Where did life begin? (Merged)

[distrovol]

I dont think youll accept the answer

An oddly presumtuous reply to a question not directed at you.:crazy:

 

[BigO95]

You seem quite enamoured with the KJV translation. May I ask why?

edit: don't know why it quoted slice, tried to quote BigO95

Do a careful study of the new versions and a careful study on Westcott and Hort and you will understand exactly why I hold to the King James translation of the Bible.
All the new versions come from the same faulty Greek text yet the King James version is translated from the received text. The new versions maybe good translations of the text, but they are translations of a faulty text therefore they are faulty translations.

 

[omaha_vol]

An oddly presumtuous reply to a question not directed at you.:crazy:

Whether directed at me or not, you'll likely reject the answer. 99% of non-Christians do.

 

[BigO95]

Dr. James Jones pastor of the Harriman Baptist Tabernacle have some very good resources concerning the translations of the Bible. He is a very good Christian man and very well studied. He has spent a good portion of his life studying the subject and you would do well to get his series he has on the King James Bible. He has pastored 40 plus years.

 

[BigO95]

And I do realize that I really opened up a big can of worms that would be threat worthy itself.

 

[omaha_vol]

Dr. James Jones pastor of the Harriman Baptist Tabernacle have some very good resources concerning the translations of the Bible. He is a very good and cotton Christian man and a very well studied. He has spent a good portion of his life studying the subject and you would do well to get his series he has on the King James Bible.

There are 3 documentaries about the history of the Bible. Done by Chris Pinto. The 1st is called Tears Among The Wheat. Their very good docs and give a in depth history of the Bible. Also, James White, of alpha and omega ministries. He's written and studied in great lengths concerning the Bible.

 

[BigO95]

There are 3 documentaries about the history of the Bible. Done by Chris Pinto. The 1st is called Tears Among The Wheat. Their very good docs and give a in depth history of the Bible. Also, James White, of alpha and omega ministries. He's written and studied in great lengths concerning the Bible.

Thanks Omaha, I will try to check it out! Gail Riplinger also has some good stuff concerning Bible translations.

 

[omaha_vol]

That Chris Pinto has a bunch of good docs. His website is noise of thunder radio. He has a great doc called The Mckinsey Syndrome. It is very eye opening

 

[IPleadInsanity]

It is predicted that within 10 years an AI will be created 1 million times smarter than a human. This or these AI will begin to solve the problems humans have created on this planet and in a short time we will rely on them for answers to all problems. It is predicted that they will be worshipped because humans have a tendency to worship "supreme understanding". If this holds true what happens to religion as we now know it?

Humans will happily worship a robot messiah, experts claim | Daily Mail Online

 

[Septic]

To your first point:

Just because someone wears a collar and occupies a position does not mean they are a follower of Christ. These are the ones whom Slice was refering to when Jesus said " I never knew you". How could you think Jesus, as described in the Gospels, could condone what would likely turn away a child from the faith forever by molesting them in such a position of power and authority? It flies in the face of His Great Commission.

To your second:

Yes, it is possible to to bad things, repent and be forgiven, then restored. It is the example Christ set and what Christians are supposed to practice to EVERYONE they interact with, even non-believers. But, only God and that person know if the Holy Spirit truly indwells in their heart, so they can say anything they want. You judge the tree by the fruit.

To say that Christians "value" criminals over non-believers is just flat wrong and an attempt to besmirch the faith.

This is bad attempt to persuade you're not using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The assertion was that your god would accept 'anyone except those who don't follow/believe in him'.

In the sense that anyone means anyone without additional qualification and certainly without foisting a fallacy to preserve your no hitter.

 

[omaha_vol]

This is bad attempt to persuade you're not using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The assertion was that your god would accept 'anyone except those who don't follow/believe in him'.

In the sense that anyone means anyone without additional qualification and certainly without foisting a fallacy to preserve your no hitter.

That's silly. God accepts those who repent of theirs and accepts christ as their savior. They have a saving faith. No amoumt of works or pre-qualifications are needed. Some one who rejects Christ and his word obviously have no saving faith.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Mind if I jump into yours?

I have been meaning to ask you about scriptural answers (and non- scriptural commentary) to questions that PKT and Septic pose. Mainly about the very valid ones regarding those who never hear of Christ due to geographical location, and those who were non-Hebrew around the world before Christ came.

Don't mind at all.

What makes them valid?

 

[Septic]

That's silly. God accepts those who repent of theirs and accepts christ as their savior. They have a saving faith. No amoumt of works or pre-qualifications are needed. Some one who rejects Christ and his word obviously have no saving faith.

Silly, yes. However, I didn't make that claim, a christian on this forum did.

Like I said, when you guys can come up with and agree on a strait answer - please let us know.

 

[distrovol]

This is bad attempt to persuade you're not using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The assertion was that your god would accept 'anyone except those who don't follow/believe in him'.

In the sense that anyone means anyone without additional qualification and certainly without foisting a fallacy to preserve your no hitter.

No, the assertion that I was repsonding to is that Christians"value" rapists and child molesters over non-believers.

 

[Septic]

No, the assertion that I was repsonding to is that Christians"value" rapists and child molesters over non-believers.

I fully understand what you were positing. The point remains the same and your argument doesn't appear to have changed; your argument of 'no real christian would do such a thing' isn't going to fly.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Silly, yes. However, I didn't make that claim, a christian on this forum did.

