Bible Topics and Questions

[panopticon]

Posted by Kraut (here)
A question to the Bible believers here: have you ever considered the preterist application of prophecy? I frequently see people getting agitated about the "Anti-Christ" and the end times but it seems that many are unaware you could argue that many prophecies have been fulfilled already. I'm not trying to convert anyone to such a view, I'm just curious if people here are aware of different ways to apply prophetic scriptures. When I first read about preterism it was hard to wrap my head around since all my life I had been sure we live in the end times.

G'day Kraut,

Welcome to Avalon and thank you for introducing me to preterism.

From what little I've read over the last day some of it I agree with and other bits I don't.

My personal view of the OT and NT I have stated a number of times at Avalon so shan't repeat myself.

I do not believe in biblical prophecy, nor in an "anti-christ", however have no problems with others doing so (this is not intended as an attack, just an observation, so please can we refrain from "you might not believe in him but he..." kind of retorts).

Where I disagree with what I've read of the the preterism perspective is in their belief that Jesus was the figure depicted in the NT. I view that there may have been a man named Jesus (it was a common name at the time) who was a wandering preacher (they were also quite common in the region at the time) and that most of the stories were created around the time of the destruction of the second temple during the Jewish Revolt (66 CE - 70 CE).

Their notion that 666 (or 616) depicts Nero is one that I am familiar with and have no problem with it. It makes sense to me, but I'll leave it at that.

I wont go into any more as it is off topic (read the OP for what we are permitted to talk about on this thread).

Again, thanks for introducing me to preterism.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Kraut]

Posted by kreagle (here)
Hey Kraut!

Welcome to the Avalon forum, friend, and especially to our thread, here! Hope you are able to add valuable input, here, from time to time! 'Thanks' to you, for your original post, here!

Hi Kreagle,
thanks for the welcome. You'll see me posting here in future. Already have some thoughts I want to bring up.

Posted by kreagle (here)
While I personally do believe that prophecy, in general, has somewhat been fulfilled over the course of humanity, I do fully understand that the 'main events', ( ie. Jesus' return for His Bride, the Church), and the events of Revelation, etc.,....are still to come.

The 'preterism application of prophecy' that you speak of is 'Catholic' orientated in concept, to which I categorically reject. I have always maintained my views on the Vatican, and her church, and the sinister agenda that they have always endeavored to employ/practise. Just scroll up to post #475, ( on this same page), and you will find my reply to 'humanalien' regarding Catholicism.

Here is a partial quote concerning the 'origins' of the 'preterism application of prophecy' that you speak of. Additionally I have enclosed a link to this for those who would like to read the entire article. http://lostviewofprophecy.wordpress....come-from-5-2/

Thanks for the link. A few months ago I was reading about the three "isms", preterism, historicism and futurism. Both preterism and futurism were invented by Jesuit Priests. Historicism seems most logical to me, but I must honestly say that the Bible is not much of an authority to me anymore. I can't believe in the Bible's inerrancy anymore.

Posted by kreagle (here)
Your brother, friend, and servant,.......kreagle

Be well Brother.

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day Kraut,

Welcome to Avalon and thank you for introducing me to preterism.

From what little I've read over the last day some of it I agree with and other bits I don't.

My personal view of the OT and NT I have stated a number of times at Avalon so shan't repeat myself.

I do not believe in biblical prophecy, nor in an "anti-christ", however have no problems with others doing so (this is not intended as an attack, just an observation, so please can we refrain from "you might not believe in him but he..." kind of retorts).

Where I disagree with what I've read of the the preterism perspective is in their belief that Jesus was the figure depicted in the NT. I view that there may have been a man named Jesus (it was a common name at the time) who was a wandering preacher (they were also quite common in the region at the time) and that most of the stories were created around the time of the destruction of the second temple during the Jewish Revolt (66 CE - 70 CE).

Their notion that 666 (or 616) depicts Nero is one that I am familiar with and have no problem with it. It makes sense to me, but I'll leave it at that.

I wont go into any more as it is off topic (read the OP for what we are permitted to talk about on this thread).

Again, thanks for introducing me to preterism.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

G'day mate,
thanks for the welcome. I can understand your view very well. To me there is truth in the bible, but it is not "the truth". I'm sure that Jesus existed, but tt's hard to figure out though who exactly Jesus was, so many groups claim him as their master or leader and preach differing views about what he taught and wanted to accomplish. Even among Christians you can find different ideas about his nature, was he the first creation of God, was he "born" of God or did he have no preexistence at all...? To me what matters is: love your fellowman and treat people with dignity and respect, even those that others may look down upon.

Take care Panopticon.

Now, here's another thought I'd like to mention: a major doctrine of Christianity is grace. Paul frequently highlighted God's grace, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it "undeserved kindness" (ouch, it sure makes you feel very good). What occurred to me recently was grace is solely based on Paul's teachings, not on Jesus. As far as I am aware Jesus never preached grace. He taught about a loving Father in the Heavens who proactively gives to his children and doesn't seem to think about whether they deserve or not. The parable of the Prodigal Son fits nicely, the Father never wasted a second thinking about what his Son had done and whether he would be deserving of his love and affection. It seems to me that grace is nothing that Jesus ever taught at all.

[kreagle]

Posted by Kraut (here)
Now, here's another thought I'd like to mention: a major doctrine of Christianity is grace. Paul frequently highlighted God's grace, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it "undeserved kindness" (ouch, it sure makes you feel very good). What occurred to me recently was grace is solely based on Paul's teachings, not on Jesus. As far as I am aware Jesus never preached grace. He taught about a loving Father in the Heavens who proactively gives to his children and doesn't seem to think about whether they deserve or not. The parable of the Prodigal Son fits nicely, the Father never wasted a second thinking about what his Son had done and whether he would be deserving of his love and affection. It seems to me that grace is nothing that Jesus ever taught at all.

Hello again, brother!

Back in October we talked about God's Grace and how It has been extended to us. Of course Grace is 'always' a current, ( and front-line), topic to talk about, so I am very pleased to bring it back up, at any time! For convenience, I have copied my earlier post , ( #290), dealing with God's Grace.

Posted by kreagle (here)

Posted by kreagle (here)
Star Mariner,

Thank you, so much, for your comments, thus far, on the topic,.....'Grace of God'.

Posted by kreagle (here)
Grace of God

The 'precious' Grace of God. What does that mean to you?,.....and is there a 'lesson to be learned from it?'
Thoughts,.....anyone?

