godrulz

Rev. 1:19 is the interpretative key. Rev. 1 is past (to John), Rev. 2-3 is present (to John), while Rev. 4-22 is yet future (literal, futurist view vs preterism). Rev. 6-19 is the Tribulation period after the rapture (Christ comes FOR the church), before the visible Second Coming/Millennium (Christ comes WITH the Church).

Perhaps a specific point, not a paragraph?

Not all verses contain all truths. Repentance, faith (repentant faith, two wings of a bird, two sides of a coin), and continuance in the faith are the conditions for appropriating and remaining in grace (grace/work of Christ is the grounds for salvation/reason for/by which saved; repentant faith is the condition/not without which) of salvation. One must turn from Self, false gods, sin to turn to Christ (see Paul in Acts, Jesus in Gospels). Repentance is a theme throughout Scripture, but faith usually gets emphasized. Faith includes repentance as we turn from something to God. After conversion, confession/repentance still has a place for specific sins (Ps. 91; I Jn. 1). In Calvinism, regeneration precedes repentance/faith (monergism). In free will views like Arminianism, repentant faith precedes regeneration (manward aspect). In both, God alone provides and initiates salvation (but one is decretal/deterministic, while the other is based on love, relationship, freedom).

What translations? These are names of languages, not translations. What I would say is that to get the most accurate translation to these people, someone should use the KJV Bible as their starting point, and translate it word for word to their language. This is not possible since going from one language to another involves many complex issues like idioms, no equivalent word, etc. It makes far more sense to work from good Hebrew/Gk. MSS to all these languages instead of going from an imperfect KJV that has known translation errors. Even Joseph Smith plagiarized KJV portions with known grammatical errors, a solid argument (not to mention anachronistic issues) against the perfect inspiration of Book of Mormon. Some view the preservation of KJV like the Koranic or BOM model of supposed perfect inspiration. This is simply not how God preserved His Word. It is bad advice to work from KJV to other languages when we should be working from originals to other languages, including English. KJV was a product of previous versions like Vulgate, Geneva, etc. It is not strictly from original languages like it should be (so imperfections were perpetuated instead of nipped in the bud).

I am curious, what makes you think the NASB, sometimes the KJV and the NIV are the best translations? My faith in the KJV is based on the TR. I can tell you why I think it is the best translation. To think the NASB, sometimes the KJV and NIV are best, there must be a reason? The KJV is based on the TR, and the NASB and NIV on the majority text. Why these three? What do they have in common? By the way, you mentioned how some translations were changed for a political agenda. One of the people involved in the translation of the NIV was a lesbian. The more recent version of the NIV, the TNIV, is gender neutral. It was created to cater to feminists. The NIV leaves verses out and relegates them to footnotes, and discredits other scriptures by stating that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." The NIV is a terrible translation. The TNIV is not the most recent and no longer in print. The 2011 NIV revision is the most recent. Its intention is not to cater to feminists. You should become familiar with the translators arguments/rationale in their translation philosophy on gender. The lesbian issue was not condoned by NIV. It was found out later and her involvement related to English grammar, etc., not primary translation work from biblical languages.

Being anti-KJV-only is not being anti-KJV. We are not hostile to the KJV and appreciate it. We are not guilty of bibliolatry by exalting an imperfect translation as perfect. It is fair game to criticize weakness and error in KJV, just as KJV-only is wrongly hostile to any other version. Our hostility is to a simplistic, arrogant, ignorant position, not the Word of God as represented in the good, but not best, KJV.

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm TR is problematic, not superior.

The arguments for TR are flawed. Minimally, it is not a perfect copy of the originals.

KJV-only is a myth, a false view. I don't mean that those who hold it are heretics outside of faith in Christ (heresy is half truth, a wrong doctrine, not just the extremes of denying Christianity as a whole). It is a simplistic view based on circular reasoning and contradicted by the evidence. The poster is saying things that are patently false and out of ignorance. I expected the peanut gallery to jump in. The reality is that only the original autographs (not extant) were perfect. Subsequent MSS evidence is 99% pure with most translations based on this better than worse and more readable/accurate for English readers due to better scholarship and MSS evidence since 1600s. KJV-only is divisive, confusing, condemnatory, but not a credible view (very view still try to defend this old idea promoted by Gail Riplinger (misquotes authorities to distort the evidence, etc.) and her ilk.

It is not a matter of not wanting to change mind, but to change it in light of evidence/facts. Message is a paraphrase. It is correct to say it is not literal from the Greek, but it is incorrect to imply it smuggles in endless false doctrines/beliefs/practices. Most of the nattering about modern translations comes from the lunatic fringe KJV-only camp who propagate much misinformation/ignorance/arrogance. I do not use 'The Message', but have found it refreshing at times when I do read some passages. It is not a study Bible, but a paraphrase. It does not claim to be a translation like NASB, ESV, KJV, etc. All of us can find stuff on the internet, pro and con. I just get weary of conspiracy theories like Billy Graham is the spawn of Satan, modern versions are perversions and should be used as toilet paper vs KJV, etc. These things affect our integrity and credibility if we do not do our homework before we perpetuate misinformation.