Like I said, when you guys can come up with and agree on a strait answer - please let us know.

Personally, I don't know why anyone bothers answering any of your questions since you've proudly proclaimed on here that you are a troll who just posts to elicit responses.

Pearls and swine... etc... Yadda yadda yadda...

 

[distrovol]

Don't mind at all.

What makes them valid?

Because there are locations in the world where a person can live their life and not be exposed to the Gospel, and people lived before Christ came. What happens (or happened) to those souls when they die (or died).

IOW, if a person does not get a shot at knowing Christ, what happens to their soul when they die? I hear this argument a lot. You seem to be the guy to ask.

 

[distrovol]

I fully understand what you were positing. The point remains the same and your argument doesn't appear to have changed; your argument of 'no real christian would do such a thing' isn't going to fly.

I think I can live without your validation of my response. :hi:

 

[omaha_vol]

I fully understand what you were positing. The point remains the same and your argument doesn't appear to have changed; your argument of 'no real christian would do such a thing' isn't going to fly.

It is a sound statement, you're going to reject it.

 

[Septic]

Personally, I don't know why anyone bothers answering any of your questions since you've proudly proclaimed on here that you are a troll who just posts to elicit responses.

Pearls and swine... etc... Yadda yadda yadda...

I think it's telling that you're pointing out that I'm swine who shouldn't be bothered with instead of pointing out that the arguments I'm making aren't sound.

Aren't we all here to elicit responses?

 

[omaha_vol]

I think it's telling that you're pointing out that I'm swine who shouldn't be bothered with instead of pointing out that the arguments I'm making aren't sound.

Aren't we all here to elicit responses?

You dont understand his swine reference.

 

[Septic]

It is a sound statement, you're going to reject it.

...and any insistence that the 'no real christian would do such a thing', despite the enthusiasm of your insistence doesn't change that its a fallacious argument.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I[/youtube]

 

[omaha_vol]

...and any insistence that the 'no real christian would do such a thing', despite the enthusiasm of your insistence doesn't change that its a fallacious argument.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I[/youtube]

I understand that argument, but youre falsely applying it. you're makimg an argument about somethimg you don't understand and reject.

 

[Septic]

You dont understand his swine reference.

I totally understand and don't disagree.

:salute:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Because there are locations in the world where a person can live their life and not be exposed to the Gospel, and people lived before Christ came. What happens (or happened) to those souls when they die (or died).

IOW, if a person does not get a shot at knowing Christ, what happens to their soul when they die? I hear this argument a lot. You seem to be the guy to ask.

Oh, I understand the argument and have had that conversation with both of the posters you mentioned, I do believe.

You just referred to the argument as "valid". I take issue with that claim, so ask why you would call it "valid".

...

The claim is generally that people who never hear the gospel will go to hell and that's not fair.

Scripture isn't clear on the matter, so I can't speak in definitives. It may be that a person who never heard the Biblical account may respond to God progressively enough to reach salvation through Jesus while never hearing of Jesus as Jesus. (This is my personal hope.)

Everyone who was saved in the OT was saved by faith in Jesus, not named yet as Jesus, but Jesus nonetheless. The book of Hebrews is explicit that every OT salvation occurred via faith in Jesus as He had revealed Himself to them at the time.

It's also conceivable that every person who dies without hearing the gospel goes directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Paul, in Romans, makes it clear that those who were given the law are judged by the law and those who were not given the law are judged by their own conscience. Some are condemned by their knowledge of scripture and some by their knowledge of their own moral failures.

The problem for those using this example against God is... What makes it "valid", as you said?

They never get around to making it a valid argument. They just play on (fallen) human preferences and hope that the conversation stays at the level of what we (fallen) humans think to be acceptable--let's say "preferable".

(1) God created the universe for the purpose He has for the Universe, so He had the right to create it as He saw fit.

(2) The accusers in the room are very liberal in telling us what's "right" and "wrong" for God to do. They're the first to stand up and tell us when God is acting unethical and immoral.... But this is only after informing the world that morality is relative and there is no objective standard to it.

So, all they are actually saying when they accuse God is that He didn't do things according to their preference. Well, duh.

(3) We will take PKT's example since it's a recent example. PKT just said (yesterday?) in this very thread that the great stumbling block for most people per Christian theology is that a child rapist could repent and be forgiven, yet Gandhi would be in Hell right now.

That's an appeal to justice. PKT and Septic would be standing on their view of justice there. They want justice, not grace.

Scripture tells us that every person who ever goes to Hell is judged based on God's justice, and it is just for them to be there. Further, scripture tells us that every person who is saved is saved by grace.

So, the argument seems to be switched now, instead of wanting justice, they all want everyone to get grace. You see? Grace is a stumbling block when it's convenient to stumble on it. And justice is a stumbling block when it's convenient to stumble on it.

So, the unpopular answer, yet the answer I believe to be true? I don't understand exactly how it all works. As part of my faith, I trust God's judgment. Anyone who goes to hell is there because of what they've done. Anyone who is saved is saved despite themselves, based solely on God's grace. Theologically, it's a bit ridiculous to say that God is forced to issue His grace to whom, and in ways that, He chooses not to.

The accuser's belief in a relative morality makes the entire conversation a non-starter if they choose to be honest about their beliefs and actually live those beliefs out to their logical conclusions. (If morality is relative and mere preferences, then they have no platform to say their "preference" is more valid than God's "preference".)