I'm going to leave a 'preliminary verse' of Scripture for 'everyone' to view and to perhaps,......'ponder upon',....and I will follow up on tomorrow afternoon. In this particular Scripture we 'begin to see' the awesome magnitude of the 'Grace of God',....exactly what He is 'extending to us all',...and the 'lesson' I was referring to. I would like to invite as many, as possible, to contribute to this 'topic', as you may see fit.


Titus 2:11-15 (KJV)

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.


This particular 'topic' is more vital than anyone can really imagine, for in it we begin to visualize the 'True Nature of God', and His desires and plans for His Creation,.....you and I.

Until later,.....your brother, friend, and servant,.........kreagle

In picking back up where I left off, concerning this monumental topic,.....'Grace of God', I would like to 'highlight' a few points that might would, otherwise, allude most casual observers.

The 'Grace of God' is, quite literally, the 'calling card of God', if you will, for it's with It that we find ourselves being 'beckoned' in ways that we never are fully cognizant of, sometimes. I'm not quite sure how 'internationally known' this particular statement, ( by Tom Bodett of Motel 6), is where he 'beckons' patrons to this hotel chain by warmly saying,......"we'll leave the light on for you!",....but I sincerely want to 'borrow this phrase', for that's exactly what the 'Grace of God' does for you and I,......'It leaves the light on for you!'

Let me explain.


With the 'Fall from Grace' that our ancient ancestors, ( Adam and Eve), experienced, mankind became the 'original Prodigal son' and consequently 'left our Father's House', ( the Utopian Garden of Eden). We've 'all' been on a much misaligned journey that has taken us, ( as the Prodigal), further and further away from our 'Father's House'. As with the scriptural account, ( in Luke 15:11-32), we find that the father had been 'keeping an eye out' for the return of his son,....he saw his son 'a great way off' in his return, and in his compassion,.... ran to him,.....grabbed him around his neck,.....and kissed him. You see, the father was always 'looking for his son' to return home,.......he was 'leaving the light on for him!'

Most assuredly, by the 'Grace of God', our Heavenly Father has been compassionately watching 'at a distance' for our imminent return Home, for He, by His Grace, has been,.....'leaving the light on for each one of us!', in eager anticipation for our return!

Furthermore, it should be equally noted that God's 'intricate planning' incorporated this wonderful concept of the 'Grace of God' with the introduction of John the Baptist prior to Him 'manifesting Himself in the flesh'. The 'name' John is derived from the Hebrew name (Yochanan), meaning YAHWEH is gracious. John the Baptist, with his message of 'repentance', was literally the 'Grace of God' being extended to 'all' of humanity, as a means of access back to Him. The 'voice in the wilderness' displayed vociferously by John the Baptist proclaimed this 'message of repentance',.....loud and clear,.....to 'all' who would hear. It was with this 'message of repentance', ( and Grace being consequently imparted), that John the Baptist was literally 'constructing a highway to our God', so that we might 'travel upon it' and make our way back to Him!

Isaiah 40:3 (KJV)

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.


Where would we be, were it not for the 'Grace of God?'


Your brother, friend, and servant,.......kreagle

In addition to what has already been written about God's Grace above, it should be equally pointed out that His Grace is, in reality, the 'doorway', ( access), back to Him! Without this 'doorway' of Grace, we literally don't have access back to Him from our fallen state of sin. This doorway has a name, too!,.....and it's....Jesus Christ!

John 10:9 (KJV)

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

You may not realize it, Kraut, but by His supreme example, Jesus fully taught that He, indeed, was the personification of Grace, Itself,.....full access back to God, and His Heavenly Home. Underneath that 'body of flesh', ( the 'son of man' Christ), was literally,......God Himself, ( robed in flesh),.....in the role of the Father looking for His son, ( you and I,...the Prodigal),....to 'come back home!'

2 Corinthians 5:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

You are certainly correct, Kraut, in recognizing that Paul frequently highlighted God's Grace, but this was due to what he had learned, earlier, when he, himself, sat at the 'feet of the Master', and had his own personal revelation of the 'Grace of God', and It's application toward us.


Jesus 'personified' Grace to us,....to which Paul diligently 'taught' us about. Without Jesus,.....there is no Grace to teach about,......no 'doorway', or access back to God,.....no way to 'go back home!'


Thank God,.....for His Grace!, ( the 'doorway' back to Him!)


Thank God,.....for His 'revealed' name,......JESUS!


Your brother, friend, and servant,......kreagle

[panopticon]

Posted by kreagle (here)
... but this was due to what he had learned, earlier, when he, himself, sat at the 'feet of the Master', and had his own personal revelation of the 'Grace of God', and It's application toward us.

G'day Kreagle,

Paul/Saul never 'sat at the feet of the Master'. He had a brief experience (involving a bright light and a voice talking to him) that changed the way he saw things (Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 26).

According to the Bible it is possible that, as a Pharisee, Paul may have encountered him in Jerusalem but arguing and persecuting someone is not the same (Acts 26:9-10).

BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

[Beren]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by kreagle (here)
... but this was due to what he had learned, earlier, when he, himself, sat at the 'feet of the Master', and had his own personal revelation of the 'Grace of God', and It's application toward us.

G'day Kreagle,

Paul/Saul never 'sat at the feet of the Master'. He had a brief experience (involving a bright light and a voice talking to him) that changed the way he saw things (Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 26).

According to the Bible it is possible that, as a Pharisee, Paul may have encountered him in Jerusalem but arguing and persecuting someone is not the same (Acts 26:9-10).

BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

Hi Pan

I`ll chime in briefly,
it`s perfectly simple as it was written.
Because one side in the marriage is aligned with Christ (take this as my understanding of being holy and a person who loves and isn`t dogmatic) - the other one benefits greatly just sharing life with them. Sanctification is spreading fastly and often isn`t noticed at all...until the turning point where person realizes that they want to be Christed-holy-on higher conscience level.

[panopticon]

Posted by Kraut (here)
G'day mate,
thanks for the welcome. I can understand your view very well. To me there is truth in the bible, but it is not "the truth". I'm sure that Jesus existed, but tt's hard to figure out though who exactly Jesus was, so many groups claim him as their master or leader and preach differing views about what he taught and wanted to accomplish. Even among Christians you can find different ideas about his nature, was he the first creation of God, was he "born" of God or did he have no preexistence at all...? To me what matters is: love your fellowman and treat people with dignity and respect, even those that others may look down upon.

G'day Kraut,

The questions you asked are the basis of so much in fighting and back stabbing between the churches/denominations/sects (and that's just the Christian faiths, most religions are the same when it comes to their differences however) that in my view it all comes down to dogma in the end.

The early Church adopted the Trinity doctrine (though it was not unanimous) as a means of explaining some of it in the 4th Century. That's been attacked since the Lutheran/Protestant split from Rome.

