WolfBitn

How do you arrive to this conclusion?

Great remarks I find another differance between Narnia and Potter Not only was CS Lewis a Christian and Rawlings a witch, Lewis write Narnia as a fantasy parallel to the life and death and resurrection of Christ, showing how He gave His life for His people to live. Also another differance is that rawlings glorifies witchcraft, making it appear helpful and user friendly... no harm done. In Narnia we see that CS Lewis represented witchcraft in an honest way... evil and simply unacceptable

Canuckamuck, surely you know this is not what ive been saying What disagreement could you POSSIBLY have with the premice of this thread which is that man has ALWAYS had law, and man has ALWAYS seen grace in the transgression of these laws?

I will say this again, the 10 Commandments and The Law are not one in the same. As long as you use them interchangeably this is going to be very long discussion. You need to choose, are you talking about The Law or about the 10 Commandments. No one has implied or said that the 10 laws are the levitical law, this is your assumption... Prove to me the 10 commandments arre NOT 10 laws... it'll be pretty hard to do when God Himself calls them laws... no more rhetoric, prove it we are talking about the 10 Commandments that God gave Moses, not the words of Jesus. You again are using terms and ideas interchangeably that should not be. You need to make up your mind what it is we are discussing here and quit being all over the place. No youre changing the subject. You state that you believe the rich young ruler obeyed the 10 commandments and imply he lacked nothing in them... I am challenging your statement... NO ONE has ever kept them and if they had THEY would have been the Christ...l Jesus didnt keep all the levitical law nor did he promote the keeping of it... HE DID promote and keep the 10. So... answer for a change... WHO do you know thats ever kept the 10 laws of God? (God called them statutes and ive shown the Hebrew also is properly interpreted law... im sorry if you have a problem with this fact but it doesnt change the fact that it IS in fact, a fact You did. I used wearing mixed fabric as an example of not keeping The Law and you said I would need atonement for such. You should keep up with your own arguments. I never said any such thing and youll not be able to back this by quote... i said your IMPLICATION is that you need no blood atonement for SIN... Your stement was more than about clothing, you specificly said that you are not under the law, you are indeed bound by 10 of them and youll be judged by these 10 if you disagree tell me murder and rape and adultry and lust and greed and stealing and using Gods name in vain are acceptable to God and show me from scripture that He just doesnt care if you do these things... Revelation says those who do these things are cast into the lake of fire... you DO believe this correct? Could you please provide the passage where God said "These are my 10 Statues" (or whatever word you want to use) I already did... Gator this is part of my problem with you, you dont care to pay attention to read what someone actually says. Lets strive to do better together hows that? as brothers in Christ as a token of good intent, i will repeat this Statute in the Hebrew is 'CHOQ' Choq 1) statute, ordinance, limit, something prescribed, due a) prescribed task b) prescribed portion c) action prescribed (for oneself), resolve d) prescribed due e) prescribed limit, boundary f) enactment, decree, ordinance 1) specific decree 2) law in general g) enactments, statutes 1) conditions 2) enactments 3) decrees 4) civil enactments prescribed by God So you see its properly translated as statute OR law, and is in fact translated as 'law' 4 times.

Why is it some people believe faith and science are mutually exclusive? My experience is that they actually reinforce one another from a Christian standpoint. Wide range here, Discuss away!

Precepts Actually we agree here... with the possible exception of the first sentence. I agree a commandment isnt neccessarily a law, although its many times construed or enforced as one. In the case of the 10 however, God calls these His Statutes, which are also properly interpreted "law" form the original Hebrew The rest i agree completely The only problem with this is that the scripture specificly says Adam wasnt deceived. This leads me to believe he was simply confused and weak, but not deceived Absolutely, he coveted and loved the things of this world

Did Jesus tell him he was wrong? If not, what gives you the right to? He did not say he kept the law perfectly, he said he kept the commandments that Jesus had listed. All Jesus said to him was You still lack one thing. I would ask again what gives you the authority to add to the word of God? Look Gator... you have to believe one of 2 things... either the rich young ruler kept the law perfectly or he didnt... You said in your post from 8:52 AM So if he kept the commandments he would be perfect... if he didnt he lacked there too. Just because Jesus saw fit not to argue with a fool doesnt mean the fool was correct He couldn

Colleen very good observations I think one thing that is sobering is that the scriptures even prophecy about the church departing from the faith near the end of the age. Whats written will of course come to pass. The best we can do individually is to seperate ourselves as you say, and do what we can not to take on the delusions of the last days church, and the great falling away.

