Where did the Egyptians come from ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Please tell me where James says you are saved by your works.

---

I just did. The Greek word "dikaioo: to render righteous, declare one to be just, be freed" Pretty close eh? That much of the Biblical authors chose to use "sozo: to heal as is heal the sick and injured, the make whole" dosn't make it a magical phrase. Different words can describe the same phenomena.

quote:

---

Is James teaching contrary to what Christ and Paul taught? Or is he correcting those who would use Paul's teachings as a license for sin?

---

Not the point. It is directly in conflict with another verse in the Bible.

quote:

---

When in court, if your motive comes into question, your acts are examined. Nothing more than that is said by James.

---

But why? Once one has confessed with one's mouth one is saved. This court case is therefore superficial. But the author of James does not think so.Let's bring this back onto topic.....From where did the Egyptians come?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
RedVento, did your post have a purpose? Can you support anything you've said? It looks like it's a bunch of baseless babble. You can believe whatever you want... but to me, you're saying "The sky is purple." Is there some reason I should listen to you? Are you an authority on the matter? I'll try and mirror your post, so you can see what I'm saying.

​

I would propose that your rejection of the bible is because of your own deceitfulnes. If the Bible is the word of God, then there is an ultimate authority. If there is an ultimate authority, we have moral absolutes, right, and wrong. I would say that your blind, and a slave to sin -- and in your own arrogance, you've decided that you don't want to be responsible to anyone but yourself. You wish to be your own God. Even though you are a prisoner, you feel you have freedom. You see the Bible as a threat to this freedom, so you make assertions in which you could never possibly support. Such as "The bible isn't the word of God," or "The Universe is Big, therefore we are meaningless," or "the only reason religion exists is to create meaning," or "The bible is more than it ever intended to be." By convincing yourself that you have good cause to ignore Bible, you feel you have an excuse just incase the Bible IS the Word of God.

​

David

---

Actually the bible is the word of man, used to interpret god, written by man, for man. Whether it is God's work is highly debatable, where you see meaning and devine inspiration I see a moral code, and nothing more. As the origins of religion what I said holds true. Myths were born from a necessity to answer questions about the world(the sun and moon are gods that chase each other across the sky) and as a way to unite people. Judeism is sprung up the same way.I reject the bible as the word of god, as a moral code it is fine. I reject organized religions that use the word of god to perform attrocious acts(children's crusade anyone?) I reject religions that are so self important that they feel they can decide what is right and wrong for the rest of us(sex is evil, dancing is evil, music is evil) Organized religion is nothing more than a political powerbase that uses God as a scape goat. I AM responsible to myself, along with being responsible to society. If we take Genisis into account then I am made in God's image, and regardless of initial sin(which was a setup from the beginning, and taken from previous myths definetly NOT an original jewish idea), I am ultimatly responsible to those around me. We are ALL made in his image, responsible to each other. That is the meaning I take from the bible, and why as a moral code the bible is priceless. We are all "gods" on earth, judged by all those around us, saved by our own actions, responsible to ourselves and others. That is what I am saying.

--But why? Once one has confessed with one's mouth one is saved. This court case is therefore superficial. But the author of James does not think so.--Okay, I'll try one last time. I feel like we're back to pi... Paul says the same thing James says several times. He also says you are saved by grace only. If you study the Bible, and all passages relevant to salvation, you get a very clear picture. There is only a contradiction for those that want there to be one. If a person is saved, and they are true believers, then there WILL be positive result of their conversion to Christianity. There is no escpaping that fact.John 8:31; 15:6, 7; I Corinthians 15:1, 2; Colossians 1:23; James 2:14 — 26; II Peter 1:10.I don't know how easy it is for you to look up passages, just let me know if I always need to qoute them.Look at I John 4:20"If someone says, 'I love god,' and hates his brother, he is a liar."You might say you've accepted Christ as your savior, but if your works show contrary, you are a liar, and have not sincerely become a Christian. You are justified by your works.From where did the Egyptians come?They, like every other civilization, descended from one of Noah's sons. If you're asking me about the contradiction between accepted secular history and biblical history, I don't have any answers -- and I don't have time to research this one at the moment.I'm sure you can find many Christian websites that talk about it. I know AiG has a few articles on it. One interesting one about Egypt -- how Biblical and Secular go hand in hand up until a certain dynasty. Then several dynasties later, they match up perfectly again.I believe I read that the writings in which we got the history of Egypt from do not say which dynasties co-existed. So a lot of assumption went into the work. I'm pretty ignorant on this topic though.David

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Okay, I'll try one last time. I feel like we're back to pi...

