|
Author
|
Topic: Is man inherently good or inherently evil?
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 136 of 271 (148139)
10-07-2004 3:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
10-07-2004 2:34 PM
|
|
Hi Jar, Can you support your statement?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 2:34 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 3:11 PM | | dpardo has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 137 of 271 (148142)
10-07-2004 3:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by dpardo
10-07-2004 3:03 PM
|
|
Sure, and I believe that I did. The sections that we were discussing in 1 st Peter are a good example. I believe they are very clear that it is your actions and motives that will decide. The two Great Commandments are additional indicators as well as Matthew 25. But just about every section of the Bible seems to me to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Christ died for all, sinner and non-sinner, believer and non-believer. All of his actions as laid out support that. So Christs death and resurection was a full and complete sacrifice and oblation for all our sins. What they will be the determining factor between salvation and damnation? Will it be profession, what people say? I don't believe so. The Bible seems to support that it will be through their actions, works, and the motives behind those works. Love GOD and love others as you love yourself. It really is that simple.
edited to add: Since salvation is OT you might want to wander over to Message 1 for any responses. This message has been edited by jar, 10-07-2004 02:19 PM
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 3:03 PM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 138 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 3:54 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 138 of 271 (148155)
10-07-2004 3:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
10-07-2004 3:11 PM
|
|
Thank you Jar. I will go over to the other thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 3:11 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 139 of 271 (148613)
10-09-2004 4:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by dpardo
10-07-2004 1:39 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
Your question of "Why is god judging?", does not follow, logically, from Peter's statement. Peter's statement in 1Peter 1:17:
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You quote a verse about god judging and it isn't logical to ask why god is judging? Are you seriously saying that we should consider the possibility that god is judging a beauty contest and that such a judgement by god should be taken just as seriously as god's judgement of salvation?
quote:
as I have stated before, can be reasonably translated as: "And if you call on God, who is impartial, pass the time of your stay here in fear."
Incorrect. You have eliminated the entire point of the passage, in both words and intent. Where is the criteria by which god renders that judgement? It is not simply that god is "impartial." It's that god is "impartial in his estimation of salvation as he examines a person's works."
quote:
The reason it is more reasonable than your interpretation is because Peter goes on to say that we are redeemed (saved) through the blood of Jesus in the subsequent verses.
You're trying to have it both ways. First you claim that this isn't about salvation, but now you're saying it is. What is the point of Christ's blood? Why was it spilt? And if the effect of Christ's blood isn't universally applicable to all people everywhere, what is the point of god judging? And if there is a point to god's judging, then what criterion is he using? We're back to that phrase you deliberately eliminated: "According to every man's work." Where is that in your "paraphrase"?
quote:
Your interpretation results in Peter contradicting himself (and Paul) in the same chapter. Does that seem likely?
Of course not. But then again, he isn't contradicting himself. The entire book is about salvation whereupon he directly states that god judges salvation based upon works. The blood of Christ brought people to god, but it does not guarantee them entrance. God judges them "according to every man's work." "According to every man's work." Where is that in your "paraphrase"?
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 1:39 PM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:49 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 140 of 271 (148614)
10-09-2004 5:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by dpardo
10-07-2004 2:49 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Notice you pick up two contradictions, but they're essentially variations of the same problem: What is the nature of man. One is saying we're born that way, another is saying we have to do it.
Can you show me, in your post, where Peter and Paul said these things?
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You respond to my post where I quote Peter and Paul and you then ask me to quote Peter and Paul? I feel like I'm in a bad Saturday Night Live skit. You remember...the one where they were spoofing the Clinton/Bush debate. Ted Koppel is moderating and Hillary is there and one of the audience members asks Hillary for her recipe for chocolate chip cookies. So she gives it saying you need so much butter, so much flour, so much sugar, etc., cream the butter, add the flour and eggs, blah-blah-blah. Ted: "Now, does that answer your question?" Audience Member: "I'm sorry but no. She didn't say how much butter to use." Ted: "Yes, she did. She said two cups of butter." AM: "No, she didn't." Ted: "Yes, she did. She clearly and distinctly said two cups of butter." AM: "Well, I'm sorry, but I am not satisfied with her non-answer." You can see my frustration. I say the following ( Message 39):
You mean you haven't read your own holy book? 1 Peter 1:17: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 1:18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 1:19: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Compare this to Paul: Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21: But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 3:24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 3:25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 3:27: Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Notice you pick up two contradictions, but they're essentially variations of the same problem: What is the nature of man. One is saying we're born that way, another is saying we have to do it. One says we are saved by faith. The other says we are saved by deeds. Shall I go on? Peter is a big believer in the pre-destination schtick. Kings rule by divine right (1 Peter 2:17). God wants some people to suffer (1 Peter 4:19) He even goes so far as to directly contradict Jesus (1 Peter 2:18 compared to Matthew 4:10, 23:10). Paul, who has a big bug up his ass about pretty much everything, still thinks that you can get out of it if only you straighten up and fly right. And you have the audacity to ask me to tell you where Peter and Paul say these things. Did you bother to read my post before responding?