I agree that we should all just bloody well get along, but unfortunately religious and political differences often make this impossible (look at the history of Northern Ireland as an example). It is a sad state of affairs as far as I'm concerned but there you go. As my old man used to say "There's none as strange as folks".
-- Pan

[panopticon]

Posted by Beren (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

Hi Pan

I`ll chime in briefly,
it`s perfectly simple as it was written.
Because one side in the marriage is aligned with Christ (take this as my understanding of being holy and a person who loves and isn`t dogmatic) - the other one benefits greatly just sharing life with them. Sanctification is spreading fastly and often isn`t noticed at all...until the turning point where person realizes that they want to be Christed-holy-on higher conscience level.

G'day Beren,

Good to hear from you again!

I understand what you're saying here and have no problem with it.
As usual, I respect the way you have expressed your belief and the simplicity and truthfulness of your insight.

My question however was more technical in nature and referred to the quoted passage from Corinthian7:14 (GodsWord):

Actually, the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and an unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, their children would be unacceptable to God, but now they are acceptable to him.

This is saying, I think very clearly, that the non-believer (eg atheist) who is married to a believer (Christian) is made holy/purified and acceptable to God because they are married. It then goes onto say (1Corinthian7:15) that divorce is okay for the Christian if the non-believer leaves (GodsWord):

But if the unbelieving partners leave, let them go. Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow.

This of course doesn't apply if both parties are Christian in which case bad luck, they're stuck with each other (1Corinthian7:39).

The entire of 1Corinthian7 is about earthly marriage, earthly relationships and earthly actions so it has always niggled at me that section.

Once again, thank you for the response as it is always good to hear from you and I welcome your perspective in these and many other matters.
-- Pan

[kreagle]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by kreagle (here)
... but this was due to what he had learned, earlier, when he, himself, sat at the 'feet of the Master', and had his own personal revelation of the 'Grace of God', and It's application toward us.

G'day Kreagle,

Paul/Saul never 'sat at the feet of the Master'. He had a brief experience (involving a bright light and a voice talking to him) that changed the way he saw things (Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 26).

According to the Bible it is possible that, as a Pharisee, Paul may have encountered him in Jerusalem but arguing and persecuting someone is not the same (Acts 26:9-10).

BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

panopticon,

Brother, I'm sorry you have totally misunderstood the contents of my last post, as you have indicated here. Let me see if I can break this down for you, my friend. The 'voice' that Saul of Tarsus heard on the road to Damascus, was none other than the voice of God, Himself, who further identified Himself, by name,......"I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:,....." ( Acts 9:5). This was the 'Master' who Saul of Tarsus was dealing with, make no mistake about it, my friend, and Saul fully 'knew' it! I'm going to re-post an earlier link that I provided on this thread that specifically deals with Saul's conversion. Please give it a look, panopticon, for it will give you a keen look into the mindset of Saul of Tarsus, ( the Pharisee).

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post607651


From Saul's conversion in Acts, chapter 9, one needs to realize that 'Paul' did not 'fully' begin his ministry, immediately. After initially preaching Christ in Damascus, ( Acts 9:20), we find that he retired to Arabia for the 'space of three years', ( Galatians 1: 11-24), where he meditated upon the Lord, and completely received his 'revelation from Jesus Christ', ( see Galatians 1:12). This was all done 'prior' to him fully joining the rest of the Apostles, and embarking upon his own ministry. In the 'light' of this information, perhaps you can now see 'why' I referred to Saul/Paul as 'sitting at the Master's feet'. He was, indeed, dealing with the Master, Himself,....to the tune of 'three years' worth of tutelage in the deserts of Arabia, before he engaged in his Apostleship.

Additionally, it should be pointed out, that one doesn't necessarily have to be in His 'physical' presence to be able to 'sit at the Master's feet' and learn from Him, my dear friend. Many, many, people have equally done such a thing,.....including myself,....and His classroom sessions are still awesome, and profound!


As far as the 1 Corinthians 7:14 'question' that you still seem to be asking about,.....I really don't have anything further to say about that, other than what I've already said. I see that Beren has 'equally' given an adequate, ( and accurate), assessment of this passage since I wrote what I did. While you may think, ( and view), that this passage means that God has fully made the 'unbelieving spouse' holy, and absolving himself/herself from their sins, you are viewing this passage in error, providing that is what you really think. The 'relationship' between the spouses was what was considered 'holy' unto God, ( and their children, etc.). Nothing more,....and nothing less.

BTW,....out of 45 available 'English' translations of the Bible,.....only 'God's Word',.....and.....'The Voice',......record 1 Corinthians 7:15 with the statement,.....'Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow.' The 'other' 43 translations, including the KJV, and 'all' the rest of the more commonly accepted, ( and used), translations completely avoid the 'marriage vow' clause, for this is contradictory to other passages of Scripture if taken as stated there. While you may have your reasons for rejecting the KJV, I would think you might take a closer look at the 'God's Word' version, my friend.

I'm sure this isn't a popular, fully acceptable, reply to your post, and we very well may need to simply,...."agree to not agree", brother.

Love and Peace,......kreagle

[panopticon]

Posted by kreagle (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by kreagle (here)
... but this was due to what he had learned, earlier, when he, himself, sat at the 'feet of the Master', and had his own personal revelation of the 'Grace of God', and It's application toward us.

G'day Kreagle,

Paul/Saul never 'sat at the feet of the Master'. He had a brief experience (involving a bright light and a voice talking to him) that changed the way he saw things (Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 26).

According to the Bible it is possible that, as a Pharisee, Paul may have encountered him in Jerusalem but arguing and persecuting someone is not the same (Acts 26:9-10).

BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

panopticon,

Brother, I'm sorry you have totally misunderstood the contents of my last post, as you have indicated here. Let me see if I can break this down for you, my friend. The 'voice' that Saul of Tarsus heard on the road to Damascus, was none other than the voice of God, Himself, who further identified Himself, by name,......"I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:,....." ( Acts 9:5). This was the 'Master' who Saul of Tarsus was dealing with, make no mistake about it, my friend, and Saul fully 'knew' it! I'm going to re-post an earlier link that I provided on this thread that specifically deals with Saul's conversion. Please give it a look, panopticon, for it will give you a keen look into the mindset of Saul of Tarsus, ( the Pharisee).