Are you aware that the oldest known manuscript of the Bible has been compiled and is now available online? The Codex Sinaiticus is available online at: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ Tell you what, you want to think that recepticus is the oldest and therefore the most reliable, you go right ahead. But the Jews translated the earliest manuscripts straight from the Hebrew into the Greek, and that simply cannot be denied. So the claim that the Latin manuscripts came first is simply ridiculous in my mind. This is not bout versions, in my opinion, it's simply about your being right, and others being wrong. That's how you want to live you life, fine with me. But it's keeping you from valuable relationships, in my opinion. You missed the part about sinaticus i see... You can check this for yourself... of i will be happy to give you the documentaiton... you should be aware that the western texts And LATIN TEXTS ARE older... And as far as reliable this is already shown to be false as well... it is incomplete, revised as late as the 12th century by at least 4 differant scribes, at one time hundreds of yrs ago the text was nearly invisable from faded ink, and it was copied over again, and in some paged text seems to be missing It repeats sentences, leaves out entire blocks of dialogue, in some places begins to repeat a sentence and then carries on with the text, trunkates entire sections, leaves out entire books, changes words, and even jerome, a contempererary of sinaticus states that this text type is corrupted So much for oldest, so much for most reliable

you have had multiple people come in here and try and explain that your postings are not coherent. It is nothing personal against you, it is a fact about your thread. I am sorry if the truth hurts your feelings, but I really dont think you want me to lie to you, do you? Every post is coheirant... you yourself have admitted to not even reading them so no this isnt my problem... Im sorry but now i have to report your posts as nothing but spam When you can return and ask or comment on the topic i will gladly welcome you

Here is the passage, where does the Bible tell us that he was under a "DELUSION", or are you adding your own words 18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good

Ahh a spam fest in a study on the origen of the bible... gotta love the maturity and christian love

So then you admit to using, and relying on, versions which you acknowledge were sourced in heresy? Why does it seem that 2-3 of you are here for nothing but the ridiculous? Surely you understand what i said lol almost 40 posts and theres 1 good post in this thread from a reader/participant... sad Have a good day friend If that many post are going against you, perhaphs the problem is with you and your postings and not with us. just an thought THATS EXACTLY the problem... despite being patient with you and a couple more, you still insist on making this about me and havent addressed a single issue concerning the topic... are you even able? Nor do i choose to make your problem my problem... i am here to talk about the topic, and in 40 posts you havent addressed it once, so no id say the problem is you at this point, and IF you cant address the topic in your very next post, i choose to report your every post in this thread So why not ask a question, make a point or say somehting intelligent for a change that actually concerns the topic

I gave you the answer. The difference between you and I is that you seem to see the 10 Commandments as some sort of magical list. I see them as part of the Mosaic Law. They are also basic principles that transcend the Law. I don

So then you admit to using, and relying on, versions which you acknowledge were sourced in heresy? Why does it seem that 2-3 of you are herre for nothing but the ridiculous? Surely you understand what i said lol almost 40 posts and theres 1 good post in this thread from a reader/participant... sad Have a good day friend

It could be asked "What evil should Christians endorse?" ...or "Which demonic evil would God be pleased i observe without speaking truth?" ...or "Is He pleased when we downplay evil?"