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 2:49 PM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 141 by jar, posted 10-09-2004 11:10 AM | | Rrhain has not replied | | | Message 143 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:55 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 141 of 271 (148654)
10-09-2004 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 5:05 AM
|
|
Nudge, nudge. 
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:05 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 142 of 271 (148670)
10-09-2004 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 4:53 AM
|
|
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: You quote a verse about god judging and it isn't logical to ask why god is judging? Are you seriously saying that we should consider the possibility that god is judging a beauty contest and that such a judgement by god should be taken just as seriously as god's judgement of salvation? It isn't logical because you have taken the statement:
"...judgeth according to every man's work..." out of context. Taken in context, particularly the subsequent verses, your argument breaks down. Your interpretation that Peter says salvation is by works is in direct contradiction to what Peter says in 1Peter 1:18-19:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 4:53 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:31 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 143 of 271 (148671)
10-09-2004 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 5:05 AM
|
|
Hi Rrhain, I just read your post again. And, again, I did not find support for your statements. Please post the specific verses which you believe supports your statement:
One is saying we're born that way, another is saying we have to do it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:05 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 145 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:34 PM | | dpardo has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 144 of 271 (148694)
10-09-2004 5:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by dpardo
10-09-2004 12:49 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
quote:
You quote a verse about god judging and it isn't logical to ask why god is judging? Are you seriously saying that we should consider the possibility that god is judging a beauty contest and that such a judgement by god should be taken just as seriously as god's judgement of salvation?
It isn't logical because you have taken the statement: "...judgeth according to every man's work..." out of context.
How? Every time I try to bring the topic of conversation back to that phrase, you keep ignoring it. You're little "paraphrase" of the verse completely eliminates it. And you're avoiding the question! Whether or not I have taken "according to every man's work" out of context, the fact remains that god is judging. How is it illogical to ask why god is judging? And the most audacious thing you've done yet is to completely remove the word "judgeth" from your "paraphrase" and then claim that since it isn't there, it isn't about judgement.
quote:
Taken in context, particularly the subsequent verses, your argument breaks down.
Incorrect. As both jar and I have shown you, the entire point is that Peter is talking about actions. Christ didn't save humanity by faith. Christ did it by works. The entire point behind 1 Peter is salvation and how to go about getting it.
quote:
Your interpretation that Peter says salvation is by works is in direct contradiction to what Peter says in 1Peter 1:18-19:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Incorrect. It drives the point home. 1 Peter 18 is talking about privilege and rank, things of faith, not works. And 1 Peter 19 is talking about the action of Christ. Christ had done nothing wrong (well, except for all those times he did, but we'll ignore those for now) and yet still decided to take upon the burden of the world's sin in order to redeem them. The reason why it worked was not because of faith but because of works. Christ performed an action to save the world. He didn't simply believe. jar went through this with you. Weren't you paying attention?
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:49 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 145 of 271 (148695)
10-09-2004 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 143 by dpardo
10-09-2004 12:55 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
Please post the specific verses which you believe supports your statement:
One is saying we're born that way, another is saying we have to do it.