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post607651


From Saul's conversion in Acts, chapter 9, one needs to realize that 'Paul' did not 'fully' begin his ministry, immediately. After initially preaching Christ in Damascus, ( Acts 9:20), we find that he retired to Arabia for the 'space of three years', ( Galatians 1: 11-24), where he meditated upon the Lord, and completely received his 'revelation from Jesus Christ', ( see Galatians 1:12). This was all done 'prior' to him fully joining the rest of the Apostles, and embarking upon his own ministry. In the 'light' of this information, perhaps you can now see 'why' I referred to Saul/Paul as 'sitting at the Master's feet'. He was, indeed, dealing with the Master, Himself,....to the tune of 'three years' worth of tutelage in the deserts of Arabia, before he engaged in his Apostleship.

Additionally, it should be pointed out, that one doesn't necessarily have to be in His 'physical' presence to be able to 'sit at the Master's feet' and learn from Him, my dear friend. Many, many, people have equally done such a thing,.....including myself,....and His classroom sessions are still awesome, and profound!


As far as the 1 Corinthians 7:14 'question' that you still seem to be asking about,.....I really don't have anything further to say about that, other than what I've already said. I see that Beren has 'equally' given an adequate, ( and accurate), assessment of this passage since I wrote what I did. While you may think, ( and view), that this passage means that God has fully made the 'unbelieving spouse' holy, and absolving himself/herself from their sins, you are viewing this passage in error, providing that is what you really think. The 'relationship' between the spouses was what was considered 'holy' unto God, ( and their children, etc.). Nothing more,....and nothing less.

BTW,....out of 45 available 'English' translations of the Bible,.....only 'God's Word',.....and.....'The Voice',......record 1 Corinthians 7:15 with the statement,.....'Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow.' The 'other' 43 translations, including the KJV, and 'all' the rest of the more commonly accepted, ( and used), translations completely avoid the 'marriage vow' clause, for this is contradictory to other passages of Scripture if taken as stated there. While you may have your reasons for rejecting the KJV, I would think you might take a closer look at the 'God's Word' version, my friend.

I'm sure this isn't a popular, fully acceptable, reply to your post, and we very well may need to simply,...."agree to not agree", brother.

Love and Peace,......kreagle

G'day Kreagle,

Thanks for the response bloke.

I thought it best to point out that Paul/Saul was not 'sat at the feet of the master' because there may be some here who are not as knowledgeable as your self in the Bible and might mistakenly think that Paul/Saul was a member of the 12 apostles, which he was not.
As for his "revelation" in Galatians 1:12 (UKJV ):

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

to me this does not state, nor even imply, that Paul/Saul was physically 'sat at the feet of the master'. Though it makes more sense, to me anyway, if I were to view it is as a personal revelation. These happen to people all the time (you said you experienced much the same yourself), from many religions and spiritual practices, so I see no reason for Paul/Saul not having one. Again, horses for courses me ol' salt. Happy to agree to disagree on this one too.

As for the 1Corinthians7 passage, thanks for trying. As I said, it's been a passage that I've studied for a number of years and was wondering if you had another take on it. The GodsWord, in my view, is the best match for the intent of the passage which is why I use it (actually I've only found a few sections of the NT in the GW that I view as contentious translations, from Strong's and the Greek, so tend to use it mostly). I've not come across 'The Voice' (there are so many different translations out there!) so thank you for pointing it out. I'll see if I can find a copy to peruse.

BTW here's some more to add to your list regards 1Corinthians7:
BBE Bible in Basic English.
BWE Bible in Worldwide English.
ESV English Standard Version.
There are more but I don't have a list handy...
BTW there's also this translation from 1904 (TCNT):

14. For, through his wife, the husband who is an unbeliever has become associated with Christ's People; and the wife who is an unbeliever has become associated with Christ's People through our Brother whom she has married. Otherwise your children would be 'defiled,' but, as it is, they belong to Christ's People

Anyway, thanks for trying with the Corinthians and we'll (yet again) agree to disagree
-- Pan

[Beren]

I find that that people very often stumble upon few words in Bible completely forgetting that still the human hand wrote the books that became the Bible.
Clearly those who wrote it were inspired by God to write. Also they didn't understand 99% of the things they wrote and very often they asked a clarification from angels who were translating to them what this or that means. Even then a being as big as angel in then current understanding and consciousness has had the difficulty to explain in terms so primitive to those days male (not to mention women who were mostly illiterate then) writers... They just couldn't grasp what the heck is going on in the world of spirit so they had to use by necessity the terminology adapted to their customs and ways of life.

Too many are judging Bible today when in fact they don't have a clue what they are judging for.

An example, I am not proficient in Math so imagine me asking casually a guy who is a Math professor at MIT to explain me how he solves his equations and similar...
Needles to say that I 'd probably end up in understanding about 1% of what he is saying.

So how could a shepherd or a blacksmith or even a king in those days understand how a spirit walks through dimensions and what is an ego or how a spirit can take various forms and still retain its own core... lists go on...

Truth is very openly laid in Bible but it takes a non judgmental heart to see this.

[Beren]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by Beren (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
BTW. Still waiting to hear back about 1Corinthian7:14 and the non-King James explanation of non-believers becoming holy because they are married to a Christian. No hurry, I assume you're consulting on it, just thought I'd remind you.
-- Pan

Hi Pan

I`ll chime in briefly,
it`s perfectly simple as it was written.
Because one side in the marriage is aligned with Christ (take this as my understanding of being holy and a person who loves and isn`t dogmatic) - the other one benefits greatly just sharing life with them. Sanctification is spreading fastly and often isn`t noticed at all...until the turning point where person realizes that they want to be Christed-holy-on higher conscience level.

G'day Beren,

Good to hear from you again!

I understand what you're saying here and have no problem with it.
As usual, I respect the way you have expressed your belief and the simplicity and truthfulness of your insight.

My question however was more technical in nature and referred to the quoted passage from Corinthian7:14 (GodsWord):

Actually, the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and an unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, their children would be unacceptable to God, but now they are acceptable to him.

This is saying, I think very clearly, that the non-believer (eg atheist) who is married to a believer (Christian) is made holy/purified and acceptable to God because they are married. It then goes onto say (1Corinthian7:15) that divorce is okay for the Christian if the non-believer leaves (GodsWord):

But if the unbelieving partners leave, let them go. Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow.

This of course doesn't apply if both parties are Christian in which case bad luck, they're stuck with each other (1Corinthian7:39).

The entire of 1Corinthian7 is about earthly marriage, earthly relationships and earthly actions so it has always niggled at me that section.

Once again, thank you for the response as it is always good to hear from you and I welcome your perspective in these and many other matters.
-- Pan

You're always welcome Pan!

When you read Paul's letters you see clearly that he tries his best to teach many who accepted Christ how to live holy.
It doesn't always goes well. People in those days were living lives as they wished and were especially bounded by superstition depending where they lived.
Now turning themselves into Christians they had all of a sudden to live a different life so Paul felt that his task is to teach them of "how to".