KJV-only is a heretical teaching that is not evidence based. Don't believe everything you read on the net. http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Version-Debate-Realism/dp/0801024277

That is fairly subjective. Soup out of a can is not organized like a dictionary. The rest of the chapter affirms Creator/creation, not denies it. You are being picky. Is that the best you got?

'The Message' is one man's paraphrase. It is surprisingly fresh, but not a study Bible. What verses are blatantly heretical? Eugene would likely affirm the basic creeds of the church. NWT (JW) is heretical, but Message is just not literal.

The illumination of the Spirit does not negate the need for textual criticism and hermeneutics (believers who are equally capable, godly differ on a myriad of biblical issues/exegesis, not to mention the cultic problems with twisting Scripture).

You are looking for the perfect version. We do not have the original manuscripts and you do not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, so this is a no go. The issue of Bible versions is complex. It sounds like you are looking for formal equivalence (NASB, ESV), not dynamic equivalence (2011 NIV). There are strengths and weaknesses to each translation philosophy. www.biblegateway.com This will allow you to compare various versions. Ideally, we would do exegesis from original languages and compare various versions. Practically, most could just use one or two translations. I am leaning to ESV as my main English version that would meet your criteria as good as any (2011 revisions). You could consider NASB, but it is more dated and not as readable, but considered literal (which is not always a good thing). I would also have an NIV or NLT or HCSB/optimal equivalence (google it) for another perspective. A Greek interlinear would also be a helpful tool with a lexicon. The other divisive issue is MSS family, Byzantine vs Alexandrian, KJV family (avoid KJV-only myth/heresy) vs most others. RSV might be too liberal. There is a place for 'The Message' paraphrase, but not as a study Bible. KJV is archaic English and not the most readable, accurate version. So, I would use biblegateway.com. If I could only take 3 Bibles on a desert island, I would take ESV http://www.esvstudybible.org/ (NASB in the past before ESV, but not better now), NIV http://www.thenivbible.com/ (2011 some have gender issue concerns about it), and HCSB http://hcsb.org/ Let us know what you figure out. Be prepared for people to trash NIV, promote KJV exclusively, have all kinds of conspiracy theories and personal preferences. Google will have articles on selecting Bible translations, the pros and cons. You simply will not find a perfect Bible, so comparing major versions is the way to go in addition to original language exegesis (most of us cannot do textual criticism/translation). Readable and accurate is the goal (wooden literal is not always the most accurate and there are issues going from Gk. to English that reduce accuracy/readability...translations are also not immune to bias, so I would not just read a Catholic or Calvinistic Bible).

Time is more fundamental than space and should not be confused with it. God fills the universe and is aware of everything at a particular time. It does not mean He actually exists in the past and future since this would also mean we must be there in reality (creation would be co-eternal with God and Jesus would still be on the cross, etc.). The Bible clearly portrays God as experiencing sequence, succession, duration, parallel to our history. He hears the agent pray in real time. He cannot hear us pray in the future if we do not even exist. Eternal now should never have become a viable view in church history since it is unbiblical and illogical. Instead of speculating without proof, why not adopt a more coherent, common sense view that does not contradict Scripture nor does it limit God, properly understood. Tradition is not always truth.

We must test the new, spurious LDS 'revelations' against the older, objective biblical one. They only accept the Bible as the Word of God as far as correctly translated (any time it contradicts LDS, they assume the Bible is tampered with), but they blindly accept the Book of Mormon as perfect (despite the 4000 changes since the 1830 edition; BOM also does not teach unique LDS views and is actually monotheistic on the surface mixed in with a boring fairy tale).

Does it ever occur to you that many of us who disagree with you are not Calvinists??? One can have CalvinisTIC views without being Calvinists. So, are you Arminian?

Calvinists error to think that sovereignty must be exhaustive, meticulous, micromanaging instead of responsive, providential, and within the context of God-given creaturely freedom. God is still sovereign, but not in the Calvinistic sense, if He lets us name the animals (Adam). Sovereign does not mean all-controlling, but in control despite significant others having a say so, even contrary to God at times (what kind of parent would control a kid like a car or pet?).