Then i might say that you have missed the entire point of everything here... This in no way implicates the sufficiency of scripture, but rather verifies that ALL scripture is sufficient and every word of God important... nor have you understood the sources and the info posted verifying every word. There certainly isnt a 'because i said so', that belongs to those who claim that the westcott hort is based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts... the evidence proves them absolutely incorrect Again, so what? Your argument is a straw man. LOL You dont even know whats being argued you dont even know what youre disagreeing with... thats all i can come away with when you leave that and that alone. I would recommend addressing the topic and stating what you actually disagree with other then ME... I'm not the topic here yanno Again with the straw man. Exactly... so why not figure out what you actually disagree with and come back with some ammo ...a real quesiton... a real point... an attempt at refuting something... an intelligent response

Then i might say that you have missed the entire point of everything here... This in no way implicates the sufficiency of scripture, but rather verifies that ALL scripture is sufficient and every word of God important... nor have you understood the sources and the info posted verifying every word. There certainly isnt a 'because i said so', that belongs to those who claim that the westcott hort is based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts... the evidence proves them absolutely incorrect Again, so what? Your argument is a straw man. LOL You dont even know whats being argued you dont even know what youre disagreeing with... thats all i can come away with when you leave that and that alone. I would recommend addressing the topic and stating what you actually disagree with other then ME... I'm not the topic here yanno

Canuckamuck God bless you Let me restate the main thrust of the op, just to give gentle reminder All i am saying through all this is that Adam knew a law, and by transgression he then saw grace. Noah had laws to live by, we saw sacrifice instituted with Adam... he was also under the law of building an ark. Moses brought us the 10 written by the finger of God, and even today we cannot transgress these laws and please God... also we are under the same law everyone from Adam til now has been under... believe God and repent and be covered and saved by sacrifice, which IS the grace we receive in obedience

but He doesn't call it 'the law' and that is the point which I have now decided I will no longer pursue. But yes He does... what is a statute but a law? Statute = "Chok" in the hebrew "Chok" 1) statute, ordinance, limit, something prescribed, due a) prescribed task b) prescribed portion c) action prescribed (for oneself), resolve d) prescribed due e) prescribed limit, boundary f) enactment, decree, ordinance 1) specific decree 2) law in general g) enactments, statutes 1) conditions 2) enactments 3) decreesp 4) civil enactments prescribed by God A Statute is a law whether we recognize it as such or not my friend... We may not like the term but its valid, a statute is a law and the 10 are statutes or laws of God, just like we have the same law, thou shalt not do murder or youll be punished What is it to live in sin? I don't know, pick a scripture where it says 'live in sin'. My search came up empty. Most people say it means living together without being married, but I know that is not what you mean. If we live a habitual lifestyle of sin, if we have unrepented of sins, we arent living in righteousness, we are living in a sinful condition... you know this And what of hating sin, rending our hearts and not just going another direction but loathing sin to the point we no longr want to sin? And if we dont repent but we break the 10 not caring to repent, then indeed we are in big trouble with God and wouldnt you agree one sin unrepented of means we have unrepented of sin in our hearts?

I have been in discussions with atheists on the existence of God, but we all agreed with one another. The discussion, I will call it that because when everyone is in agreement you don't have a debate, quicly becomes rather predictable. Not until a believer comes into the mix do you get any serious criticism that requires a higher level of thought. So if you want pat answers and predictable responses all round, when discussing the existence of God, then by all means exclude atheists from the discussion. The Inner Court would be a good place for that. However, if you want a challenging debate then you need contrary opinions thrown into the mix. I believe one of the Gospels says not to believe the rumours that the disciples hid the body. Do you believe those rumours? No? But apparently enough people did that the author tried to counter them. So whether or not the disciples actually did so is irrelevant now because you wouldn't believe the rumour anyway, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Maybe the rumour isn't a rumour at all. Hitchey You seem both intelligent and reasonable. I'm one who doesnt mind valid questions and critical thought, or challenges to the scriptures or my faith. I notice there is a forum for one on one discussion. I'm not sure of the rules to enter there, i am new really, but if you and i are able, and if you would like, I would be happy to meet you there for a one on one. If you arent able, i would extend the invitation to anyone