He wasn't always right because he was a man. He once stated that actually it is him that is ordering something and not Christ and that he thinks that spirit gave him insight..now whether spirit actually gave him an insight or not remains to be seen upon lives of those people then.

Paul was a very prideful person and he had to learn his lesson as he grew in Christ-in Love.
He had to transform to be humble man not ego boaster-like he was as pharisee.

Eventually he died in Rome as an inmate in a house prison. But what is sure is that we can track his transformation from extremelly negative guy who wanted to kill in God's name to a persona who is knowledgeable but meek or humble. It took many years for him so that holy spirit could shape his soul.

God allowed most of his letters to be saved so we can see how one man transformed into a holy man at the end.
He had to live through all his ego trips and he had to live all his errors so he could grasp what it means to actually love fellow neighbor as Christ loved.

From persecutor to persecuted so he can experience both sides to see how it is to be hunted down. So he could learn to not judge.
You can notice by the end of his letters how he changes his tone towards Love more and more.
As his insight grew so was he.

So was everybody who met Christ.
They all had to shed the old person full of ego and greed and lust towards lesser experiences.
There is no difference today.

[kreagle]

Posted by panopticon (here)
As for the 1Corinthians7 passage, thanks for trying. As I said, it's been a passage that I've studied for a number of years and was wondering if you had another take on it.

Actually brother, I do have 'another take' on this issue, as the 'Spirit' within fondly reminds me of His 'boundless' Mercy and Grace.

Please follow this line of 'reasoning', brother.


I can just imagine as God, and the Host of Heaven, looked down on this 'couple' at the 'very moment' one of them elected to become a 'believer' and was 'Born-again' of the water and of the Spirit! Here, in Scripture, Jesus gives us a 'glimpse' of how Heaven reacts.

Luke 15:7 (KJV)

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,......

With this 'joyful' Heavenly news, God has now become further obligated towards His 'newborn' child and his/her 'surroundings' concerning their personal lives in which they live. Here is where God's 'boundless' Mercy and Grace kicks into a 'higher plateau' that we mere 'human beings' have a hard time understanding. In His elective decision to bless the 'entire relationship' between the 'believer/non-believer' spouses, and to consider their union as 'holy', He has actually accomplished 'two' things.


#1)- For the 'believing' spouse, He is establishing within their heart/mind that His blessings, love, provision, comfort, are fully with them, even though they may still be surrounded by 'spiritually detrimental' circumstances that so often come by being around, ( or associated), with an 'unbeliever'. Sooner, or later, the 'newborn' believing spouse is going to come 'face-to-face' with this passage of Scripture, and is going to need to have His Mercy/Grace, and certainly His full support to get them by!

2 Corinthians 6:14 (KJV)

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

While this 'passage', in no wise, is saying, ( or suggesting), that this 'couple' should get divorced,....( unlike what the 'God's Word' version says in v. 15),....it is implying that the 'believer' needs to 'draw the line' with their 'unbelieving' spouse and let them know that they will 'stand with God and His Word' regardless to their marital status. To 'draw the line' means to 'separate' themselves from their spouse's 'unbelieving ways',....not to 'separate',...as in divorce. ( note v's. 17-18)

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 (KJV)

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

(**IMPORTANT**,.....Here is where His Mercy, and Grace, skyrocket on behalf of the 'unbelieving' spouse.)


#2)- For the 'unbelieving' spouse, they will soon begin to see, firsthand, how the blessings, love, provision, and comfort, have 'suddenly' become mainstays within their home. They will then see how their 'children' are, equally, blessed and protected. Most importantly,....they will begin to realize 'why' their home life has become 'sanctioned', and 'who' is the 'responsible party', ( ie. the 'believing' spouse!) When this 'bit of wisdom' enters into their thinking they should then fully acknowledge,....."Just how much MORE would my family be blessed, 'if'.....'I'.....were to 'get on board', too,....and learn to equally serve the Lord?"


You know, panopticon,....'if' God was to respond to the 'believer/unbeliever' spousal issue by simply adopting the view,......."I'm 'only' going to be concerned with 'my child',....and 'my child', only!",.......type of Mentality, well,......that would 'hardly' make Him the type of God, that He really is, wouldn't it?


He 'always' considers 'all angles',.....and has already accommodated for all circumstances.


What 'boundless' Mercy, and Grace!


your brother, friend, and servant,......kreagle

[kreagle]

Posted by Beren (here)
I find that that people very often stumble upon few words in Bible completely forgetting that still the human hand wrote the books that became the Bible.
Clearly those who wrote it were inspired by God to write. Also they didn't understand 99% of the things they wrote and very often they asked a clarification from angels who were translating to them what this or that means. Even then a being as big as angel in then current understanding and consciousness has had the difficulty to explain in terms so primitive to those days male (not to mention women who were mostly illiterate then) writers... They just couldn't grasp what the heck is going on in the world of spirit so they had to use by necessity the terminology adapted to their customs and ways of life.

Too many are judging Bible today when in fact they don't have a clue what they are judging for.

An example, I am not proficient in Math so imagine me asking casually a guy who is a Math professor at MIT to explain me how he solves his equations and similar...
Needles to say that I 'd probably end up in understanding about 1% of what he is saying.

So how could a shepherd or a blacksmith or even a king in those days understand how a spirit walks through dimensions and what is an ego or how a spirit can take various forms and still retain its own core... lists go on...

Truth is very openly laid in Bible but it takes a non judgmental heart to see this.

Hey Beren my brother,


I fully understand your sentiments regarding 'judgement' for we are, indeed, forbidden by Scripture to 'judge' one another, and those who do so are in complete violation of the Text and subject to 'Divine Judgement' themselves. However, we are specifically instructed by Scripture to be astute students of His Word, as the Bereans were. We find they were not afraid to carefully 'decipher', by Text, what was correct, and what was incorrect, and to their credit, became believers of the Gospel Message that Paul and Silas brought to them.

Acts 17:10-12 (KJV)

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

I cannot adequately underscore, ( and highlight), the importance that we 'each' have to 'properly' judge which Texts, ( ie. translations), are 'correct', and which ones are not.


Case in point, brother,....Peter went out of his way to 'defend' his brother, the Apostle Paul, over his very 'in depth' teachings, which were so often misunderstood, and consequently misapplied by those who simply chose to 're-arrange' them to fit there particular desires.

2 Peter 3:15-17 (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I have absolutely 'no problem' with specifically identifying Texts, ( translations), that contain obvious Scriptural errors, my friend. Just recently, we've seen the 'text' from 'God's Word Translation' that, pointedly, states,.....

