Fran C

16 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Fran C.

That IS interesting! Perhaps, that would be a good way to solidify what we are saying to one another. However, WHO decides the "correct" definitions of the terms within that "Christian Dictionary?"

This is going to be somewhat complicated, but I'll try it anyway:

I've learned that there are TWO different ways to show a definition for a word. There's the more complicated ...
1. UNION principle, which is showing EVERY way that a word can be used in common speech by every person in the world who speaks that language, ...

and there's the far less complicated ...

2. INTERSECTION principle, which shows what that word means in common to EVERY person in the world who speaks that language.

I'll try to use a diagram to make this more simple:

Here's a basic Venn diagram showing the Universal Set (U) and two intersecting sets, circles A and B. Their intersection is the area seen as C. The union is all three sections, A, B, and C. The intersection is C only.

Now, imagine a set (circles A, B, D, E, F, .....) for EVERY person who speaks that language. Assuming that the context of this word is the same for each individual (although it's NOT), then every person's circle should have some "C" intersection where they have a commonality of that word's usage within that context.

Context adds another "wrinkle" to the situation. See, in a living language, words typically in one context, may be BORROWED by individuals into a different context for a SIMILAR meaning within that context. One might even borrow a word from another language and "Anglicize" the word or use that word directly for a particular context. 

Take for instance, the word "file": In the typical UNION principle, the definitions are...
 

One can see from this set of definitions how complicated this can be!

Because certain words and usages of words come from other languages in other cultures and at other times in history, we also add TIME to this mix! 

Perhaps, one can lessen the complication: one might be able to group the definitions of certain individuals into a single definition for a particular denomination, and perhaps, each definition should have sections for each denomination(??? )

I've chosen the INTERSECTION principle and the BEST way to intersect is to go the origins of those words, their ETYMOLOGY!

For instance, in the etymologies of the first two definitions, the word that stands out as a synonym is "string." Associated words would be "line," "list," and "queue." If you'll go through the first two definitions, replace the word "file" with "string" (or its past tense):

a string of correspondence
do you want to save this string [of data]?
the contract, when signed, is strung [with other contracts]?
he still had the moment strung away [with other moments] in his memory
criminal charges were strung against the firm
the company had strung [a case] for bankruptcy [with the courts]
on [a] string
on a string or a stringing system

For the second definition, let's substitute the word "line" instead:

Cree warriors riding in [a] line down the slopes
a line of English soldiers had ridden out from Perth
the mourners lined into the church

Finally, what the Greek and Hebrew words may lack in etymology, they gain in FAMILIES of words.  The commonalities between words within a family of Hebrew words, for instance, can explain the basic meaning of the root word for that family!

No, my methodology may be different, but I'm putting together all of the CONTEXTS for those words in all of the verses of both the Tanakh (the O.T.) and the B'rit Chadashah (the N.T.), and coming up with the common meaning for those words in both Hebrew and Greek.

I think how you explain  the differences in meaning of words is not so complicated and is understood by anyone that speaks a language well.

My belief is that we  COULD agree on what each "Christian or theological" word could mean.  How did biblical scholars come to know except by studying the bible?  This is the only way.  It would be great to have the same language...immediate understanding.  Trinity, for instance, has a very definite meaning, and yet there are those that will give it a totally different explanation - instead of just stating that they don't believe in it.  They want to believe that it means what THEY think it means.

Alas, YOU are doing exactly the same!

There are set definitions for Body, Soul, Spirit, and yet you prefer to study the old and new testaments and come up with  your own understanding!

In the O.T. the heart was credited with having feelings.

Do YOU think the heart has feelings?  Or is it just a way to express an emotion?  My heart bleeds for you.  My heartfelt sympathies. etc.

We feel with our mind...not with our heart.  And our mind is part of the soul.

14 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Hi Fran.

This is the Bible I believe in and nothing else. 

The Bible is God's inspired revelation of the origin and destiny of all things. It is the power of God unto eternal salvation and it is the source of present help for the body, soul, and spirit (Rom. 1:16; John 15:7). It is God's will and testament to men in all ages, revealing the plan of God for man here and now and in the next life. It is the record of God's dealings with man; past, present, and future. It contains God's message of eternal salvation to all people who believe in Christ and of eternal damnation to those who knowingly and willingly rebel against the gospel.

Over forty different authors wrote the sixty six books of the Bible during a period of 1,800 years; and they all had one theme. The creation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
These books of the Bible were written by men from all walks of life such as Kings, Priests, Judges, lawyers, Princes, Shepherds, Soldiers, Courtiers, Statesmen, Musicians, Inventors, Singers, Poets, Preachers, Prophets, Fishermen, Farmers, Tentmakers, Publicans, Physicians, Rich men and Poor men.
They were written in various lands of three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages and by many men, some who never saw each other or knew what the others wrote on the same subjects, yet when their writings were all assembled into one book, there is not one contradiction among them."