---

I don't think so. The debate over pi and rounding numbers isn't a problem for me and it also isn't critical to anything theological as far as I can tell, exept for those insisting upon the absolute infallibility of the Bible. One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim. How one gets to heaven is critical.

quote:

---

Paul says the same thing James says several times. He also says you are saved by grace only.

---

You've just buttressed my case for me. Thanks.

quote:

---

If you study the Bible, and all passages relevant to salvation, you get a very clear picture.

---

You've just contracicted this.

quote:

---

There is only a contradiction for those that want there to be one.

---

And not a contradiction for those willing to interpret the problems out of the text. It is just as simple to come to a different conclusion, and numerous sects have done so.

quote:

---

If a person is saved, and they are true believers, then there WILL be positive result of their conversion to Christianity.

---

But this is not what the text I cited says.

quote:

---

There is no escpaping that fact.

---

hmmmm..... this then is another very bad blow for the religion as Christianity has a very bad record for producing positive results.What are you trying to prove with your list of quotes? Nothing there is unambiguous, especially when taken as a whole.

quote:

---

I don't know how easy it is for you to look up passages, just let me know if I always need to qoute them.

---

I can probably find anything you quote, but references are much appreciated and make things much easier.

quote:

---

"If someone says, 'I love god,' and hates his brother, he is a liar."

---

Luke 14:26-- If any man come to me, and hate not his father,a nd mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.So damned if you do, damned if you don't. How does one follow both sets of instructions? You have to hate everyone, yet to love God and hate someone you are a liar. We are all doomed.

quote:

---

They, like every other civilization, descended from one of Noah's sons. If you're asking me about the contradiction between accepted secular history and biblical history, I don't have any answers -- and I don't have time to research this one at the moment.

---

Well, this is the topic you joined. Let me summarize.There is appr. 400-500 years between the end of the Flood and the Isrealite contact with the egyptians. This means that in under five hundred years a world population of 8 swelled to many millions- enough to populate Egypt and all of the other cultures mentioned in the Bible. This, to me, is patently absurd, and I have researched and written much on my reasons why I believe so. Most of those reasons involve food supply and reproductive rates. The case is made worse by the fact that these cultures would also have to be allowed the time to build some fabulously large scale structures and prior to that develop the technology to do so. Someone else, I forget who, brought up the fact that also within those 500 years, the descendents of Noah would have had to fabricate myriads of complicated 'false' mythologies. This too is patently absurd. Christ, has held sway in the west for two thousand years based on the unverified legends of his existence. The same should hold in spades following an event of such magnitude as the flood.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

--One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim--To call rounding off an error, is just absurd.--You've just buttressed my case for me. Thanks.--I don't have time for that at all. Did you see my point? If I wasn't clear, tell me. Subtle Inflammatory remarks might be some people's way, but not mine -- I won't participate. "You just amde my point for me," is as childish responding to a simple mistake, "you're obviously ignorant on this matter..."--as simple to come to a different conclusion, and numerous sects have done so.--All verses fit with Eternal Security. Many verses do not fit with maintaining or losing salvation. Other sects have gone wrong. People cannot stand being helpless, and unable to earn their salvation. If they can't earn it, they can't feel as though they are better or more deserving than someone else.--hmmmm..... this then is another very bad blow for the religion as Christianity has a very bad record for producing positive results.--Again, this is ridiculous. Christianity has an excellent record and has done great things for the world. Any evil done in the world by supposed Christians are acts that are inconsistent with their supposed beliefs. On the other hand, great examples of Atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are being CONSISTENT with their athieistic/evolutionary beliefs.--Luke 14:26-- If any man come to me, and hate not his father,a nd mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.--I noticed that's the KJV version, so maybe you just copied it from SAB. One thing that guy fails to do on several cases is consider the context and the actual meaning of a message. Always read the passage of a verse you're qouting, and if you still think there is something wrong, go ahead.What do you think Jesus means when he says you must hate yourself and family to be a disciple?David

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
--One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim--

​

To call rounding off an error, is just absurd.