I did. That you don't believe it is irrelevant. For you to demand what you have already been given is obnoxious and one might suspect you of trolling. Go ahead and disagree with the verses that I have provided for you, but don't sit there and ask for something that is already staring you in the face.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 143 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:55 PM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 146 by dpardo, posted 10-11-2004 5:57 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 146 of 271 (149169)
10-11-2004 5:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 5:34 PM
|
|
Hi Rrhain, I assert that you, in fact, did not have support for the statements I asked you about. But, I won't pursue this anymore. I just finished reading all of the new posts on the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 thread. I apologize for not responding all weekend. I guess we'll continue when the mods re-open the thread. BTW, at my church on Sunday, the pastor asked us to turn to 1 Peter 17-19. Talk about coincidence! Unfortunately, the pastor didn't focus on the portion that we're debating. Also, they use the NIV version of the bible. While I had the NIV bible though, I decided to turn to Genesis 2 and check out some of the wording. In the NIV version, Genesis 2:19 says:
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. It is interesting that the authors use the phrase "had formed". This particular interpretation does not lend itself to an apparent contradiction regarding the timeline, atleast not in that verse. Anyway, I don't want to go OT in this thread so I will wait till the thread is re-opened.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:34 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 147 of 271 (149230)
10-11-2004 9:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by dpardo
10-11-2004 5:57 PM
|
|
This particular interpretation does not lend itself to an apparent contradiction regarding the timeline, atleast not in that verse. Yes. Hence the purpose of the NIV "translation."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by dpardo, posted 10-11-2004 5:57 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 148 of 271 (150266)
10-16-2004 7:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by dpardo
10-11-2004 5:57 PM
|
|
dpardo responds to me:
quote:
It is interesting that the authors use the phrase "had formed".
Indeed. That is because you are using the NIV which deliberately mistranslates the text in order to get rid of these contradictions. They directly state that they are doing this. Why are you using a deliberate mistranslation and behaving as if it has any inkling of legitimacy?
quote:
This particular interpretation does not lend itself to an apparent contradiction regarding the timeline, atleast not in that verse.
Indeed. But then again, the Bible quite literally does not say what the NIV says it says. If I say that I met with Joe on Monday and Jane on Tuesday and then turn around and say that I met with Jane on Monday and Joe on Tuesday, to have you translate my words so that both seemingly say that I met Joe on Monday and Jane on Tuesday is a mistranslation, wouldn't you agree?
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by dpardo, posted 10-11-2004 5:57 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 149 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 11:36 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 149 of 271 (150281)
10-16-2004 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Rrhain
10-16-2004 7:14 AM
|
|
NIV translation
They directly state that they are doing this. Why are you using a deliberate mistranslation and behaving as if it has any inkling of legitimacy? Where do "they" directly state this?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 10-16-2004 7:14 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 10-16-2004 9:15 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 150 of 271 (150368)
10-16-2004 9:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by NosyNed
10-16-2004 11:36 AM
|
|
Re: NIV translation
NosyNed responds to me:
quote:
quote:
They directly state that they are doing this. Why are you using a deliberate mistranslation and behaving as if it has any inkling of legitimacy?
Where do "they" directly state this?
Have you not read the mission statement of the editors of the NIV? Here's a comment from their own publications:
In the Preface to the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation states that sometimes it was necessary to modify sentence structure and to move away from a word-for-word translation in order to be faithful to the thought of the biblical writers and to produce a truly accurate translation. Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to interpretational intrusions foisted on the text. While it may be true that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text, I would contend that overall this version has achieved a high level of accuracy by its philosophy of translation. By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation that captures the meaning of the original languages with greater precision. Not only do they mistranslate the text, they revel in and claim that they're actually fixing it. If I recall correctly, there was a thread that included examples of how the original text had two passages in contrdiciton and how the NIV rewrote one of them in order to eliminate the contradiction. For example, take a look at the KJV's 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 about the number of stalls Solomon had. 1 Kings 4:26: And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 2 Chronicles 9:25: And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. In the NIV, 1 Kings 4:26 has been "corrected" to four. And just in case you think this is a trivial issue, let's remember that this part of the thread started because of the idea that Genesis 2 is talking about animals that had already been created: KJV: Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Notice that we've gone from god creating the beasts right there and then to the NIV's claim that they had been made previously. And it isn't just here. NIV "corrects" the manner in which birds are created in Genesis 1: KJV: Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. NIV: Genesis 1:20: And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Suddenly, birds aren't made from the water anymore.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 11:36 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:24 PM | | Rrhain has not replied | | | Message 152 by CK, posted 10-17-2004 6:40 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