I believe each and every one of the individual authors were inspired to write the particular book or books that God inspired him to write.

Many if not most of them did not know each other, and even would have known what every and any other author was called and inspired by God to write if at all.

After all the books were finally written and were all compiled into one, they were in complete unison on every doctrine and they agreed with each other and they were then re-written several times over the years by other men of varying and even if only slightly differing religions who never knew any of the original authors, who never knew each other as they copied and re-wrote, and things were sometimes, accidently or on purpose, changed because of the different understandings of some foreign words some dialects and even the languages themselves.

 

 

Of course I agree with the above.

Why would anyone believe the bible if they didn't think it was inspired by God.  But inspired does not mean that God wrote the bible...men wrote it with the inspiration they had at the moment.

I've been helped greatly to understand the O.T.  Some ask how it could be that God said to kill every man woman and child...how He could be so mean.  If we understand revelation and inspiration, we tend not to blame God for everything that happened in the O.T. and many questions are answered through this understanding.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

1 Samuel 15:3

      1Then Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

      4Then Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah. 5Saul came to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the valley. 6Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

Samuel Rebukes Saul

      10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

God commands to kill all...

God is sorry He trusted Saul as King...

Pretty odd for God to do either of the two

So you've explained the O.T. and the N.T. very well,,,the N.T. being the ultimate revelation from God through His Son Jesus....but you neglected to answer my very important question:

How is it that Jesus had to adjust/fix/repair, the incorrect teachings  that were found in the Mosaic Law if they were correct??

But I do feel that we have already killed the dead horse, so we'll leave it at this.  

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

Why would God test Abraham if He knew Abraham would pass the test. Why put Abraham and his son through such a horrible test, asking him to kill his son and offer him up to God as the pagans did?

Several times, God Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind (Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). God said that He did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7); that man would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32); that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12). God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe in Him (Ex. 4:1-12), or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him or not (Dt. 8:2, 16). God did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Dt. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19). God says He searches to find men whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9). He DISCOVERS DEEP THINGS (Job 12:22); tries the hearts and reigns of men so that HE MAY KNOW THEM (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chron. 28:9; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 2;10; Rev. 2:23).

I agree with what @maryjayne has stated in the post just above this...however my understanding of the O.T. is the following, and I did not make this up of my own (something I do not do in general) but have learned it from a Christian Jewish writer:  

We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the O.T. was written about 4,000 years ago.  The O.T. was inspired by God,,,not written by Him.

God revealed Himself to the O.T. persons, starting, for sure, with Abraham -- which is the beginning of biblical history.  From the time that God revealed Himself, everything that happened was attributed to Him.  He was mentioned at all times and throughout their history.  I sometimes believe it's easy to tell which commands were of God and which were of man.

Can we believe all the 613 laws in the Torah were of God?  You're intelligent enough to know them...do YOU think all the 613 laws were made by God?  And if so, why did Jesus correct some of them?  For instance He corrected the giving of a divorce certificate,,,the hating of enemies.  If God had declared these two laws,,,then was God wrong and Jesus was correcting the Father??

15 hours ago, HAZARD said:

 

You wrote;

 

.

God does not know what a free moral agent will choose until he makes his choice, for example, When God tested Abraham, He said, after Abraham decided to obey God and offer his son and passed the test;

Genesis 22:12, And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him:

FOR NOW I KNOW

that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

God had to know if Abraham would obey Him in all things before He gave His the promised blessings.

 

 

I understand your point H, and will not argue with you.

My problem is that there is conflict in scripture regarding this, and by the looks of it, you haven't reconciled that conflict.

I have asked you before HOW do you reconcile Genesis 22:12 with

Hebrews 4:12-13

Isaiah 46:10

Romans 8:29

You say God does not know what a free agent will do until he does it... It does appear from many verses that God DOES know what a free agent will choose...this does NOT mean that God's knowledge will CAUSE that agent to choose..but only that God knows.

On 11/15/2019 at 4:51 AM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Fran C.

I can see that having similar language can lead to what SOUNDS like agreement, but without common definitions, we really have some disagreement. (It's a little like trying to talk with a Mormon; common usage of terms can SOUND like agreement, but subtle differences in the definitions of the words being used by both will actually reveal how far apart the discussion truly is.)

In looking at the diagram, I disagree with the dividing of the body and the soul at all. The "will, mind, and emotions," which comprise your circle labeled "Soul," are ramifications and  complex relationships within your brain. God has made our brains very intricately; we have self-awareness and a perspective that allows us to project our thoughts and feelings to others for empathy and sympathy. Because of the complex connections within our brains, we can learn indefinitely as our sleep cycles arrange our thoughts and knowledge into a readily accessible hierarchy into which we can hang other pieces of information, often triggered by some of our senses, like smell. A particular smell, for instance, can trigger a memory you thought was long buried.

