The Ones Who Are Left…

[Naomi25]

I believe the Bible is true.
You elect to use language men have devised to explain Scripture they can not explain.

Jesus IS the Lamb of God.
Is that ^ to SAY Jesus is a four legged animal, “according to a mans understanding” of what an animal is that is called by the identity of a lamb?

Or is that...Jesus IS the Lamb of God...to SAY God calls things as He pleases? Period.
I simply leave it at, God calls things as He pleases, without adding, what God means or doesn’t mean.

Just saying....what is a lamb, according to a mans understanding? An animal. A white four legged animal, a black four legged animal, a spotted four legged animal, a gentle four legged animal, a stubborn four legged animal, a small four legged animal, a big four legged animal, skinny four legged animal, a woolly four legged animal.....what metaphor, are individual men deciding? IDK

You can play with words as much as you like, but the simple fact is this: taking the bible “literally”…or perhaps “literalistically” insists a hermeneutic you yourself cannot uphold. You must allow for allegory and metaphor. Except, when YOU do it, its normal and right….and when I do it, its horrible liberalism symbology that is destroying the word of God.
Hypocrisy? I think so.

 

[Naomi25]

"There can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than one truth"- Earburner.

You…quote yourself?
You…couldn’t just say it…because it was you speaking.
You…had to put it in quote marks…and then tell me it was you speaking?
…..?
…..!

 

[Earburner]

Excuse me? I CHANGED what the bible says?

People do it every day!!
All they have to do is quote from any one of a whole assortment of different bibles, and neglect the KJV Bible.

 

[Earburner]

You…quote yourself?
You…couldn’t just say it…because it was you speaking.
You…had to put it in quote marks…and then tell me it was you speaking?
…..?
…..!

So what! God gave those things to me to understand and to say quite awhile ago. They were not given to someone else to say.
It seems that you are easily offended, when things are not looking exactly like anything that is out the box of your form of "church-ianity". You sound like you are too tightly wrapped.

 

[Taken]

Excuse me? I CHANGED what the bible says? That is a serious charge, and I would hope before slinging something like that out, you would take the short amount of time needed to CHECK you weren’t blowing smoke.

Apologize and removed.
We use different Bibles.

 

[Taken]

You can play with words as much as you like, but the simple fact is this: taking the bible “literally”…or perhaps “literalistically” insists a hermeneutic you yourself cannot uphold. You must allow for allegory and metaphor. Except, when YOU do it, its normal and right….and when I do it, its horrible liberalism symbology that is destroying the word of God.
Hypocrisy? I think so.

What you think is of no worry to me.

 

[Naomi25]

People do it every day!!
All they have to do is quote from any one of a whole assortment of different bibles, and neglect the KJV Bible.

Ah. You’re one of those folks who believe only the KJV is the inerrant word of God.
Which means any further reasoning with you is more or less pointless.

 

[Naomi25]

So what! God gave those things to me to understand and to say quite awhile ago. They were not given to someone else to say.
It seems that you are easily offended, when things are not looking exactly like anything that is out the box of your form of "church-ianity". You sound like you are too tightly wrapped.

This has nothing to do with what God may have revealed to you, “church-ianty” or how “tightly wrapped” I might be.
Quoting yourself when just speaking your own words would have the same function, is the mark of either the arrogant or insane.

 

[Naomi25]

Apologize and removed.
We use different Bibles.

Thank you. I appreciate someone who can admit it…shows character.

 

[Naomi25]

What you think is of no worry to me.

I don’t suppose it is. However the facts remain the same. You claim a literal view of scripture. But demure under pressure about analogy and symbology, about how it’s ‘literal reading’ of the intended text. That, however, is not what ‘literal’ means.

“Literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration, and: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.”

When we come faithfully to scripture, ALL scripture, we must at the first recognize that some of it is meant to be read ‘literally’, but some of it is meant to be taken as the author presents it. Sometimes it is poetry. Sometimes it is prophecy. Sometimes it is a letter. Sometimes is it apocalyptic. Sometimes it is a mixture. ALL of it is true. And a faithful reader will seek to understand how the author is presenting it, and read accordingly.

Insisting that ALL the bible must be read literally, and then allowing for metaphor and allegory…is just linguistically wrong. And that, my friend, is not ‘thinking’ or ‘opinion’, but fact.

 

[Earburner]

Ah. You’re one of those folks who believe only the KJV is the inerrant word of God.
Which means any further reasoning with you is more or less pointless.

Then you have not understood when it was that Daniel 9:24 took place, who God determined it for, or why Jesus pointed to Dan. 9:24 in the first place.

So, my question is, who was it that "finished" all the works of God, that are listed below?
[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins, and
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
5.to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
6. to anoint the most Holy.
Now you can understan KJV Luke 18:22, 32 and why Jesus pointed to Daniel 9:24.

