BRXII Battle talk

[red77]

Maybe it isn't the fire that destroys death. I don't know. But, death could be a living being, so it's a possibility.

So maybe it isnt fire at all then? Do you seriously think death is a 'living ' being? How...........?!

The pastor is possibly right. I never said my take was more right. I said that it seems more just to me, personally. That's all I said.

i understand that, I'd like you to explain why your view is more just than the pastor's and why you think presently that the pastor is wrong, surely you must have some conviction in your belief otherwise how can you tell others they know nothing about justice?

Young's Literal Translation

Fair enough, I really need to get a hold of that anyway

No. God has His own free will. The Bible says so. As for who would want to reject it, you'd be surprised. However, at some point, even if they don't want to reject it, they won't be allowed to accept it, because they've rejected it for so long.

I would if they're face to face with the truth, I doubt in honesty it would actually be possible to want to reject unless insanity was an issue....and I'll leave it to God to set his restraints for 'allowing' people to accept....

" Then Jesus told him, [Jesus]'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'[/Jesus]

-John 20:29
​

I dont recall Thomas being told to depart or anything....

You're an idiot because you are completely misunderstood what I was saying. Either that, or you intentionally lied about, in order to discredit me. And that the ultimate in dishonesty. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're just an idiot, instead of wicked enough to lie so maliciously.

this is just ridiculous,please grow up.....and explain Rev 5:13 which got lost amidst this surreal rant......

 

[Ecumenicist]

Speaking of Paul,

God struck him blind to get his attention, to introduce him to Christ, in effect to "save" him.

Evidence that God has the power to turn even the hardest heart of stone into a heart of
flesh. This is why I continue to be hopeful for even this "hardened" TOL crowd...

 

[PKevman]

Nin...God is eternal...but not because aion means eternal.
God's aion lasts forever because He is eternal...not the other way around.

God's aion lasts forever? Aion is a word denoting time, and the majority of the TIME (no pun intended) it is translated eternal.

So God's eternal lasts forever because He is eternal.....that is what you just said.........

 

[red77]

One question that has yet to be answered. Are the Greek scholars who translated the many fine English versions of the Bible (such as the NKJV, KJV, NAS, NIV, etc....) UNQUALIFIED to translate Greek, but Universalist "scholars" that are quoted on Tentmaker.com are MORE qualified?

And in your argument in the debate you didn't say it didn't mean eternal anywhere. You have just changed your position from what was posted in the debate.....

Pastor, its not just 'universalist' scholars that have aion as age enduring, are you willing to admit this?
and again, why - when there is a perfectly acceptable word to denote eternal: "aidios" - was it used so sparingly? :think:

 

[red77]

Speaking of Paul,

God struck him blind to get his attention, to introduce him to Christ, in effect to "save" him.

Evidence that God has the power to turn even the hardest heart of stone into a heart of
flesh. This is why I continue to be hopeful for even this "hardened" TOL crowd...

Great point!

Saul certainly didnt have any free will in the matter of his conversion, hmmmm......

 

[PKevman]

Pastor, its not just 'universalist' scholars that have aion as age enduring, are you willing to admit this?
and again, why - when there is a perfectly acceptable word to denote eternal: "aidios" - was it used so sparingly? :think:

Because Aionios and Aion were perfectly fine. Other than that we would have to go back and ask them.

 

[PKevman]

Great point!

Saul certainly didnt have any free will in the matter of his conversion, hmmmm......

Paul was given a special calling by God, and he still could have rejected that calling if he would have chosen to. This really proves nothing.

 

[PKevman]

Paul was an Apostle. That was a unique role and title. God doesn't appear to everyone that way. The same as the prophets in the Old Testament. God chose them for specific roles. Were all of the prophets completely obedient to God? Or did they have a choice?

 

[PKevman]

Pastor, its not just 'universalist' scholars that have aion as age enduring, are you willing to admit this?

sure there are other false teaching groups such as the annihilationists who teach otherwise. There are also some BAD translations out there. But the vast majority of reputable Greek scholars utterly disagree with the translations of Universalism. Are YOU willing to admit this?

and again, why - when there is a perfectly acceptable word to denote eternal: "aidios" - was it used so sparingly? :think:

Umm because they knew they weren't writing to Universalists? :guitar:

Origen hadn't come along with his heresies yet..............