Your "Spirit" circle doesn't exist at all because the "Spirit Realm" doesn't exist, either. That's a totally fabricated notion based upon the poor interpretations of the words "ruwach" and "pneuma."

Our "God part" is our entire self. The way that we are designed bleeds into our thoughts and recognitions of our Creator's ability, just as it did with David:

Psalm 139:14 (KJV)

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul (air-breather) knoweth right well.

Our "spirit," our "breath" is within us while we are still breathing. When we exhale our last time, our "spirit" is gone, not to be reclaimed until the Resurrection. It goes back to the Creator of all as a part of the rest of His Creation. When He re-creates us within the Resurrection, He will once again breathe life into our new bodies, and we will be air-breathers again; better, we'll be air-BLASTERS, able to give life to other bodies, just as He can. I believe that's what Paul was implying in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 (KJV)

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.

It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption: 

43 It is sown in dishonour;
it is raised in glory (literal brightness):

it is sown in weakness;
it is raised in power: 

44 It is sown a natural (Greek: psuchikon = air-breathing) body;
it is raised a spiritual (Greek: pneumatikon = air-blasting) body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written,

"The first man Adam was made a living soul"; (Gen. 2:7)
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (Greek: pneuma zoo-opoioun = "a life-giving blaster"). 

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven (Greek ek tou ouranou = "from/out of-the sky"). 

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:
and as is the heavenly (Greek: epouranios = "the-One-from-above-the-sky"), such are they also that are heavenly (Greek: epouranioi = "those-from-above-the-sky"). 

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (Greek: epouraniou = "of-the-above-the-sky").

I can't say this for sure, but it's a thought: Since the word "aggelos" (commonly transliterated as "angel") means "messenger," and was even used of John the Baptist in Mark 1:2, ...

Mark 1:1-4 (KJV)

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets,

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

... it's possible that WE might be the "messengers" - the "angels" - that are sent out into all the world to resurrect the rest! Think about it; we might be resurrected by those who were responsible for our "salvation" (justification), and we are the instruments to resurrect those whom we led to the Lord! I don't know if that's true or not, but it's ... a fun possibility to imagine, isn't it?

Interesting that you should mention about how we should have the same language.  Another member here also believes this is very important and dreams of having a Christian Dictionary! @JLB

As to the rest, I fear this will be my last post because I can see that you understand the function of many using ONLY the biblical verses available, but this has been explained very well theologically by putting together all of the ideas of the O.T. and the N.T. and arriving at an explanation of the make-up of man.

This is from a book that was used for study regarding the above.  The highlighted is directly from the book:

Understanding the Trichotomy (or dichotomy) of man helps us to understand our human nature and what it means to be saturated with the Word of God.

1. God's written or spoken Word may be taken in through your soul functions: i.e., mind, will and emotions -- by hearing, reading, studying or memorizing.

[the Word of God affects our mind, our emotions and our will, which make up the soul]

2. The ultimate purpose is to feed your spirit which was created in God's own image and longs to have that image of God fulfilled.
However, at this point, there are two interesting factors to consider:

A. Even if the Word of God, written or spoken, is rejected, it still has an effect on the soul and spirit.
Hebrews 4:12

B. When the Word of God, written or spoken, is accepted, it not only affects the spirit, but also helps to bring the soul function into meaning and balance.

God's Word not only enters from the external into the internal, but also Christ Himself, the Incarnate Living Word, living in the heart of every born-again Christian, finds expression and fulfillment as He lives His life through the spirit, the soul, and the body of every believer.
 

[as we can see, the Spirit of the person affects the soul, which is comprised of mind, emotions, will.]

source: Dynamics of Discipling
Arts Publications.

14 hours ago, HAZARD said:

God foreordained, determined, and predestinated that all men be called to salvation, but that only the ones who accept become genuine called ones to be justified and glorified. none are glorified, but those who, according to His purpose, meet the terms of the gospel. Who they will be is left up to the individual (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 22:17; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 3:19). All things depend upon meeting the conditions of the gospel (Romans 8:1-13, 28).

Agreed 100%...in your last post, to which I was replying, you seemed to say that God did not know the destiny of man.

I believe He does, but that we have the free will to choose God or not....

I also not that the O.P. of this thread has disappeared.  Will see you around in other threads I hope.

5 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

It is 'sons of God' and not sons of Seth or Israel. Translations utilizing Qumran are more accurate.

JA, could you give me the exact verse please?

I usually use the NASB, but have different translations.