---

Please read my post carefully. What I stated was that this isn't a problem unless one insists upon ABSOLUTE INFALLABILITY. Absolute is absolute, there is no middle ground.

quote:

---

Did you see my point?

---

No. In fact, just the opposite, but upon stating that I am accused of being childish.

quote:

---

All verses fit with Eternal Security.

---

What is eternal security? I have never heard this before.

quote:

---

Many verses do not fit with maintaining or losing salvation.

---

Please be more clear.1) all verses fit with maintaining eternal security-- for the moment assuming this means that one cannot lose one's salvation.2) Many verses do not fit with maintaining one's salvation. This implies that some verses DO NOT FIT, but are nonetheless present?This is boggling my mind. All verses fit, but some do not fit?

quote:

---

Other sects have gone wrong.

---

On what basis can you make this claim? It is all interpretation.

quote:

---

People cannot stand being helpless, and unable to earn their salvation. If they can't earn it, they can't feel as though they are better or more deserving than someone else.

---

No argument, but I can find verses in the Bible to support either view.

quote:

---

Again, this is ridiculous. Christianity has an excellent record and has done great things for the world. Any evil done in the world by supposed Christians are acts that are inconsistent with their supposed beliefs.

---

Don't make me start naming Christian atrocities.What you have done is construct a rational whereby Christianity cannot lose. If Christians do good works, then you count their actions. If Christians kill millions, then you deny that they are Christians, thereby allowing the buck to be passed. THIS is ridiculous. If I constructed the same argument about humanism-- the humanists who create horrors are not REAL humanists, you would likely find an example of an admitted humanist who contradicts the claim. Yet you DO NOT allow this same criticism of Christianity.

quote:

---

On the other hand, great examples of Atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are being CONSISTENT with their athieistic/evolutionary beliefs.

---

Hitler, though much effort has been made to deny the fact, was a CHRISTIAN.Have a read. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtmlAnd by the way, I do not deny that non-Christians are nasty and brutish as well. I just deny that Christianity has done anything to improve the behavior of its adherants.

quote:

---

I noticed that's the KJV version, so maybe you just copied it from SAB.

---

Is this in the "How to defend Christianity" manual? To accuse your adversary of not being able to think? Just curious, I've met with many such accusations recently.

quote:

---

One thing that guy fails to do on several cases is consider the context and the actual meaning of a message. Always read the passage of a verse you're qouting, and if you still think there is something wrong, go ahead.

---

First, you are assuming I found this gem in SAB. I actually noticed it years ago while reading the Bible.Second, I always read the surrounding text.In case you are interested, I actually prefer Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible for looking up this sort of thing.

quote:

---

What do you think Jesus means when he says you must hate yourself and family to be a disciple?

---

There doesn't seem to be anything in the surrounding verse to modify the literal meaning.What I think he means, or what I want him to mean, is irrelevent. I take God at his word or I put words in his mouth.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Please read my post carefully. What I stated was that this isn't a problem unless one insists upon ABSOLUTE INFALLABILITY. Absolute is absolute, there is no middle ground.

---

Ahh -- Okay. Of course, that would be true wether God wrote the Bible or Not, considering Pi is irrational

quote:

---

What is eternal security? I have never heard this before.

---

It means you can never lose your salvation once you have it.

quote:

---

Please be more clear.

​

1) all verses fit with maintaining eternal security-- for the moment assuming this means that one cannot lose one's salvation.

​

2) Many verses do not fit with maintaining one's salvation. This implies that some verses DO NOT FIT, but are nonetheless present?

​

This is boggling my mind. All verses fit, but some do not fit?

---

You mentioned that some sects read the Bible to say you must have works to go to heaven or to maintain your salvation. What I'm saying is there are verses in the Bible that contradict that idea. However in the opposing view point, "Eternal Security," all verses of the Bible make sense.

quote:

---

On what basis can you make this claim? It is all interpretation.