1 Corinthians 7:15
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

15 But if the unbelieving partners leave, let them go. Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow. God has called you to live in peace.

As I pointed out, earlier, this statement concerning 'not bound by a marriage vow', is totally contradictory to the Bible's teachings concerning marriage, which specifically state that 'unfaithfulness,( adultery)',.....or......'death',......are the 'only' two permissible reasons for the marriage vow to be vacated.

If the 'child of God' refuses to 'make a stand' for that which is right,.....then we will wind up 'falling for anything', my dear friend.


Perhaps this is on the side of what is called 'dogmatic' to some, ( if not most), people,...but I will make a 'stand' for the Truth, regardless.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Too many 'wrongly' divide, ( ie. apply), the Word of Truth, every single day, my friend. It's up to 'us', individually, to 'make a stand', and set the record right. If 'we' don't,....then who will? When God filled me with His Spirit,....He filled me with the 'Spirit of Understanding', and along with that comes an 'awesome' responsibility!

Sometimes,....even 'stones' get thrown 'our' way,.....don't ever forget that,...or let that 'cloud' your decision to stand for the Truth! Stephen didn't, ( Acts 7:51-60), and neither should you, or I!


Your brother, friend, and servant,......kreagle

[panopticon]

Sorry I bought this up now.
Knew I would be.
Due to a brief moment of madness I thought I could have a decent conversation about a scripture that has multiple possible translations in a thread that is about the bible.

Of course I was wrong.

Would have been able to with RedeZra. Least he would have had a serious and knowledgeable conversation about it.

The translation from the original Greek into English in the Bishop's Bible, erm sorry, from the late 16th early 17th Century King James version (on which most other Bibles in circulation now are based) is right Kreagle.
You're right Kreagle.

Now back to you prosthelytising the Good Word from your Good Book (in the name of your dear and fluffy lord).
I've learnt my lesson.
-- Pan.

[kreagle]

Posted by panopticon (here)
Sorry I bought this up now.
Knew I would be.
Due to a brief moment of madness I thought I could have a decent conversation about a scripture that has multiple possible translations in a thread that is about the bible.

Of course I was wrong.

Would have been able to with RedeZra. Least he would have had a serious and knowledgeable conversation about it.

The translation from the original Greek into English in the Bishop's Bible, erm sorry, from the late 16th early 17th Century King James version (on which most other Bibles in circulation now are based) is right Kreagle.
You're right Kreagle.

Now back to you prosthelytising the Good Word from your Good Book (in the name of your dear and fluffy lord).I've learnt my lesson.
-- Pan.

panopticon,

One thing is for certain, my dear friend. At no time in the many 'discussions' that you and I have shared have I presented myself in an antagonistic way towards you, as you are towards me now. This is often the results that are seen when a conversation does not go the way someone would like for it to go, and one doesn't get the 'answers' they are looking for.

I have gone to great lengths to answer your questions with the 'only' Answer Book I know, panopticon. I will not alter It's 'results' in order to solicit any one's approval, for the truth is the only thing that matters, regardless to where it may fall.

You might should be reminded that any 'serious and knowledgeable conversations' you could have conducted between yourself and RedeZra came to a 'screeching halt' a long time ago when he felt it was necessary to relentlessly 'whip' others with the Word of God, demanding that someone 'repent' and condemning others to hell when they openly opposed him. His continued 'antics' finally 'did him in' and he was 'unsubscribed', and rightfully so by our Avalon moderators. At no point have I treated anyone in such a way as this,....nor do I ever intend to do so.

Should you decide to continue to offer 'questions' and input, here, I hope you will take a closer look at yourself, and your overall delivery of words, panopticon. There is absolutely no need to resort to the condescending tone you have been employing towards me,....and 'especially' towards our Lord and His Holy Word.

Hebrews 12:13-15 (KJV)

13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

Love and Peace,.....your brother, friend, and servant,.....kreagle

[panopticon]

G'day Kreagle,

In relation to my comment:

The GodsWord, in my view, is the best match for the intent of the passage which is why I use it (actually I've only found a few sections of the NT in the GW that I view as contentious translations, from Strong's and the Greek, so tend to use it mostly).

you chose to then run my choice down:

Posted by kreagle (here)
I cannot adequately underscore, (and highlight), the importance that we 'each' have to 'properly' judge which Texts, ( ie. translations), are 'correct', and which ones are not.
...
I have absolutely 'no problem' with specifically identifying Texts, ( translations), that contain obvious Scriptural errors, my friend. Just recently, we've seen the 'text' from 'God's Word Translation'

Posted by kreagle (here)
One thing is for certain, my dear friend. At no time in the many 'discussions' that you and I have shared have I presented myself in an antagonistic way towards you

You have at various stages been confrontational, implied I would go to hell a number of time (one was over my use of CE and BCE as opposed to your preferred AD and BC FFS), even in this thread you went so far as to imply that I was in league with the Deevil ('part of the opposition' as I recall) because I made a joke.

Bloke, just because you imply or thinly veil something, instead of outright saying it, doesn't make your intent unclear. It is part of your belief that because I choose to not follow the same belief as yours I will go to Hell and that is the underlying premise in your delivery, choice of words and message. This is the very first time I have said anything remotely confrontational to you, and it was in jest using common vernacular, the fact that you've taken offence says more about you than me.

Posted by kreagle (here)
You might should be reminded that any 'serious and knowledgeable conversations' you could have conducted between yourself and RedeZra came to a 'screeching halt' a long time ago

I really enjoyed the many discussions I had with RedeZra and though I found his claim that everybody but him was going to Hell a bit annoying at least he was up front about it and overall he was very civil and very knowledgeable in relation to Bible history, early scripture and early church history.

Posted by kreagle (here)
Should you decide to continue to offer 'questions' and input, here, I hope you will take a closer look at yourself, and your overall delivery of words,

As I hope you will in the future.

-- Pan

[kreagle]

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day Kreagle,

In relation to my comment:

The GodsWord, in my view, is the best match for the intent of the passage which is why I use it (actually I've only found a few sections of the NT in the GW that I view as contentious translations, from Strong's and the Greek, so tend to use it mostly).

you chose to then run my choice down:

Posted by kreagle (here)
I cannot adequately underscore, (and highlight), the importance that we 'each' have to 'properly' judge which Texts, ( ie. translations), are 'correct', and which ones are not.
...
I have absolutely 'no problem' with specifically identifying Texts, ( translations), that contain obvious Scriptural errors, my friend. Just recently, we've seen the 'text' from 'God's Word Translation'

Posted by kreagle (here)
One thing is for certain, my dear friend. At no time in the many 'discussions' that you and I have shared have I presented myself in an antagonistic way towards you

You have at various stages been confrontational, implied I would go to hell a number of time (one was over my use of CE and BCE as opposed to your preferred AD and BC FFS), even in this thread you went so far as to imply that I was in league with the Deevil ('part of the opposition' as I recall) because I made a joke.

