Michael Hranek wrote:
Icon O'Clast
How well do you yourself really understand the Sovereignity of Almighty God? Have you experienced it in seeing God Himself supernaturally answer prayer in things such as saving a hardened sinner form his sins?

Surely you can't mean the first explanation above, because it is a basic tenet of the Christian faith that Sovereign God can do anything? But do you know Icon well enough for my second explanation to be valid? I expect not?

Jeffrson Daviso wrote:
Any thinking man would know that Jesus was crucified sunday.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
My worship in devotion time at home is Psalms only.

JD wrote:
A) This cannot be the elect because they are well, elect.

JD wrote:
B) This cannot be the unelect because none of their sins are pardonable.
Can you explain so we can move on please?

With the exception of the "unpardonable sin", all of the sins of both the elect and the unelect man are pardonable. That's why Jesus died on the cross and rose again.

However, for any sin to be pardoned, you need to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and rose, and that he is now King of kings and Lord of lords. I think that can be easily agreed, no?

Only some people will believe and confess, etc, and some people won't. Also agreed?

Those that confess were elected by the Father before the foundation of the world; those that don't, weren't. (I know you don't agree, but stay with me)

kenny wrote:
Bernard wrote:
"Then go the whole hog and learn Hebrew and Greek and read the Masoretic OT & TR."
Why? The men who translated the AV have already done a fine job of translating it for me. They did a wonderful job.

kenny wrote:
What in the world is wrong with learning the meaning of those words? I always enjoy learning new words.

kenny wrote:
I believe He preserved the Hebrew Masoretic OT text & the Received NT text for us just as He wanted us to have them.

kenny wrote:
Of course there is no 'special magic' to the old English but it does give God's Word a reverence and dignity that it certainly deserves.

AntiVaticanistAmerican wrote:
I Thank Almighty God that my Mother got Authorized-Biblically/Spiritually BORN-AGAIN according to St. John 3:1-16 20 years before her "HomeGoing") in 1996.

A skeptic of the T wrote:
Can a lost man have a conversation with God and respond to him?

AntiVaticanistAmerican wrote:
There goes the Satanic-Vatican: LYING again !
We all know that the Satan-Vatican set-up (financed) Osama/Usama Bin-Laden in the First place !

The argument cares very much about the preservation of the "exact words" of scripture. (This is actually ironic, given this was the goal of Dr Aland's life work.)

To this end, the article describes the variation between the TR and the NA & UBS texts with phrases like "differ widely", "differ significantly", etc.

My question is: Which doctrines of the church hinge on these variations? In other words, "What doctrines are supported by the Textus Recuptus, but disapproved by the Nestle-Aland text?" For that matter, which doctrines rely only on the books whose presence in the canon is questioned by Dr Aland?

I would argue that any doctrine that meets the above criteria is weak, and is not adequately supported by scripture.

kenny wrote:
Why is it that the time tested, trustworthy KJV has suddenly become incomprehensible?

RSV Preface wrote:
The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that theymay discern and understand God's Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have chnaged or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in languarge that is direct and plan and meaningful to people today.

RSV Preface wrote:
Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.

MurrayA wrote:
Where is everyone?
Gone away for the Easter weekend?

Elkin M. Kaufman wrote:
Bernard it is possible that I misjudged you If I did i'm sorry but my salvation rests in a person and not in a bible version.

Wayneuk wrote:
The basic question is why do we need (have) so many different English translations today? Why not JUST the ONE new translation.

The conviction that the word of God brings to the reader is not inherent to the language or translation, but the Spirit working through the word. For example, millions of Chinese have been convicted by Chinese translations.

Any decent translation declares sin for what it is, and the Saviour for who he is. This declaration did not start in 1611, and did not end there.

I did not make fun of anything holy. I made fun of that cult of people that have declared that God's word does not exist outside of the 1611 edition of the KJV. Among other things, this movement represents idolatory and a slanderous form of conspiracy theorism. They show less tolerance to the translation of the word then the Latinolatrous Roman Catholics of the 16th and 17th centuries.

I also made a fun of the typeset and spelling of the 17th century; as they will do of us in the 25th centrury. The Holy Spirit did not inspire the typesetting.

I certainly do not make fun of (any edition of) the KJV. It is an excellent translation; and remains one of the best. It's not my personal choice, but I do not disrespect those who do choose it. I don't feel that favour is always reciprocated.

DJC49 wrote:
I wonder what the following 2 verses of Scripture could mean?
(1Peter 1:10) "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:"
(1Peter 1:11) "Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS ***IN THEM*** did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."
Anyone care to give it a stab? JD?

John 8:56 "Abraham rejoiced to see my day"

1 Corinthians 10:4 "They drank from the supernatural rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ"

Galations 3:8 "...preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham"

AntiVaticanistAmerican wrote:
..I was literally chased down 4 city-blocks, by pipe-toting Sodomites & Gomorrahites...
...
They are Spiritual, Psychological, Physiological, Genetic & DNA Mass-Murderers ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Question 2: Why did you run?

Mr. J wrote:
So where does this leave God's hatred for Esau? for sin? for lawlesness (Heb 1:9)? I am pretty sure they all come from the Greek word miseo - to hate. Then, I suppose just as there are different degrees and manifestations of love, there could be in hatred. But I think too many today are trying to promote a God of love who does not have hatred, wrath, hot displeasure, vengeance etc.

There doesn't really have to be any rationalisation of the love and hate of God. God is god, and is just in whatever hate or love.

Balance is fundamental. As you say, too many churches preach love without consideration of his wrath. This is empty, because his love is best expressed in terms of the propiation of his own wrath that he provided for us.

Also, too many churches preach God's wrat, anger, vengeance and eternal damnation, and forget to get around to mention the love part. This is also empty, for obvious reasons.

Moderator Alpha wrote:
If the recent tenor of comments continues this survey will be closed. Both sides of the discussion need to take heed and clean up your comments.
Thank you.

Mr. J wrote:
I do not support Psalms only. But I lament their passing and their being replaced.

Mr. J wrote:
I know that there are verses that speak of hating father or mother and these are used to push the view that hate means 'love less'. I can't see it. I love my neighbour's wife a lot less than I love my own wife, but I don't hate the poor woman.
Does anyone have opinion or insight into this? Be interested to hear what you have to say.

Luke 12:51-53 wrote:
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.