither a Calvinist, nor do I subscribe to Reformed Theology. Habakkuk 2:4 declares the just shall live by faith. Paul's NT trilogy of Romans, Hebrews and Galatians are all based upon Habakkuk 2:4, he quotes that verse in all three books. His consistent message in all his epistles is one of the just shall live by faith, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. But that's just for salvation, salvation/justification isn't the finish line, that's just the beginning.

God saves us not to just barely enter the kingdom, He saves us for good works here through the power of the Holy Spirit, and an eternity of service in His kingdom. Salvation is a free gift, it's simple to achieve. Earning an "inheritance"/rewards takes quite a bit of effort and diligence through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know why folks think justification is the finish line.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I don't know why folks think justification is the finish line.

What "folks" are you talking about?
One of the "great men" I was talking about is on this forum and maybe you could ask him to help you out understanding justification because he is better at explaining it than I. That is, if you really want to know.

His consistent message in all his epistles is one of the just shall live by faith, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. But that's just for salvation, salvation/justification isn't the finish line, that's just the beginning.

Nice little slogan but are you sure about that and what exactly is it that gives you that surety, that you are not mistaken?
Could you point that out to me, specifically?
Salvation is only the beginning. Where is that, or what passage in the N.T. do you interpret to mean that?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so? Jesus explains the will of the Father in the gospels, and He says it's to believe on the one He sent. (Jesus).

Is that not "faith"?

No, look at the verse.
“This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ESV

Hmmm, interesting. I was referring to this:

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40

That is God's will in a general sense, that he sent His Son into the world so people would be saved.
What we were talking about earlier is something different, as in what is the will specifically for you, as an individual, which is, as I quoted, to do the work of believing in Jesus.
Sounds like not a one time event, where you believe, and then are saved forever, from that point on. It is the believing in Jesus that you do every day. Then at the end of your life, you are judged according to whether you did all those things that the faith given you had told you to do.

I'm not denying we are judged at the end of our lives. But people in the church, the body of Christ will never be rejected (John 6:37) or condemned (Romans 8:1), people who place their trust in His finished work and call upon His name . The only thing we are judged on is our works of faithfulness done through the leading and power of the Holy Spirit. Rewards will be won or lost, salvation/justification will not (1 Cor. 3:12-15), that's a free gift of grace (Jn. 3:16, Rm. 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9).