 

[red77]

Because Aionios and Aion were perfectly fine. Other than that we would have to go back and ask them.

That does not answer, why was "aidios" used at all if aion and aionios were perfectly fine? The most logical answer is that aidios was used in the instances where eternity was the precise intent and could easily have been used throughout the Bible if what you insist is true,

 

[red77]

sure there are other false teaching groups such as the annihilationists who teach otherwise. There are also some BAD translations out there. But the vast majority of reputable Greek scholars utterly disagree with the translations of Universalism. Are YOU willing to admit this?

Well no, quite frankly in my experience its not the 'vast majority' of scholars who have denoted aion to mean eternal, there was already a word for that ......aidios....



Umm because they knew they weren't writing to Universalists? :guitar:

Origen hadn't come along with his heresies yet..............[/QUOTE]

again - no answer, why was it used at all? Your problem is that Universal salvation predates the orthodox church which suddenly came along and stated that God couldnt achieve his own will.....

 

[PKevman]

That does not answer, why was "aidios" used at all if aion and aionios were perfectly fine? The most logical answer is that aidios was used in the instances where eternity was the precise intent and could easily have been used throughout the Bible if what you insist is true,

In language is it possible for two words to have the same or similar meanings? Why is it we don't just use one particular word over and over to convey the same thing? This is really a silly argument and again shows that the Universalist refuses any attempt at logic.

 

[red77]

Paul was given a special calling by God, and he still could have rejected that calling if he would have chosen to. This really proves nothing.

He didnt have a say in it did he? Throughout this debate you have demonstrated your belief that God wouldnt infringe upon man's free will by declaring himself, I very much doubt that after the road to Damascus incident Paul would have been able to - or want to decline the calling....

 

[PKevman]

I jumped over the rock.

I leaped over the rock.

I hurdled the rock.

I hopped over the rock.

Do all of these words mean the same thing?

 

[red77]

In language is it possible for two words to have the same or similar meanings? Why is it we don't just use one particular word over and over to convey the same thing? This is really a silly argument and again shows that the Universalist refuses any attempt at logic.

Again you are not answering, no scholar that I'm aware of translates aidios as anything other than eternal, aion does not, in regards to something as crucial as eternity I cant imagine the Bible not using the specified word if eternity was the intended message - now if that isnt logical then please explain how? Its not a "silly" argument at all pastor and I think you're well aware of such

 

[PKevman]

Talk about questions not being answered. ARE the Greek scholars who worked on translations such as the NAS, KJV, NKJV, and NIV (to name a few) QUALIFIED to translate Greek or are they not? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[red77]

I jumped over the rock.

I leaped over the rock.

I hurdled the rock.

I hopped over the rock.

Do all of these words mean the same thing?

No, of course they dont, hopping is not the same as jumping at all - the same as aion is not the same as aidios

 

[red77]

Talk about questions not being answered. ARE the Greek scholars who worked on translations such as the NAS, KJV, NKJV, and NIV (to name a few) QUALIFIED to translate Greek or are they not? It's a simple yes or no question.

Indeed.......

Qualified to an extent yes, but not infallible as it turns out, in the KJV especially - in my experience its regarded as the most inaccurate translation of the Bible in existence!

 

[PKevman]

Again you are not answering, no scholar that I'm aware of translates aidios as anything other than eternal, aion does not, in regards to something as crucial as eternity I cant imagine the Bible not using the specified word if eternity was the intended message - now if that isnt logical then please explain how? Its not a "silly" argument at all pastor and I think you're well aware of such

I have answered you. It is you Red who won't answer people's questions directly. Aimiel, Nineveh, and Stipe would all I am sure concur.

 

[PKevman]

Indeed.......

Qualified to an extent yes, but not infallible as it turns out, in the KJV especially - in my experience its regarded as the most inaccurate translation of the Bible in existence!

A bit outdated yes. But hardly the "most inaccurate". It just uses language that a lot of people no longer use, which makes it more difficult to understand in today's language.