Bloke, just because you imply or thinly veil something, instead of outright saying it, doesn't make your intent unclear. It is part of your belief that because I choose to not follow the same belief as yours I will go to Hell and that is the underlying premise in your delivery, choice of words and message. This is the very first time I have said anything remotely confrontational to you, and it was in jest using common vernacular, the fact that you've taken offence says more about you than me.

Posted by kreagle (here)
You might should be reminded that any 'serious and knowledgeable conversations' you could have conducted between yourself and RedeZra came to a 'screeching halt' a long time ago

I really enjoyed the many discussions I had with RedeZra and though I found his claim that everybody but him was going to Hell a bit annoying at least he was up front about it and overall he was very civil and very knowledgeable in relation to Bible history, early scripture and early church history.

Posted by kreagle (here)
Should you decide to continue to offer 'questions' and input, here, I hope you will take a closer look at yourself, and your overall delivery of words,

As I hope you will in the future.

-- Pan

panopticon,


The 'bulk' of what you are referring to originated in the 'now' defunct thread by RedeZra titled,....the Bible. I'm sad to say that I, ( like everyone else), somewhat participated in some 'heated' moments that left me feeling very bad after I left the thread. I even told a few, here, that I often felt like I 'needed a bath' after each session I spent on that thread! All of this about 'the Bible',....( something is 'very wrong' with that picture!) This thread continuously centered around 'debates' which is 'specifically' why I carefully worded, ( and chose), to NOT allow debates on this particular thread.

If you remember, brother, the 'very last comment you made' on that particular thread was specifically directed towards me where you reprimanded me for implying that Jesus was the 'only truth'. I guess you must completely negate the words of the Master, here.

John 14:6 (KJV)

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Here is your statement, brother,......along with my reply.

Posted by kreagle (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day Kreagle,

Posted by kreagle (here)
I have no intentions of being inflammatory to anyone,.....ANYONE!,....here at Avalon,...or any "visitor" who may read this.

Truth be told,......."we" are all "brothers",......and I mean that in every possible way!!!

I'm not a theist so every time you imply/state that Jesus is "the only truth" from my perspective you are being inflammatory. This thread is about the Bible and as such I expect a bit of "Bible bashing" but please remember that many members of Avalon are not Christian, nor wish to be "preached at" and that every time you declare your version of "absolute truth" you are being inflammatory.

A case in point:

Posted by kreagle (here)
I have a "Revelation" that "few in life" get to experience.

I want to share that "Revelation",......every single last precious Word of It!!!

There is,.......

Ephesians 4:5
King James Version (KJV)

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I don't believe there is any personified deity, nor a describable faith (we can not describe the indescribable) and hence no need for a baptism (unless I've been working all day and need a bath).

My interest in the Bible relates to the control structures that formed around it as a means of consolidating power.

I'll buggar off now and leave all you monotheists to "duke it out" over who knows "the truth" best and whose dogma barks the loudest.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

panopticon,

What you are saying is the "equivalent" to a large group of baseball fans electing to discuss the long and illustrious record and history of the "New York Yankees",......and having an "individual" make up the "following ground rule",......."It is hereby prohibited to bring up,....in any way,......the name of "Babe Ruth",.....or relate to his accomplishments,.....or his overall worth to the team franchise, etc.,...during this discussion!

-OR-

Conducting a "national survey" on the history of "Country Western Cowboy Classics",......but the name of "John Wayne" cannot be mentioned,.....anywhere!

(point)

There are "certain things" that just simply cannot be excluded!!!

You cannot "exclude" Jesus Christ,......His role,.......His Deity,......His position,.....from "the Bible"

You take "Jesus" out of the Bible,........and all you have left,.....is "just a meaningless book"!!!,......that I, personally, wouldn't give 5 cents for!!

You state that,....."please remember that many members of Avalon are not Christian",.....to which I reply,....."why, then, would they "click on a thread" titled "the Bible"?? You see,.....I "personally" don't like "hunting", as a sport,.....so I don't read magazines about "hunting". It's really simple!

On top of this,.....you haven't heard the "full story" yet,......

Don't you think you are being a little hasty with your criticism?

Patience,.....my friend.........kreagle

I'd like to specifically 'quote', again, this particular statement within your post.

I don't believe there is any personified deity, nor a describable faith (we can not describe the indescribable) and hence no need for a baptism (unless I've been working all day and need a bath).

Brother, like 'everyone else', you absolutely have the 'God-given' right to believe however you see fit. As stated, you don't believe in the Deity of Jesus,...nor a describable faith,....nor baptism. All of this is completely within the realm of your 'rights' if this is the path you wish to choose and embark upon. Whether YOU realize it, or not, your many 'thinly veiled' comments 'equally' suggest that the Christian concept, ( and recorded Scriptures), are 'out of line' and should not be taken seriously.

I remind you, brother,....THAT was a thread about 'the Bible',....just like THIS is a thread about 'Bible Topics and Questions'.

On 'this' particular thread, I have NEVER implied that you were 'going to Hell', brother,....and I challenge you to 'specifically' prove it to me in a 'Private Message' to me, if you care to do so. I do not want to 'hash' this out with you, here, for that will violate the OP which has been carefully laid out and established.

'If' you feel that you have been wrongfully relegated to hell,...perhaps that is nothing more than your conscience trying to tell you something.


Case in point,......

If 'I', ( kreagle), was to 'never record any of my words, again, on this thread',....but simply 'quote' Scriptures,....( exclusively),.....sooner, or later, you would find yourself running up on scriptures like 'this',.......

Romans 8:9 (KJV)

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

John 3:5-7 (KJV)

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Acts 4:12 (KJV)

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I will stop, here, with these '3' verses. Of course, many, many, more could be equally used to illustrate what I am endeavoring to point out to you, panopticon. You see, 'I' don't have to say, ( or add), anything myself, for God's Word, ( if It is read,..and absorbed), convicts and blatantly warns of eternal consequences,......'ALL BY ITSELF',....without 'me', ( or anyone else), having to say anything!

It's simply the 'nature' of the Spirit, my friend,....to attempt to 'steer' us 'all' in the right direction,....back to Him,....where humanity was in the 'first place', ( ie. Adam and Eve), in the Garden of Eden!

panopticon,...my dear brother, I have absolutely 'no desire' to quarrel with you, friend. Quite the opposite,....and I mean that with 'all' my heart, and soul. I sincerely hope we can 'get beyond' this latest 'quarrel' and proceed in a more positive, ( and conducive), direction for you, I, and everyone else, here.