---

It is not interpretation, it's false doctorine. I don't have a liberal view on the Bible whatsoever. (i.e. I don't agree that everyone's interpretation is valid.) This is just where I put my faith -- I accept the easiest and simplest message. If you want to make the Bible say you must earn salvation, you have to stretch it. Other examples of what I call false doctorines and you might call interpretation is the idea that Christ isn't God.

quote:

---

What you have done is construct a rational whereby Christianity cannot lose. If Christians do good works, then you count their actions. If Christians kill millions, then you deny that they are Christians, thereby allowing the buck to be passed. THIS is ridiculous. If I constructed the same argument about humanism-- the humanists who create horrors are not REAL humanists, you would likely find an example of an admitted humanist who contradicts the claim. Yet you DO NOT allow this same criticism of Christianity.

---

Yes, I have constructed that rational, because I believe it's true. Jesus was a perfect man and he was a fundamentalist Christian! I think a belief should be judged by it's fundamental principles, not the failing humans that try to carry them out.Do you think fundamental atheist/evolutionist principles lead to good things or bad things? Let me tell you what I see, and you tell me what you see.I see: no God, no Absolutes, no Right, no Wrong, we're just animals, we just want our genes passed on, love is for survival, selfless acts are for survival, God is for survival, death is normal, suffering is normal, the strong survive, the weak die off.Christian: God, absolutes, right, wrong, we're made in God's image, love comes from God, selflessness is for the glory of God, God is for worship, death and suffering is not normal -- it is caused from sin and will eventually no longer exist, rich/poor/strong/weak don't matter -- because all are equal in Christ.

quote:

---

Hitler, though much effort has been made to deny the fact, was a CHRISTIAN.

---

Was he? I know he was at odds with the Church because they were sending him letters criticizing what he was doing. But what is Hitler known for? Trying to create the perfect race -- which I see coming directly from Evolution.

quote:

---

And by the way, I do not deny that non-Christians are nasty and brutish as well. I just deny that Christianity has done anything to improve the behavior of its adherants.

---

I guess it depends on what you would define an improvement of behavior. It's certainly improved my own. But improvement being based on the Bible. (Sex, Drugs, Honoring my Parents, controlling anger and hate, and treating others with kindness.) Not perfect, but I do try to be Christian-Like. Maybe you don't see it as an improvement.

quote:

---

Is this in the "How to defend Christianity" manual? To accuse your adversary of not being able to think? Just curious, I've met with many such accusations recently.

---

Sorry, I was not trying to say you can't think. I just thought you might have copied the verse without reading the passage. I just think it is obvious what Jesus is saying. You must put him first, before anything else in the world. That includes things such as Sex, Money, and Drugs. But it also includes even your family. God should be first, always.

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be anything in the surrounding verse to modify the literal meaning.

​

What I think he means, or what I want him to mean, is irrelevent. I take God at his word or I put words in his mouth.

---

Everything else coming from Jesus is "don't hate your brother, love your enemy, love God." Doesn't it make sense to consider things in context?This passage is about being a disciple. Why would hating your family make you a better disciple? How does hate help you? On the other hand, what would make you a better disciple?In the 33rd verse of that chapter, that question is answered."So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple."I know I can't expect you to agree with me. It does say hate. But I hope you understand why I won't give up my belief of a Bible without contradictions because of this verse.David

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Ahh -- Okay. Of course, that would be true wether God wrote the Bible or Not, considering Pi is irrational

---

You know. I kept trying to tell my High School geometry teacher this same thing.... but... but pi is irrational!!!!

quote:

---

You mentioned that some sects read the Bible to say you must have works to go to heaven or to maintain your salvation. What I'm saying is there are verses in the Bible that contradict that idea. However in the opposing view point, "Eternal Security," all verses of the Bible make sense.

---

The two are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot have both at once. And it works both ways. You have admitted that some verses CONTRADICT other verses, but you then choose to accept one of the conflicting ideas rather than the other and somehow claim that there is not a problem. Really, this makes no sense. You can't claim that the latter-- eternal security-- encompasses both ideas because the ideas are fundamentally in conflict.

quote:

---

It is not interpretation, it's false doctorine.

---

This, my friend, is an interpretation!!!!

quote:

---

I don't have a liberal view on the Bible whatsoever. (i.e. I don't agree that everyone's interpretation is valid.)

---

Nor do I actually, but a case can be made for several alternate versions.

quote:

---

This is just where I put my faith -- I accept the easiest and simplest message. If you want to make the Bible say you must earn salvation, you have to stretch it. Other examples of what I call false doctorines and you might call interpretation is the idea that Christ isn't God.

---

You are right. This is the point I am laboring at in fact. You are convinced that your reading is the correct one, and it simply isn't that cut and dry.

quote:

---

Yes, I have constructed that rational, because I believe it's true. Jesus was a perfect man and he was a fundamentalist Christian!

---

I understand what you mean. But I also understand that there is equivocation in this line of reasoning. "Fundamentalist" is an interpretation not a fact. This point you seem to be missing.

quote:

---

I think a belief should be judged by it's fundamental principles, not the failing humans that try to carry them out.

---

Then apply this principle across the board.

quote:

---

Do you think fundamental atheist/evolutionist principles lead to good things or bad things?

---

I see: We have no one to blame but ourselvesChristian: God is a scapegoat for horror.

quote:

---

Was he? I know he was at odds with the Church because they were sending him letters criticizing what he was doing. But what is Hitler known for? Trying to create the perfect race -- which I see coming directly from Evolution.

---

Actually, he was trying to rebuild the perfect race --- that descended from Adam which had become corrupted. This springs direcly from the Bible.

quote:

---

I guess it depends on what you would define an improvement of behavior. It's certainly improved my own. But improvement being based on the Bible. (Sex, Drugs, Honoring my Parents, controlling anger and hate, and treating others with kindness.) Not perfect, but I do try to be Christian-Like. Maybe you don't see it as an improvement.

---

Really, I'm happy if the faith has improved your life. But I am not talking about specific cases. There are some bright spots in the darkness-- Meister Eckhart for one, Bishop Berkeley for another. But as a whole I see a history of blood, and destruction in the name of God. No I don't see that as an improvement of behavior.

quote:

---

Everything else coming from Jesus is "don't hate your brother, love your enemy, love God." Doesn't it make sense to consider things in context?

---

You are actually getting pretty close to the point I am trying to make, which is that the Bible isn't a coherent document. It is a collection of opinions written by people many years after the death of the reputed founder. The context changes. This is what makes it impossible to take it at face value as the word of God. That word changes with the peculiarities of the various authors, and it shouldn't if it were divinely inspired by the SAME God.

quote:

---

This passage is about being a disciple. Why would hating your family make you a better disciple? How does hate help you?

---

It could make you a faithful disciple. Think about the textbook mechanisms of cult-followings. Rule number one-- seperate your followers from thier friends and family.

quote:

---

In the 33rd verse of that chapter, that question is answered."So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple."

---

And if I went out preaching the same? I'd be labelled a destructive and parasitical cult leader.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The two are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot have both at once. And it works both ways. You have admitted that some verses CONTRADICT other verses, but you then choose to accept one of the conflicting ideas rather than the other and somehow claim that there is not a problem. Really, this makes no sense. You can't claim that the latter-- eternal security-- encompasses both ideas because the ideas are fundamentally in conflict.

---

No, I'm not saying some verses contradict others. I'm saying if you have anything but the "eternal security" viewpoint, there are verses that contradict what you believe.There are no verses that contradict what I say the Bible teaches:You are saved by grace only.
If you truly have accepted Christ, there will be a change in your actions.In other words, just because you are saved, does not mean you have a license for sin. If you haven't changed anything, you ought to re-examine if you've really become saved.In other other words, good works are a result of Salvation, not a requirement.

quote:

---

You are actually getting pretty close to the point I am trying to make, which is that the Bible isn't a coherent document. It is a collection of opinions written by people many years after the death of the reputed founder. The context changes. This is what makes it impossible to take it at face value as the word of God. That word changes with the peculiarities of the various authors, and it shouldn't if it were divinely inspired by the SAME God.

---

I said in another thread that one must become a believer, before the Bible makes any sense. You'd probably agree, but we would attribute it to different causes.If God can create the Universe, and Guide the course of events so that Christ would fulfill 17 prophecies in the OT, and get him crucified so our sins could be forgiven... I can also trust him to get me the Bible in good enough condition so that I can trust what it says.So yes, ultimately it's a faith issue, and there isn't any point in arguing with me! There, I said it! Besides... I can already see my nasty habit coming back -- i.e. spending way too much time on message boards.David

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
No, I'm not saying some verses contradict others.