God created everything, including "experience." You can't create what you don't know perfectly and completely. The Supreme Spirit created matter, which He is not. God doesn't have to "be" it to know it, and to know it more thoroughly, truly and completely that those who "are" it. Experience is not created. Experience is experienced. This is not about what God is or isn't. The question I asked pertains to the extent of omnscience, not whether or not God is omniscient. God's knowledge depends on nothing outside Himself. Experience is based in physiology. God created physiology. The outcome of His creation is not accidental nor incidental to Him, it is determined by Him. Creation is outside of God. Knowledge of creation is outside of God. I see my computer. The computer is not internal to me. God does not experience things with 5 senses like we do, but His knowledge of Himself is not identical to His knowledge of creation. He knows reality as it is. God experienced fellowship, love, communication, etc. before creation/physiology (relates to matter) in His spirit triune relations. After creation, He experiences new reality outside of Himself. God is not pancausal or this would make Him responsible for heinous evil. He can and does intervene in creation (transcendent and immanent), but He does not exhaustively micromanage it (if He did, things would not be such a mess down here; warfare vs blueprint model of providence). God determines ultimate outcomes, but not every choice by significant-other creatures. There is no theodicy apart from a free will defense.

You still have not demonstrated from Scripture that God changes the future or simply responds to events as they occur. You have not demonstrated Scripturally that God does not know our future decisions and choices. You are relying more on philosophy and philosophical assumptions than you are on Scripture. That would explain you cannot employ God's self-disclosure to support your view. God does not reveal Himself according to your limited and unbiblical view of Him. Books are written on this. I gave you links with many Scriptural comments. Some of these issues involve paradigms, principles, and philosophy since Scripture does not explicitly resolve or deal with them. We do not use the Bible to prove mathematical formulas. You are unfamiliar with the biblical evidence for Open Theism, so you wrongly assume it does not exist. I have looked at the many verses that support it and the lame counter-arguments (that impose a Calvinistic, deterministic view on them) and have made an informed decision. The exact nature of the kenosis, free will, sovereignty, etc. is not spelled out like a systematic theology text in Scripture (which is more historical narrative, biblical theology vs systematic, etc.), so we must bring to bear other disciplines in addition to proof texts. Scripture is the final authority, but it simply does not cover every area of relevant knowledge in detail. We agree that God is sovereign, omniscient, immutable, etc., but these things must be defined, qualified, tested, not just assumed (much tradition is not truth). Cliche spam. Look at all relevant verses without a wrong paradigm.Try a good commentary that will interpret these verses consistent with all relevant verses vs twisting out of context with a poor interpretation.The problem is your negative proof texting void of exegesis in contextTry a good commentary that will interpret these verses consistent with all relevant verses vs twisting out of context with a poor interpretation." Understand that this "god"rulz is a charlatan, a con artist, posing as a member of the boc. johnw? Unbelievable. I am being haunted. You are Open Theist on TOL, so what are you talking about? Have they lifted your ban yet for rude behaviour and spamming the rest of us?

Eddy's Science/Health book is Christian Science. Joseph Smith is Book of Mormon. Charles Taze Russell is JW/WT. OK, thanks,godrulz. I still stand by the book being a distraction to the Word. We don't need additional text competing with the Word. The Bible alone is sufficient, authoritative. There are many spurious, extra/contrabiblical works of false teachers so we need discernment.

Eddy's Science/Health book is Christian Science. Joseph Smith is Book of Mormon. Charles Taze Russell is JW/WT.

You still have not demonstrated from Scripture that God changes the future or simply responds to events as they occur. You have not demonstrated Scripturally that God does not know our future decisions and choices. You are relying more on philosophy and philosophical assumptions than you are on Scripture. That would explain you cannot employ God's self-disclosure to support your view. God does not reveal Himself according to your limited and unbiblical view of Him. Books are written on this. I gave you links with many Scriptural comments. Some of these issues involve paradigms, principles, and philosophy since Scripture does not explicitly resolve or deal with them. We do not use the Bible to prove mathematical formulas. You are unfamiliar with the biblical evidence for Open Theism, so you wrongly assume it does not exist. I have looked at the many verses that support it and the lame counter-arguments (that impose a Calvinistic, deterministic view on them) and have made an informed decision. The exact nature of the kenosis, free will, sovereignty, etc. is not spelled out like a systematic theology text in Scripture (which is more historical narrative, biblical theology vs systematic, etc.), so we must bring to bear other disciplines in addition to proof texts. Scripture is the final authority, but it simply does not cover every area of relevant knowledge in detail. We agree that God is sovereign, omniscient, immutable, etc., but these things must be defined, qualified, tested, not just assumed (much tradition is not truth).

So you believe God is small enough to fit into your understanding? No, but we have sufficient reason and revelation to make truth statements about issues. We can understand somethings about God, but never exhaustively. There are many false views on Scripture and God. Defending a right view over a wrong view on specific issues does not mean we are thinking God is small enough to fit our understanding?! A face value reading of Scripture and a view that resonates with common sense is preferred over a speculative, philosophical one that is neither coherent nor biblical.