I also like to check the YLT when there's a question and also the Greek Lexicon, although I don't care to make a habit of this...very rarely is it important enough...

Thanks.

On 9/16/2019 at 5:40 AM, HAZARD said:

Several times, God Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind (Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 44:21).

God said that He did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7); that man would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32); that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12). God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signes to make Israel believe in Him (Ex. 4:1-12), or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him or not (Dt. 8:2, 16).

God did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Dt. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19).

God says He searches to find men whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9). He DISCOVERS DEEP THINGS (Job 12:22); tries the hearts and reigns of men so that HE MAY KNOW THEM (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chron. 28:9; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 2;10; Rev. 2:23).

It is His plan for mankind that is known from beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose his own destiny. God wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; John 3:16; Rev. 22;17).

Hazard,

If God does not know the destiny of every man and every physical thing in the universe He made....wouldn't He be a very weak God?

And how would you explain Romans 8:29 ?

It states that God FOREKNEW who would accept Him and be predestined to be in the conformity of Jesus.

Is there a conflict in scripture?

On 9/16/2019 at 10:38 AM, Justin Adams said:

Hazard: please quote the verses above from the ESV or the EXB, so everyone can read them. Thanks 

That will help all who read.

Huh?

I'm pretty new here.

I never heard of reading from specific bible translations in order to participate in a discussion.

All who read have their own versions...I have many..they all say the same except for a few words which make no difference.

Not wishing to derail...

Sorry,.

On 11/11/2019 at 5:31 AM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Fran C.

I'll make this short because I have to get to bed for work tomorrow.

This much is good.

Our "spirit," "ruwach" in Hebrew, "pneuma" in Greek, is our "BREATH!" (Technically, our "WIND!") It often refers to our words and consequently to the thoughts we have behind those words. (The Greek word, btw, is the root of our word "pneumatic.") When one "gives up his spirit," he or she is "giving up his last breath." Realistically, our breath simply dissipates into the atmosphere to join God's winds. It is simply the physical energy that is expelled by the dying person. When the person is resurrected and begins to be an air-breather (a "soul") again, he is given his breath (his "spirit") again. 

When you look at the Tanakh (the "O.T."), put the words "air-breather" and "breath" (or "wind") in place of the words "soul" and "spirit," and read the passage again. I think you'll be surprised at how easily these words fit in the passage you're reading. It also gives you a much better understanding of what is going on and what the people at that time believed.

Actually, "justification" is "making someone just" or "making someone justified," and "sanctification" is "making someone holy" or "making someone clean." "Holy" is a word that is often MISUNDERSTOOD; which is why some use it improperly in speech. It doesn't mean that one is "righteous" or justified"; it means that one is ceremonially "clean" for God's use. God has specially chosen that person for a particular task. There's nothing special about the person; the "specialness" of that person is in the attention that God gives that person!

Sorry, but I can't see your image.

Check the Greek of this verse. You will find that the correct definitions of these three words fit fine within this verse and its context.

I agree.

You must have seen the image elsewhere.  I'll try to post it again.

I agree with all you've said;  good on justification and sanctification.  To be honest, it's rather frustrating at times when Christians don't understand, or believe, this simple difference between the two concepts, or get them mixed up or think they're the same.

Also, yes, in the O.T. we could understand soul/spirit to be our inner "breath"...but don't you believe in progressive revelation?  This breath idea does not work as well in the N.T.  Here I see GOD as having this quality.   God Father is A spirit.  God Son is the Word of God and God Spirit is the "breath" of God.

Hope you could see the image.

It shows:

BODY  This is our physical self...anything pertaining to the body we have.

SOUL  Our soul is what makes each one of us be unique and be "us".  It is comprised of our mind, will and emotions.  It is not tangible.

SPIRIT  This is the part of us that connects to God...it is our "God part".

Also, I won't pursue this forever....I don't like discussing stuff ad infinitum...but would like your understanding re the image.  (I understand how you feel about soul and spirit)

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Fran C.

1. The soul is one's "air breather." That's what the Hebrew word means. Does an "immaterial part of man" breathe air? I don't think so. Therefore, the soul CEASES to exist at death. So,...

2. No, I don't believe in "soul sleep"; I believe in "temporary soul annihilation!" This, more than anything, can convince an atheist of our authenticity. We don't "go" anywhere after death; we WAIT in the ground, totally oblivious to the passage of time, for our redemption! When the Lord Yeshua` returns, we are awakened and raised to new life QUITE LITERALLY.

I am totally convinced and believe in the principle of "Sola Scriptura." That is, only the Scriptures have absolute truth. Anything else has error because they are products of fallible men (and women). THEREFORE, if one wants to get to the truth of a topic, one MUST go back to the Scriptures - the Bible. The outside sources are merely to confirm our understanding of what we are reading in the Scriptures, especially as we delve into the modern English versions and compare them to their Greek and Hebrew sources.