If my comments on the 'God's Word Translation' upset you, I apologize to 'YOU", in an effort to return to civility,....but mind you, brother, I will continue to make a stand for His Truth always.

I don't know how you could expect me, at this point, to do anything less than that!

God Bless you,....Peace and Love,.....kreagle

[panopticon]

G'day Kreagle,

I shan't resort to private messaging as it is not my practice to do so.
Everything I say is within the public domain and I stand by my words in every instance.
If the above quote is the best you can find then I feel vindicated.
I shall not continue this discussion however I shall leave it with your own statement in this thread:

Posted by kreagle (here)
A somewhat 'revealing statement', in that I never realized, until now, that you were 'part of the opposition!'

Which was because I joked about your customary signoff:

Your friend, brother, and servant,........kreagle

with this:

Posted by panopticon (here)
I free you Kreagle, you are no longer my slave.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6rjjArvzXuc

Thanks for the response by the way. Your position is clearer now.
I again say that I am glad that San Francisco has adopted this bill and allowed for equality between individuals needing serious health services.

I still had a little laugh over that when I re-read it.
I thought it was really quite funny.
Sorry it offended you so much as it was definitely not my intention in including it in this thread.

In our most recent discussion I really wanted to discuss the ins and outs of the Greek transliteration from Strongs in relation to the 1Cor7 passages.
That was all.
This is a thread titles 'Bible Topics and Questions' so I thought I'd ask one.
Now I'm sorry I did.

-- Pan

[kreagle]

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day Kreagle,

I shan't resort to private messaging as it is not my practice to do so.
Everything I say is within the public domain and I stand by my words in every instance.
If the above quote is the best you can find then I feel vindicated.
I shall not continue this discussion however I shall leave it with your own statement in this thread:

Posted by kreagle (here)
A somewhat 'revealing statement', in that I never realized, until now, that you were 'part of the opposition!'

Which was because I joked about your customary signoff:

Your friend, brother, and servant,........kreagle

with this:

Posted by panopticon (here)
I free you Kreagle, you are no longer my slave.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6rjjArvzXuc

Thanks for the response by the way. Your position is clearer now.
I again say that I am glad that San Francisco has adopted this bill and allowed for equality between individuals needing serious health services.

I still had a little laugh over that when I re-read it.
I thought it was really quite funny.
Sorry it offended you so much as it was definitely not my intention in including it in this thread.

In our most recent discussion I really wanted to discuss the ins and outs of the Greek transliteration from Strongs in relation to the 1Cor7 passages.
That was all.
This is a thread titles 'Bible Topics and Questions' so I thought I'd ask one.
Now I'm sorry I did.

-- Pan

panopticon,

I have always been man enough to admit when I was wrong about something, so I will candidly admit that I was, indeed, wrong in the 'slave/servant' issue you bring up,....even though I personally felt duped, at the moment it first happened. I, honestly, did not make the 'connection' in my mind that you were associating the 'slave' statement with my 'customary signature',.....Your brother, friend, and servant. I had to figure that out on my own,....and I didn't actually do that until 'after' I had already made my comment,....."A somewhat 'revealing statement', in that I never realized, until now, that you were 'part of the opposition!"

'This' is exactly how 'misunderstandings' can get out-of-hand, very quickly, in an open forum, like we have. To add insult to injury,....you have taken my comment to mean that you are the 'opposition' in a 'Satanic-way',....when in reality I, ( originally), simply couldn't understand how you were my 'master', to begin with, and were 'enslaving' me. Someone who 'enslaves' someone else would certainly be considered the 'opposition',...would they not? Do you get my 'drift' now? Just a simple, ( and complete), misunderstanding,.....to which you, and I, were 'both' a party to!

Another big 'factor' in our 'misunderstandings' probably stems from our past 'discourses', especially as noted on the, now defunct,.....'the Bible' thread. I can't help but feel that we 'both' are probably 'gun-shy' towards each other, simply because we are basically the 'polar opposites' in our concepts/ideas relating the Scriptures. Surely you should realize the potential problems that this presents as we enter into dialogue endeavoring to have a fruitful conversation. While you seem to have no problem highlighting my disdain for your 'God's Word Translation',.....you seem to forget your 'colorful', ( and disrespectful), words towards the 'King James Version', ( ie. 'Bishop's Bible' per you), that I choose to use. Sounds like a 'classic case' of what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander!, to me.

Lastly, I'm really convinced that you were 'fond' of your discourses with RedeZra because, in him, you were able to find a 'jousting buddy' who would not hesitate to jump in there with you to 'argue' the point all the way through to the bitter end. As we both know, ( along with every other Avalon member), RedeZra would 'never' consider backing down from a good 'argument/debate' and seemed to relish in them. It seems it was what he lived for,.....and consequently what finally 'did him in'.

I have no intentions, panopticon, of becoming your 'jousting buddy', nor anyone else's, as far as that goes. I am simply here to 'share' His Truth, answer any questions I can, and learn from 'others' along the way, brother. Your current 'chosen' pathway, which 'excludes' recognizing Jesus' Deity,...a describable faith,....and baptism,....are going to 'always' be problematic for you as you endeavor entering into a Christian discussion with anyone, and you should readily recognize this, my friend.

If 'vindication' has been your goal, out of this, I hope you feel better now.

I'm really 'not' your enemy, my friend, and I sincerely hope you will realize that!


Peace and Love,......kreagle,.....and 'still',.....your brother, friend, and servant!

[panopticon]

Kreagle it is well known that there were errors in translation, omissions and inclusions in the King James version of the NT.

How could God allow Bible errors?
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D. For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the official text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV text that is errorneous, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much WORSE!
Source.

Michael J. Penfold explains the dilemma here:

The King James Version of the Bible still excels as a translation. However, in recent years, thousands of Christians, mainly independent Baptists from the USA, have come to hold an extreme and illogical view: that the KJV represents not just a very good, or even the best translation in the English language, but that it is absolutely perfect and without blemish. They believe that the Lord infallibly guided its translators to always choose exactly the right wording, punctuation and italicisation in every single case.
Source.

Daniel B. Wallace asks:

the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?
Source.

At no stage have I said the the Gods Word translation was perfect.
What I did say was that it is the closest that I have found to Strongs very mainstream transliterations and translations from the original Greek in many passages!

All I had been trying to do was discuss one of these.
That was all.

I wish you all the best in your journey.
-- Pan