 

[Naomi25]

Then you have not understood when it was that Daniel 9:24 took place, who God determined it for, or why Jesus pointed to Dan. 9:24 in the first place.

So, my question is, who was it that "finished" all the works of God, that are listed below?
[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins, and
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
5.to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
6. to anoint the most Holy.
Now you can understan KJV Luke 18:22, 32 and why Jesus pointed to Daniel 9:24.

Friend. I will not waste my time conversing with you on this matter, when everything I put forth is based on a bible version you dismiss as false. That gives you an illegitimate ‘excuse’ to wave away anything and everything I say from the get-go based solely on bible translation, without even pretending to do the work of exegesis.
Needless to say, I disagree heartily with your exegesis of Matthew 18:22 and it’s link (or supposed link) to Daniel 9:24. Unless you also want to draw the same conclusion with everything else in scripture, as Daniel 9:24 is speaking of the ultimate end of sins and transgressions…the end of the story…what we all, with up-turned faces, look towards being consummated. But beyond that…everyday forgiveness between people is just that.

 

[Earburner]

Friend. I will not waste my time conversing with you on this matter, when everything I put forth is based on a bible version you dismiss as false. That gives you an illegitimate ‘excuse’ to wave away anything and everything I say from the get-go based solely on bible translation, without even pretending to do the work of exegesis.
Needless to say, I disagree heartily with your exegesis of Matthew 18:22 and it’s link (or supposed link) to Daniel 9:24. Unless you also want to draw the same conclusion with everything else in scripture, as Daniel 9:24 is speaking of the ultimate end of sins and transgressions…the end of the story…what we all, with up-turned faces, look towards being consummated. But beyond that…everyday forgiveness between people is just that.

My error in the above- not Luke 18 but rather Matthew 18.

What does Matthew 18:32 say?
[32] Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
See Daniel 9[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins,
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness,...

 

[Naomi25]

My error in the above- not Luke 18 but rather Matthew 18.

What does Matthew 18:32 say?
[32] Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
See Daniel 9[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins,
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness,...

Sir…if you find it troublesome to differentiate between a prophecy dealing with the sins of all mankind against God…and a parable Jesus is telling to illustrate to those around him how we ourselves ought to forgive others…then may I suggest you might find it helpful branching out into other bible translations…?

 

[Taken]

I don’t suppose it is. However the facts remain the same. You claim a literal view of scripture. But demure under pressure about analogy and symbology, about how it’s ‘literal reading’ of the intended text. That, however, is not what ‘literal’ means.

“Literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration, and: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.”

When we come faithfully to scripture, ALL scripture, we must at the first recognize that some of it is meant to be read ‘literally’, but some of it is meant to be taken as the author presents it. Sometimes it is poetry. Sometimes it is prophecy. Sometimes it is a letter. Sometimes is it apocalyptic. Sometimes it is a mixture. ALL of it is true. And a faithful reader will seek to understand how the author is presenting it, and read accordingly.

Insisting that ALL the bible must be read literally, and then allowing for metaphor and allegory…is just linguistically wrong. And that, my friend, is not ‘thinking’ or ‘opinion’, but fact.

*I don’t insist anything for anyone.
* I revealed my preference of reading Scripture and accepting Scripture as literal.
* HOW the author presents the Scripture; be it called poetry, prophecy, letter, apocalyptic, proverbs, songs, parables, is of no matter to me.
* Men in a sense striking out literal to explain away Scripture as figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical, whatever to divide is not my preference.
* My preference is the simplicity of Parallels.
* From the beginning, we Learned THAT Man WAS “created and made” in Gods “likeness”.
* A “Parallel” of one person or thing, having a “similar/ likeness” to another.
* Straight away, we learned HOW a person became NOT in Gods “likeness”.
* For centuries, bit by bit, generation by generation, we learned HOW a person could; by, through, of Gods Grace, Gods Wisdom, Gods Word, Gods Power “and” mans free willingness of acceptance, that a person could Be “WHOLLY MADE” (body, soul, spirit) “parallel” in Gods “likeness”....
Paralleled, similar, like....God, (and WITH God)....without “being” God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Naomi25]

*
* HOW the author presents the Scripture; be it called poetry, prophecy, letter, apocalyptic, proverbs, songs, parables, is of no matter to me.

See this ^^^ right here? You’re aware the author of scripture is ultimately the Holy Spirit, right? Does it matter to you how he inspired the Word to be written?
If that is still “of no matter to you” then you have much bigger problems than we are attempting to speak of on this thread…

 

[Taken]

Sir…if you find it troublesome to differentiate between a prophecy dealing with the sins of all mankind against God and a parable Jesus is telling to illustrate to those around him how we ourselves ought to forgive other ...then may I suggest you might find it helpful branching out into other bible translations…?

