Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang/String/Inflation and Darwinism

[other one]

shall not perish is a definite no......    believe and there is no way of not being saved.

 

 

should not perish is a qualified no....    there are ways for it not to be definite....

 

It would not matter in this discussion but I know at least two dozen people who take the meaning from the will not and they are not leading the lives that Jesus would expect them to live and most likely will not be among the sheep...   they certainly don't ac tor live like sheep.....   and it's dangerous.    but they do believe, and pray and go to church and live like hell...    and when you try and get their attention that is the scripture they bring up......   always.   I believe man...   and I've got it made...

 

Just one of my more severe problems with all the different translations....

[Guest shiloh357]

Should not meant the same thing in the Elizabethan English as "shall not" means today.  You are picking hairs over nothing.   People who want to live in sin will use ANYTHING to justify themselves.   These are not believers who live like hell.  They are sinners who want live like hell.   They are trying to salve their conscience by bringing up such nonsense.  The problem isn't with the translations.  The problem is with their hard hearts and their bent toward sin.

 

Furthermore what you presented isn't a contradiction.   A contradiction is when you have two separate sets of facts that can't both be true at the same time.  If the NIV rendered it John 3:16:  "For God so loved the world, that he gave His first Begotten Son..."   THEN you have a contradiction because the KJV says that Jesus is God's ONLY begotten Son.   That would qualify as a contradiction.   What you bring up isn't a contradiction.  It is a distinction without a difference.

[other one]

shall not and might not is a contradiction to most of the people I've discussed it with...

 

But I don't want to tear down the Bible here.

 

We've disagreed about Enoch for many years now and I still have no real reason to doubt people like those I've mentioned along with folks like Tom Horn, Gary Stearman, Chuck Missler. and a number of other people.

 

Tom Horn was a pastor for 25 years, has a doctorate of divinity degree,  active exorcist for many years and used to have a forum here when I first came in 2003.    Many many people I know agree with those early church fathers and I see no reason to take your word against them.....   but I guess I should not press the issue too far.

[Guest shiloh357]

It doesn't say "might not."   It says "should not" which isn't the same thing especially since we are talking about Elizabethan English.

 

I didn't ask you to take my word against theirs.   I said to examine their claims against the facts of the contradictions between the Bible and the book of Enoch.  The problem is that such a challenge threatens you. 

 

You are so caught up in these ET conspiracies that you'll latch on to anything and it doesn't even have to be true, or make sense.  You are willing to accept what the early church fathers say because you think it supports your conspiracies, not because their claims are actually true or factual.   It's called "intellectual suicide."  But that's par for the course when it comes to conspiracy theories.

[enoob57]

Here is some clear/plain scholarship to why Enoch doesn't belong to Scripture

http://www.brainout.net/EnochTest.htm#13

Love, Steven

many of the church fathers disagree and a not so small number of very learned people of today agree with them...

 

As to being equal with scripture, I would not think so, but being untruthful I could not agree with.   i have interface with people who pick the Bible apart the same as this article does  on Enoch...

Well I am guided to the fact I can only trust Scripture... I can be unguarded with taking

it in and all else is and will remain suspect to me no matter what others and their numbers

say. I am fully vested in the belief I have been 1^st born as enemy of God in a place of the

enemy of God who spreads his superior ability about influencing to remain an enemy of

God. His skill as an enemy are so subtle that those who are under the reliance of his care

do not even realize their status...  Love, Steven

I do really hope and pray that you are not assigning that to me because I agree with many of the original founding fathers.......

It is my stance and why I stand there OO... there was no indications to anyone else in the writ

[other one]

shiloh, it has noting to do with old English.....

 

NT:3361

me (may); a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas NT:3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) not, (conjunctionally) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer [whereas NT:3756 expects an affirmative one]) whether:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

 

It has to do with the Greek word chosen in both Textus Receptus and Nestle manuscripts.     The not in that verse  is not an absolute no, it is a qualified negation or no...

Saying that if one believes they should not perish but it does not say that will not.

As I have stated earlier, it is mattering in the lives of people I know.

[other one]

It is my stance and why I stand there OO... there was no indications to anyone else in the writ

 

Then I would ask you the same question.....   who are you that I should take your thoughts on the subject over those of  both the early church fathers and people of much higher learning than myself; a few of which I have mentioned.

 

So I guess we are at the point that I express my thoughts and you can express yours and we'll let the masses read and decide for themselves.

[enoob57]

It is my stance and why I stand there OO... there was no indications to anyone else in the writ

Then I would ask you the same question.....   who are you that I should take your thoughts on the subject over those of  both the early church fathers and people of much higher learning than myself; a few of which I have mentioned.

 

So I guess we are at the point that I express my thoughts and you can express yours and we'll let the masses read and decide for themselves.

There is never a time where I do not realize if I am to know the truth

The Lord will have to accomplish that through His Spirit within me and

I have that promise already in writing... we must walk circumspect to

reality in and of ourselves we can do nothing thus bringing a broken

heart and contrite spirit

Ps 34:18

18 The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart;

and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

KJV

Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

Other one, appealing to authority is a common argumentative fallacy.   Even people with Ph.D's are fallible.   They have biases and depending on their kind of degree they may not even be an authority on the issue of which they speak.  It helps to actually have a doctorate in that area.   

 

Wrong is wrong.  Having a seminary degree doesn't suddenly make everything you say above question or scrutiny and having a doctorate doesn't mean that the contradictions between the book of Enoch and the Bible magically go away.

 

And let me ask you this...  Since you put so much unquestioning faith in the early Church fathers...    The ones you cite had nothing to do with the discovering the canon.  Why don't agree with the early church fathers who did NOT think that the book of Enoch is canonical.   You only cite one or two who agree with you when there are many other early church fathers who rejected its canonicity.   Your appeal to the authority of a few of the Ante-Nicene fathers doesn't account for the other Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene fathers  who did not accept Enoch and who did not believe that it passed the test for canonicity. Why only appeal to the few that you agree with while ignoring the far greater number who disagree and were instrumental in the formation of the canon???

 

Your attempt to make "should not" is a nonstarter because of so many promises in so many places in the NT that tell us that on the basis of our faith we are saved and are being kept saved.   We are told in John 5:24 and John 5:11-13 that we can KNOW we have salvation today.  I am not waiting to find out if I actually make it or not.   Eph. 1:14-15 tells me that the Holy Spirit is the seal and guarantee of my inheritance.  Romans 8:16 tells me that I am a child of God today and v. 39 tells me that nothing can separate me from the Lord.  So acting like John 3:16 is the only thing the Bible has to say on the matter is simply nonstarter and it is qualified negation, but it doesn't mean that if you believe you  may or may not make it.  An attempt to render the way and you your unsaved friends are rendering it simply doesn't wash with the rest of the Bible.

 

This is not a translation issues.  The people whom you mention are reprobates who want to justify their sin by claiming that one word in one verse of Scripture gives them a free pass to sin without consequence.  It is amazing the lengths the human mind in its depravity will go to justify itself.   Their problem doesn't stem from this or that translation.  That is just a pretext.  Their problem, the root of it all is that they love their sin and they love it more than they love God.

[other one]

I find it amazing that you seem to know more about my acquaintances than I do or they themselves even though you've never laid eyes on them....

Know thier feelings and the things that drive them....   it's amazing how smart you are....

 

I think it best that we just leave our differences as that, and go our ways and let other people decide for themselves which of us is reality.   I guess as time goes along I will just post my ideas about things and we'll let others decide who is and who isn't on top of things.

 

If George thinks my ideas are dangerous I guess he could ask me not to post.....   we'll see.