That's what I thoroughly believe.

I also believe that Scripture is our only authority...and that it holds the truth.

I also do not believe in soul sleep.

I used to believe that we went in the ground (sheoul) where we awaited the resurrection of our body and soul.

But what about our Spirit?  What happens to our Spirit?

I will say that it does take some serious study to know exactly what the bible teaches since there are some subjects that are complex and cannot be easily understood.

One example from the O.T. is the idea of the soul and the spirit.  It was spoken of in different way...The soul and spirit were spoken of interchangeably and the spirit was even used to mean the spirit of God.

In the N.T. justification and sanctification are sometimes spoken of interchangeably and this causes some confusion.

So...

Following is an image of how I understand man to be made, or composed of....Body, Soul, Spirit.  This is the trichotomy of man.

Some believe we are Body, Soul/Spirit combined..this is the dichotomy model.

You probably do not accept this, but its roots are biblical...the body, soul and spirit are spoken of in the N.T.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As to soul annihilation....I do believe we go to be immediately where we belong at death...but that would be another thread.

On 9/15/2019 at 6:27 AM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, HAZARD.

Or, so goes the theological rhetoric! Where does it say "our souls go to Heaven if we are in Christ"?

Regarding the book by Yhudah ("Jude," which in Greek, "Ioudas" would be pronounced "ee-oo-das'"), here's more of the passage:

Jude 11-16 (KJV)

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain (Greek: Ka-in pronounced "kah'-in"), and ran greedily after the error of Balaam (Greek: Bala-am pronouced "bal-ah-am'") for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core (Greek: Kore pronounced "kor-eh'"). 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,

"Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (A quote from the First Book of Chanokh [Enoch], a Jewish work of the 1st Century A.D.)

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Of course, both Jude 14-15 and this "First Book of Chanokh" may be alluding to Deuteronomy 33:1-5:

Deuteronomy 33:1-5 (KJV)

1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. 2 And he said,

"The LORD came from (Mount) Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. 3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words."

4 Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. 5 And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.

However, if we accept that this phrase is about a future time (instead of when Mosheh ["Moses"] was leading the children of Israel from Mount Sinai), we're not told when or where He should "pick them up!"

You're suggesting that He shall pick them up from this mythical place called "Heaven" and bring them here to earth with Him. 

I believe that He shall pick them up on the Day of the First Resurrection from wherever they are currently buried, and they shall return to the Land of Israel with Him!

Definitions make a WORLD of difference!

"Soul," in both the Hebrew word "nefesh" or the Greek "psuchee," means "an air-breathing creature."

"Heaven," in both the Hebrew word "shaamayim" or the Greek word "ouranos," means "the sky."

There's another Greek word that Paul used (or the translator of Paul's works used) for things "above the sky," "epouranios." This word was used for the "sun, moon, and stars" in 1 Corinthians 15 above. This word is the adjective form of "ouranos" combined with the word "epi" which means "over, upon, or above." (The Hebrew uses the phrase "shaameey hashaamayim," or the "heavens of the heavens.")

Hi R,

You and @Hazard are having too much fun and I hate to break in.

But I do agree with Hazard.

Here would be two questions for you, which I probably missed since I just got here.

1.  What is the soul?

2.  Do you believe in soul sleep?

I admire your knowledge of Greek and wonder why, if you use outside sources (from the bible), why you're so intent on using ONLY the bible to explain the dichotomy or trichotomy of man.

Just curious,,,you'll find that I don't debate indefinitely.

On 4/1/2019 at 7:05 AM, Willa said:

A point in our sermon tonight was about the Spiritual man, the Soulish or natural man, and the carnal or fleshly man.  

That is the order they should be in: our spirits with the Holy Spirit should rule  our soul/selfish/natural man and the flesh as well. 

The natural man with all its education and selfishness should not rule over our spirits and our flesh.  This person sometimes is void of compassion because he is so bound by his logic.  

It is really chaos and sin when our flesh rules over our spirits and our intellect.  

Hi Willa,,,

this is right on target...

The following image demonstrates what you've stated.

Our spirit does indeed have an effect on our soul and even our body.

On 11/1/2019 at 6:25 PM, omega2xx said:

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did. 

 

Where?

The main problem about the BB is that they never explain the source of the matter that went bang, they never explain the source of the energy needed to make it go bang and they never explain how life began from dead elements. 

Peace and joy

Right.

I always found this interesting....

Most scientists are atheists and do not believe in God, and yet the bible stated how the universe began, as you've stated.

Some scientists are now using the term "Intelligent Design" to express that it's apparent that something beyond what we could understand had to have a hand in creating everything.  We know this something as God.

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

 

Dr. Tour does supply a compelling case against the abiotic synthesis of the first cells. In my own estimation, the evidence we currently have about this process is scant. I think God supernaturally creating the first cells is even more plausible than the development of the first cells by purely natural means.

I don't believe science has any evidence as to how the first cells came to existence.  When I listen to Dr. Tour, it seems impossible.

Did you hear that there was some bacteria "created" in a lab about a week ago?  The language was such that I didn't understand it really well, but, of course, they made it somehow out of existing material.  From what I could understand, they just changed something about the DNA.  I wouldn't call that creation.

@one.opinion

Hi O,

I had a lot  of trouble with the quotes feature...don't know why.

The short story is:   I agree with everything you've said: The age of the earth, the reason for the story of Genesis, etc.

Sorry I lost everything.

10 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's a different version of a gene.   We all have pretty much the same genes, but we all have different versions of them.

That's what evolution is.

No.  As Darwin noted, every organism is different than its parents.   Does that mean a new species can eventually evolve?  Yep.  Most creationist organizations already admit that. They just think there's some kind of limit, some organisms that have changed so much that they can't change any more.   Problem is, no one can find those limits, and no one has found such an organism, yet.

 

From my understanding, creationists or ID believers (same thing) believe in evolution but in microevolution.

I do believe that many scientists are abandoning the idea of a form of life becoming a different form of life.  Or, for that matter, that life began in the primordial soup.

After the discovery of DNA it seems improbable that so much information could change over such a short period of time.

I do agree with this.  Dr. James Tour has explained this really well...

59 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

@Fran C,

Quote

thank you for the good questions.  HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE QUOTE FEATURE.  SORRY....

This is interesting since it's still taught in school.  Maybe the text books need to be updated??!  It never did make much sense to me, and, of course, the fact that the universe is only 14 billion years old will work agains Darwin's theory since time was of the essence.

Quote

There are unanswered questions associated with every single scientific theory in existence, this is not unique to the theory of evolution.

Yes, the human author(s) of Genesis, Moses or otherwise, had no concept of even cells, let alone proteins and DNA and other macromolecules integral to cellular life.

An overly literalistic interpretation (in my opinion) of Genesis would be that God created the universe roughly 6,000 years ago, when there is solid evidence in several areas of science that shows that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. While it may be reasonable to assume 6,000-10,000 years since Adam and Eve were on the earth, evidence suggests that the planet, and the history of life on the planet, are far older.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.  The bible wasn't meant to be a science book although God did inspire men to write how things began and the rise and fall of man; sin entering into the world and the solution, as you've stated.

I've also had the though that maybe cavemen did exist and God decided to make man something special.  I don't believe that we could know for sure, although this thought does go against scripture.

 

To me, the fine-tuning of the universe (and laws of nature) are compelling evidence of a Creator. I believe the importance of Genesis 1-3 is to establish God as Creator, establish humanity as a special creation in the image of God, the choice of Adam and Eve that brought sin into the world, and the promise of a Redeemer that would enter the natural realm to die in our place. I believe that those that focus on the particulars of the daily account are, to some extent, missing the big picture because they are focusing too much on the details written by humans without the benefit of modern scientific knowledge.

Not only do we not know about the 6 days of creation, but have we ever realized there are two different creation accounts in Genesis?

But I agree with you that it's the big picture we should be looking at.

God only lets us know what we need to know.  I do wish we knew more....but I believe we know enough.

 

 

Specifically, the 144-hour creation period about 6,000 years ago does not match what God has revealed to us about His creation.

You mean that the 144 hour creation period does not match because we know the earth is older then 6,000 years old....

I agree.

 

Quote

Evolution as Darwin proposed has been abandoned by scientists for decades. The abandonment of evolution does occur in a very small percentage of scientists, but it is not as widespread as some (in ID or YEC camps) tell us to believe.[/QUOTE]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That won't be necessary, I believe in the accuracy an inerrancy of the Word of God, as well. I simply disagree that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 best fits what is evident in God's creation.

I also hear from scientists that Darwin's theory is being abandoned by some because there are questions that cannot be answered with this theory.

What I find interesting about your post is that you disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3.  I'd have to agree with this since God can INSPIRE something to be written,,,but only at the level of man's understanding at the time.

Then you say that Genesis 1-3 does not fit what is evident in God's creation.

Like what, for instance?

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did.  Until the 60's it was believed that the universe always existed...it is only after the 1960's that scientists accepted that the universe had a beginning...the Big Bang.

Also, the bible states that  the earth was prepared for man.  It certainly does seem that it was fine-tuned to accomodate humanity.

What does NOT seem to fit, in your estimation?

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It  has a very specific definition in science.   In Darwin's time, it was "descent with modification."   After the rediscovery of Mendel's work, it is now defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."    That is not generally known by creationists, who often confuse evolution with agencies of evolution (like natural selection) or consequences of evolution (like common descent).

Couldn't be.   This is why so many people keep walking into walls when they discuss it; they don't know what it is.

It's directly observed.   Even major creationist organizations admit that the scientific definition is obviously true.   But as I said, many confuse agencies of evolution or consequences of evolution with the process itself.

 

 

I looked up allele in a dictionary but don't know what it is.

Do you mean that there can be changes in genes over time?

Is this different from believing that one form of life can become a different form of life?

I believe the first is possible and has been noted and is accepted. I don't believe the second is possible and don't believe it can be proven.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since they are both the same thing, that would make sense from a religious point of view.   On the other hand, since evolution and even speciation is directly observed to happen, anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can confirm it for himself.

You've confused evidence with opinion.   Here's an honest creationist's take on it:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

And this YE creationist actually knows the science involved.

In this post, for example, I've merely noted the evidence clearly shows evolution being observed.  Perhaps, like many creationists, you are unaware of what the word means in biology.   Creationists often make up their own definitions.  Usually, the confuse evolution (a change in allele frequency in a population over time) with agencies of evolution, (such as natural selection), or consequences of evolution (such as common descent.)

And of course, we get the usual creationist fallacy of argumentum ad numerum and populum.  However, even that is a loser, as more and more people accept the fact of evolution.   Would you like me to show you how your fallacious argument is also factually wrong?

I'll go take a look.  If you're as confused about that, as you are about this, I may have a lot of cleaning up to do.

 

Just got here and can't read from the beginning.

What is evolution to your understanding?

If this is not established, how could it be spoken about?

I DO happen to believe that scientists are having difficulty proving this evolution...but first how do we describe it.

On 9/16/2019 at 6:40 AM, unworthyservant said:

I don't believe that he's changing Jesus word but rather he approved of a change to a French translation of a Vulgar Latin translation of an earlier Greek text. The new translation doesn't sound heretical or anything and it doesn't really change the meaning much at all, so I don't see it as a problem. For future reference on such matters of translation, I recommend starting with the commentaries of Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke. Then with those as reference you can better understand where the newer commentaries are coming from since many reference them. Now, if you want another conundrum from the translation of the Lord's Prayer that's puzzled scholars for centuries, look at the translation of the Greek word ἐπιούσιον or the transliterated epiousion. It's at the end of the phrase that in the KJV reads "Give us this day our daily bread." It was translated "daily bread" but if you look back the actual word appears in NO other known Greek writings. It's only known use is in that very verse. (no where else in the NT either). Scholars as far back as the early Church writer Origen, have debated it's meaning and origin. Origen even went so far as to suggest it was just a word that the early church leaders or disciples (or even Matthew himself) made up. Some have surmised that it's a conglomeration of two Greek Words, transliterated epi and ousios. Then they jump through hoops to determine what the meaning of such an hereto unknown word conglomeration could possibly be. Although I'm not Catholic, I kinda like the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom the 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople who thought that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today.” He said that "it is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow" This was at a time when many Catholic leaders insisted that it was about the Eucharist. This doesn't fly in my opinion since the word part "ousion" refers to substance of a thing or sustenance and so daily sustenance or daily bread wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as it's more general. This theory is derived from the fact that epi, when used alone actually is a comparative adverb that indicates excellence and so excellent sustenance or bread must be the Eucharist. Scholars to this day still can't find any empirical evidence of even the words existence much less it's meaning in any other ancient Greek writings and so still debate the word. Sorry, didn't mean to get off on such a tangent but since I'm not concerned by the French translation change, I thought I'd throw out another bone just for discussion.

Hi US,

I'm very familiar with catholic teachings and do not know of anyone that teaches that the daily bread in your post refers to the Eucharist....Jesus had not even instituted the Eucharist yet - this took place at the Last Supper. (for Catholics, anyway).

It has always meant what you said.   Give us THIS DAY what we need to live...we need material things every day, including food.  Do not worry about tomorrow for each day has its own worries.

Very good point...

Even the Manna in Exodus was given on a daily basis and if they tried to save it, it would go bad.  As if, yes, we have to trust God for our needs.

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

God reveals the truth to those who seek the truth and who keep seeking the truth (don't seek today and stop tomorrow).

The 'knowledge' of religious teachers is most often used to deceive multitudes,  from what the Word of God says .

The salvation and faith of those who trust and rely on the Father,  is a daily , continual experience,  not a one time does it fact,  as shown all through Scripture,  TORAH, PROPHETS, PSALMS and NEW TESTAMENT

even just in poor ol' "English" language.  

Follow Jesus.   Follow the Shepherd.  

What happens if someone stops following Jesus ?   Repent.  

What happens if a sheep stops following the Shepherd ?  Hope it doesn't end in destruction,  eaten by the wolves or worse.

A lost sheep?  Jesus goes after.  He is a good Shepherd, perfect in fact.

 

Agreed on all.

And said in  a very unique way!

13 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The challenge is the -eth endings in the KJV are not consistently translated from present active indicative (PAI) verbs in Greek and do not always carry an emphasis of continuity.    Sometimes -eth is translated from present participles.  Sometimes PAI verbs are not translated with -eth.   It also precludes the continuous meaning from being applied to 3rd person plural subjects (he singeth but always they sing and never they singeth) since it only applies to 3rd person singular.  In addition, the present active indicative verbs in Greek have multiple uses.  Depending on the intermediate or advanced Greek grammar one consults, there are about a dozen different uses of the present tense in Greek only some of which incorporate a "continually" meaning.

There are some places where -eth does translate a 3rd person singular PAI Greek verb which does carry a sense of ongoing and continuous action.  However it is NOT a general rule that can simply be applied every time an -eth word is read.

As I was doing my reading in Matthew today, I had this post in mind so I was using my 8 parallel text NT and was comparing the Greek with the KJV looking for -eth words.  

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. (Matt 6:11 KJV)  This is PAI (present active indicative) in Greek and illustrates one of its uses in historical narratives.  This represents an event with a definite time limitation.  It could not be understood as "the devil continually left him" since it is a summary of an event that occurred and was done with.  Verse 4:5 is similar with two PAI (translated -eth) describing finished events.

19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.   20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. (Matt 6:19-20)  This is another PAI translated with an eth word (sayeth->saith) which cannot carry a meaning of continually said to them because it is a historical event with a definite ending.

One common use of PAI verbs in Greek is within historical narratives where action and events are told in a combination of summarized and expanded events.

In Matthew 5 in the sermon on the mount, there are inconsistencies.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee... (part of Matt 5:30 KJV)  This is a 3rd person PAI that does not include -eth for some reason.

42 Give to him that asketh thee...  (part of Matt 5:42 KJV) This is from a present participle and not an indicative verb.

There are other such examples of inconsistencies between KJV -eth words and various Greek verbs and continuous aspects of the verb usage.  This is only in a couple chapters in one book. 

Over the years, I've run across many Christians who learned erroneous things about Greek in sermons, articles, books, and other places.  Sadly, it seems that many graduates of seminaries and Bible schools who've taken a year or two of Greek (and have never read the entire NT in Greek because they lack the practical skills) take random statements from Greek grammar books that they do not understand very well, put them into a teaching or sermon to make a point, and then someone repeats some variation of that as fact and so on.

Somewhere, someone, for some reason (that made sense to them at the time) started the incorrect idea that -eth words are something special the KJV translators used to specially signify continuous action.  This is basically the Christian equivalent of an urban legend that pops up in random places and gets passed on.  It keeps going because few people have the background to question it.

I think the article quoted in the OP has some neat insights in it regarding actual grape harvesting and how God works in our individual lives.  The inclusion of things like KJV -eth words and a very conjectural translation of Greek (at odds with dozens of widely accepted translation teams) distracts away from this.

Seems like you know your greek.

I agree with what you've said regarding the KJ.  It's not the best bible as far as I'm concerned for a couple of reasons.

Also, some keep talking about the aorist tense to prove that one is saved forever, no matter what.  So I went to my friendly Greek scholar (a priest that taught theology and Greek and Hebrew and reads the O.T. and the N.T. in those language) and he said it's complicated and to forget about it.  He said it cannot be used to show progressive belief,,,belief is always in the present tense.  Like for instance John 3:16...he who believes NOW.

I also feel that the persons that translated the N.T. are competent persons that also know the culture and time of Jesus and we could trust that they did a good job of relaying the message WITHOUT having to know Greek.

I believe that using the Greek is for experts and biblical scholars and not us here on these boards.

On 7/7/2019 at 12:08 AM, Sonshine☀️ said:

One who practices lawlessness has not been called—is not saved.

That's not what those verses are saying.  You've read salvation into the scripture when it's not there.

Jesus is speaking about entering into the narrow gate that leads to life,,,but few find it.

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing,,,we will know them by their fruit.

Jesus states that every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Not everyone who cries LORD, LORD, but the one who does the will of the Father.

But many will believe they prophecied in the name of Jesus...

and Jesus will declare to them:

"I never knew your, depart from me YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

There's no need to wonder what Jesus meant.

He said we're to do the will of the Father and He said those that practice lawlessness will not enter into heaven.