Scripture itself reveals two different things.... Trespasses AND Sins
Eph 2
[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Trespass is a ‘mans’ offense AGAINST a person or thing.
Sin is an ‘mans’ offense AGAINST God.

The “person” a man Trespasses AGAINST, certainly there should be “forgiveness” between the “person and person” ie. (man and man).

Sin AGAINST God, is ONLY Forgiven, BY God.

WHAT separates, and is different, between the “FORGIVING”, IS WHO does the forgiving....AND WHAT is the forgiving for.

WHAT IS SIN...AGAINST GOD? Flat out... DISBELIEF in God.
(NEW COVENANT)

WHAT IS SIN...AGAINST MAN? ... men not believing in men? No.

Men Trespass AGAINST Men....men lie to men, men cheat men, men steal from men, men deceive men, men enter men’s homes, property, vehicles, without consent, men rape persons without consent, men make make up lies, rumors to discredit other men, on and on.

Can men Forgive men of Trespasses Against them? Certainly.

Can men Trespass Against God? Certainly. Can God forgive a mans Trespasses? Certainly.

Can men Forgive men of SIN? Yes and No.
*Yes, IF that man IS UNDER THE LAW, because Violation OF the Law, “was” a SIN...and “is” a SIN...”IF” the man “IS” under the Law.
*No, IF that man IS NOT UNDER THE LAW, because the Violation IS Disbelief IN God, and only forgiven BY God.

WHAT SIN IS....and WHO or WHAT IS a SIN Committed AGAINST:
is wholly dependent upon “WHAT” applies to an individual man.
The Old Covenant....OR....The New Covenant.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

See this ^^^ right here? You’re aware the author of scripture is ultimately the Holy Spirit, right?

Well aware of what I see and said.

Does it matter to you how he inspired the Word to be written?

No.

If that is still “of no matter to you” then you have much bigger problems than we are attempting to speak of on this thread…

It is of no matter to me, WHAT format, God “CHOSE” to reveal “HIS WORD”, in poetry, in ink on paper, in stone, in parables, in visions....SO WHAT?

Does HOW God Chose to reveal His Word, “matter to you”? WHY? Do you have some criticism, of HOW God reveals, “should have” been “according to you” ?

 

[Naomi25]

Scripture itself reveals two different things.... Trespasses AND Sins
Eph 2
[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Trespass is a ‘mans’ offense AGAINST a person or thing.
Sin is an ‘mans’ offense AGAINST God.

The “person” a man Trespasses AGAINST, certainly there should be “forgiveness” between the “person and person” ie. (man and man).

Sin AGAINST God, is ONLY Forgiven, BY God.

WHAT separates, and is different, between the “FORGIVING”, IS WHO does the forgiving....AND WHAT is the forgiving for.

WHAT IS SIN...AGAINST GOD? Flat out... DISBELIEF in God.
(NEW COVENANT)

WHAT IS SIN...AGAINST MAN? ... men not believing in men? No.

Men Trespass AGAINST Men....men lie to men, men cheat men, men steal from men, men deceive men, men enter men’s homes, property, vehicles, without consent, men rape persons without consent, men make make up lies, rumors to discredit other men, on and on.

Can men Forgive men of Trespasses Against them? Certainly.

Can men Trespass Against God? Certainly. Can God forgive a mans Trespasses? Certainly.

Can men Forgive men of SIN? Yes and No.
*Yes, IF that man IS UNDER THE LAW, because Violation OF the Law, “was” a SIN...and “is” a SIN...”IF” the man “IS” under the Law.
*No, IF that man IS NOT UNDER THE LAW, because the Violation IS Disbelief IN God, and only forgiven BY God.

WHAT SIN IS....and WHO or WHAT IS a SIN Committed AGAINST:
is wholly dependent upon “WHAT” applies to an individual man.
The Old Covenant....OR....The New Covenant.

Glory to God,
Taken

Have we not been over this before???
Matt 18:15 tells us that “if your brother sins against you…”
Regardless if the translation you read says transgression, the greek is “hamartanó”….which is most often translated as “sin”. If “sin” could only…and was ever only of man against God…then the author would have been forced to use a different word here.

 

[Taken]

Have we not been over this before???
Matt 18:15 tells us that “if your brother sins against you…”
Regardless if the translation you read says transgression, the greek is “hamartanó”….which is most often translated as “sin”. If “sin” could only…and was ever only of man against God…then the author would have been forced to use a different word here.

If YOU are the Forgiver of Sin...
What is the Point of the Good News Gospel and New Covenant?

Matt 18:
[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Mark 2
[7] Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Luke.5
[21] And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Matt 6
[14] For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: