Misconceptions about God?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I already gave my rational explanation. That's exactly what the verse says in my Bible.

You must be talking about when you said:

Romans 3:25 isn't saying anything about the mercy seat on the ark. It's talking about the remission of our sins through His (Jesus) blood.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now, please address this verse since you claim it's not Biblical. (And yes it says exactly "remission of sins")
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the New Living version, which simplifies it:

. . . This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

where "did not punish" is the interpretation of "remission" in the KJV.

You have to resort to an obscure version to deny the traditional Christian text, that doesn't make a particularly strong argument in your case.

Do you think every version other than the KJ is 'obscure'?
And do you think that the New Living Bible is so way off from 'traditional' Christianity?

Then you refer to modern scholarship, (not conservative traditional scholarship), and a large portion of modern scholars are quite liberal in their theology these days.

This is a fallacy taught to you by your cult to persuade you not to read actual academic books that would immediately uncover the lies they are telling you.

Save the pity personal attacks, they're meaningless.

You need to be confronted with the truth that you have adopted all the beliefs of a cult, that have no relationship with actual accepted norms of modern biblical scholarship.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

. . . the SDA organization has sponsored its own translation, called The Clear Word.

The clear word version was something I asked about at church since I did hear the name mentioned.
I have never seen a clear word Bible and don't know anyone who owns one and never heard anyone quote from it.
It never comes up in church publications like the sabbath school lesson quarterlies.
My understanding of it is that it is not connected with the church officially.
There is probably people involved who are Adventists.
I really haven't looked into it further because it doesn't seem to be an issue, at least not to me.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So what in Earth did Christians do before NetBible and the NLT(1996)???

I guess God abandoned His sheep in a spiritual wasteland?

What would I want a paraphrase Bible for serious study of the Word of God?

You need to be confronted with the truth that you have adopted all the beliefs of a cult, that have no relationship with actual accepted norms of modern biblical scholarship.

What are you talking about? I'm reading plain-English from my Bible. I posted the verse from the KJV.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What would I want a paraphrase Bible for serious study of the Word of God?

Because you need it because you have a comprehension problem.
I gave you suggestions as to the context of the verse.
You are incapable, it seems, to look at that because it goes against the cult pretend context.
You are missing the most fundamental ideas being discussed in the verse.
I told you but you seem to think I am getting my ideas from Satan or something because your cult uses fear of demons to keep you from listening to reasonable suggestions.
So, if I can quote an actual mainstream Christian translation, that is saying the same thing, you might be able to overcome your paranoia to at least consider a normal, non-cult reading.
So, back to the verse, the 'righteousness' being discussed in Paul's argument, is God's, and not 'ours'.
The forgiveness is really the passing over that God did about the sins of the gentiles before the death of Jesus.
Jesus, according to the discussion by Paul, is the new mercy seat.
Hebrews goes into detail on that concept to explain that the blood of Jesus is the admission into the most holy place, there to inaugurate a new system, better than the old, because it has the ability to make people actually better, rather than just covering over sins.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What are you talking about? I'm reading plain-English from my Bible. I posted the verse from the KJV.

Well, it's not plain English, it's sixteenth century pseudo-English, plus the translators were under orders from the head of the Church of England (the king) to have it turn out to support its doctrines, which at this time was influenced by the drive towards "Free Grace" promoted by people like Luther and Calvin.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What are you talking about? I'm reading plain-English from my Bible. I posted the verse from the KJV.

Well, it's not plain English, it's sixteenth century pseudo-English, plus the translators were under orders from the head of the Church of England (the king) to have it turn out to support its doctrines, which at this time was influenced by the drive towards "Free Grace" promoted by people like Luther and Calvin.

Actually it would be 17th century, and secondly I didn't post from the 1611 translation, I don't even own a 1611.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No paraphrase thanks, I prefer the word for word translation. Jesus said man shall live by "every" word of God, He didn't say the general idea of God's word.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No paraphrase thanks, I prefer the word for word translation. Jesus said man shall live by "every" word of God, He didn't say the general idea of God's word.

Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy and it had to do with manna from heaven and how it taught the Israelites a lesson, to trust in the Lord.
Jesus is applying the same principle, that God would provide.
He was not giving a lesson in biblical interpretation.
Also, Paul wrote Romans, it is not Paul taking dictation from a voice on a mountain.
This is just another example of your cult's brainwashing techniques, twisting the meanings of scripture to suite their needs, which is to accept two or three word phrases as truth, when they are applied out of context to mean something completely different than the original intended meaning,
Well go ahead and do a word for word breakdown of the meaning of Romans 3:25, to tell us what it 'really' means.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So Jesus didn't mean what He said?

Every time I make a thread in this forum jmdewey comes in calling everyone a cult member and twisting everyone's words until the thread gets derailed. I'm really tired of it.

I don't care what church he attends. Bottom line is that he doesn't know the same Jesus I know.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You're full of it and everyone knows it. I've tried being nice and reasoning with you many times before, but I won't put up with another derailed thread.

Go spread your cultist propaganda elsewhere.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

Go spread your cultist propaganda elsewhere.

There is no cult teaching me.
At my church, I get a bad rap, too, because I see members there picking up the man-made philosophies that come from the big cult, in my mind at least, which is Dispensationalism.
It is not a church or a denomination but it is a complete belief system, one that people adopt and take to whatever church they go to, and spread it around.
The reason I call it a cult is the cultish nature of how it is adopted by people, which is they accept all the precepts of it, an all or nothing proposition, which to me says, cult, in great big letters.
If that is not the definition of, cult, then I don't know what is.

Only one scripture comes to mind right now.

"If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
-1 John 4:20

reply to post by DarkKnight21


If you love someone, then you warn them when you see them picking up man-made cultish beliefs that go against the god-made beliefs that we are supposed to have from the correct interpretation of the Bible.

reply to post by jmdewey60


...I don't think you've convinced anyone you have the "correct" interpretation of the Bible when you swear on extra, non-biblical books and ignore key scriptures like John 3:16.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

...I don't think you've convinced anyone you have the "correct" interpretation of the Bible when you swear on extra, non-biblical books and ignore key scriptures like John 3:16.

I explained earlier on this thread that I don't subscribe to mindlessly accepting modern books in a cultish fashion as being somehow 'inerrant'.
So I don't know what books you think I "swear" by.
And how do you think that I am ignoring John 3:16?
God loved the world. I believe that.
He (God) gave His only begotten son. ditto.
That those who believe in him can have everlasting life. OK, but it still doesn't prove your theory on having to pay some nebulous "Justice" entity, who demands payment for sins.
It doesn't say anything about that.
What it does describe is the light that Jesus brought to the people of this planet, that people can follow Jesus by walking in that light, and so, achieve that life eternal, not by our own efforts but thanks to that sacrifice of Jesus and God, paving the way for us, in how to live, and how to be resurrected to a glorious kind of life when this one is over.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Read it again, in context please.

John 3:16-21

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He didn't come specifically to condemn, but to save, that was the idea, but he did condemn the world system. That was part of the saving the world, bringing in a new age with a new system. That would be Christianity. There is another type of Judgement of the world in that new age, the one we live in, because the spirit is in the world working to draw people to Christ, and those who resist that spirit now come under condemnation of the new form of Judgment in this new system.