I posted my own thoughts according to the sources i presented So tell me whats your opinion... do you believe the claims of the NIV and westcott hort that their version is based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts? If you do, whats your source for this belief? Their statement with no evidence? Here you have MY statements with evidence... feel free to discuss THEM and not ME I think you may be asking to much of some . . . I will say I do appreciate the both the thoroughness of your study and it is clear you have a firm conviction on the matter. Unfortunately you posted way too much to address point/counter point at this stage of the game. I am sorry that you didn't get the respect every believer deserves here to just reason the topic and not analyze what you motive "might" be. Love does believe all things and hopes all things and thinks not evil . . . but for some pride seems to interfere with all that. I will try and find time to review what you posted more thoroughly . . . Don't get discourage . Hi my friend and thank you for a great post. I certainly wouldnt intend everyone to try to tackle all that but i thought it might make things easier to refer back to in discussion, and if some could take the time and had the interest, it could be more convenient than unting throught the thread. I had also hoped to post more on Origin. This was a man intent on revisioning the gospel and amazingly the alexandrian texts not only date from Origin, but they also MOSTLY came from the very area in which he lived and taught for so many years. To add to the evidence, the revisions reflect his theology... he was a very early unitarian universalist, believing that even satan himself would be saved, neither did he believe Jesus to be God, but had his own 'logos' theory for which he was assigned the title of 'heretic'. Its when his followers took power in a good part of the church, that his esteem grew, along with a campaign to sanitize the early latin texts containing all the gospel, by replacing them with greek texts of mostly the alexandrian type. It was at this point that Jerome himself was forced to coallate from these revised documents, his own version in greek. When he had to use the alexandrian documents, he protested in the very forward of his translation, that 1 jn 5:7 as we know it today, was removed. Amazing facts backing this Also Westcott Hort followed suit... they didnt in the slightest take the holy scriptures serious, both stating that they certinaly didnt believe in the bibles infallibility... and even stating boldly that they meant to change doctrines held to traditionally for nearly 2 millenia I think that all the way around there is a good case for making the kjv our primary source for knowing Gods word Now also dont take me wrong... i am NOT a kjv onliest at all Though i find the alexandrian texts trunkated and corrupted, i still ust other translations in my studies of the word including the NIV, as well as the original greek and hebrew. I find it invaluable because sometimes the slightest word can open up entirely new insights. But i certainly rely on the kjv for the complete text, and i recognize the stated intent and stated motives of those who have promoted the alexandrian, from Origin to Westcott and Hort. Most of this is in the first several posts, i still have lots more to share about origin and the manuscripts.

i want to go back and address this too If you failed ALL through school, and never did what you were commanded, never did what it took to pass, then yes you would fail If you go back into debt then yes you are

Arent the 10 commandments also laws? yes indeed. As i showed you in another post the levitical law was even broken by Christ Himiself. This did nothing to condemn Himi whatsoever so the levitical law is inferior to the 10... The 10 will stand til the end of time as we know it. Neither should we transgress the 10 laws AFTER we are saved wouldnt you agree? And IF we do transgress these 10 after 'salvation', and do it habitually, its obvious theres no repentance for it, then i'm afraid we are in big trouble with God, because these transgressors wont enter. Ok I see some progress. You are mainly proposing that the 10 commandments are an unchangeable law. If you can resist from calling them 'the law" we can move forward. God Himself calls the 10 His laws... why shouldnt we? It really isnt that i insist. Whether we insist or not we have spiritual laws as well as laws in the 10... we do agree that they give us a definition of righteousness and unrighteousness. But you and i need not recognize a truth for it to remain true. I simply look to what God said and contemplate on how to believe this, and how best to act on it What is it to live in sin? Would you say we are righteous when we knowingly live in sin, and continue to do that which we know is sini?? How would you define repentance?

Arent the 10 commandments also laws? yes indeed. As i showed you in another post the levitical law was even broken by Christ Himiself. This did nothing to condemn Himi whatsoever so the levitical law is inferior to the 10... The 10 will stand til the end of time as we know it. Neither should we transgress the 10 laws AFTER we are saved wouldnt you agree? And IF we do transgress these 10 after 'salvation', and do it habitually, its obvious theres no repentance for it, then i'm afraid we are in big trouble with God, because these transgressors wont enter.