---

Let me get this straight.

quote:

---

I'm saying if you have anything but the "eternal security" viewpoint, there are verses that contradict what you believe.

---

1) There are verses in the Bible which support "eternal security"
2) There are verses which contradict #1But...

quote:

---

There are no verses that contradict what I say the Bible teaches:

---

... there are no verses in the Bible which contradict other verses? Please tell me how this makes sense.

quote:

---

If you haven't changed anything, you ought to re-examine if you've really become saved.

---

So confessing belief isn't enough?

quote:

---

I said in another thread that one must become a believer, before the Bible makes any sense.

---

What leads one to become a believer? Reading a book that doesn't make sense? Since, as you say, it doesn't make sense until you believe. This is truly truly bizarre.

quote:

---

If God can create the Universe, and Guide the course of events so that Christ would fulfill 17 prophecies in the OT

---

hmmmm..... People who write a book with a previously written book in hand are more than capable of writing in 'fulfilled' prophecies.

quote:

---

I can also trust him to get me the Bible in good enough condition so that I can trust what it says.

---

Despite the overwhelming evidence of extensive editing?

quote:

---

So yes, ultimately it's a faith issue, and there isn't any point in arguing with me! There, I said it!

---

ah.... faith. You are right, there is no amount of fact that can shake good old blind faith.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Actually, you forgot one problem. The age until the offspring start reproducing. You have assumed that the offspring do not reproduce until the parents have gotten older by 30 yrs. If you use a generation time of say 20 yrs instead, it allows a population of - from a starting population of 1 couple- 227 million.
BTW, notice that countries with the worst sanitation have the biggest population growth-Eg, India and Africa. Some countries have net growth rates over 3% per year-and 8 people can produce over 6 billion people in 4300 years on a 0.477% per year net growth rate.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

---

The geneologies in the bible tend to show that the first-born
came around the 30th year of the father's life.Check out genesis 11 if you don't believe me ... also
Shem was 100 before he had ANY children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I've read research results (and I will try to dig them
out) that suggest that maximum human lifespans, in tha
absence of external factros would still not exceed (I think)
about 140 years.

---

​

I read an article (probably Scientific American or Discover) suggesting that if all disease where eliminated and aging stopped cold, we'd have very little chance of living past 600 without suffering a fatal injury.

​

quote:

---

Doesn't prove anything but its interesting.

---

​

---

The 140 year figure included normal aging I think.

quote:

---

1) There are verses in the Bible which support "eternal security"
2) There are verses which contradict #1

​

But...

---

I think you misread me for the third time! If you believe anything but eternal security, the Bible contradicts what you believe. If you believe in eternal security, the Bible does not contradict what you believe. I don't know how else to say it.

quote:

---

So confessing belief isn't enough?

---

If I tell someone I love them, but I don't act like it, I should question wether or not I love them. This is a very simple issue, there is no reason to drag it on like this.

quote:

---

Despite the overwhelming evidence of extensive editing? ah.... faith. You are right, there is no amount of fact that can shake good old blind faith.

---

Quite a claim. Zero support. Kinda like "If you have anything to add to the bible-has-been-edited topic, please say so. If you're going to quote the same old anti-Bible propaganda from deceitful, blind and lost men, save both of us the time and don't bother."David

I might be wrong, but you and John appear to be at
cross purposes.I think you are saying that, if one adopts a particular view
(eternal security) then the bible does not contradict it.While John is saying that there are passages in the bible
which contradict one another.The question then being how does one decide which passage is
correct if they offer mutually exclusive advice/opinion/etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
I think you misread me for the third time!

---

I am not misreading. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.

quote:

---

Quite a claim. Zero support.

---

uhhh.... you mean like the notes of the people who actually did the editing? We have those, in some cases.

quote:

---

Kinda like "If you have anything to add to the bible-has-been-edited topic, please say so. If you're going to quote the same old anti-Bible propaganda from deceitful, blind and lost men, save both of us the time and don't bother."

---

I really don't need to add anything. The issue is settled, at least in that the Bible has been repeated editted. Some debate remains on exactly what has been altered/removed/added. Though you may dismiss that evidence based on your own biases, it really does not reflect well upon you.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com