Search results

Well maybe so, but it is a tormented existence throughout eternity, and we agree on that, so I'm not sure why you're saying that to me, as if I think otherwise. Certainly it will be a terrible torment to them... and unending. I mean, it's frightening (to put it mildly) to even think about at...

No doubt. Grace and peace to you, Jack.

All we have to do to understand that people aren't literally on fire or being burned ~ much less in a literal "lake of fire," which seemingly a contradiction in and of itself; a lake is a body of water, not fire ~ is read, even in a cursory fashion, Jesus's parable in Luke 16. The rich man, who...

Right. And never has He promised to remove His people from trial or tribulation or trouble, but to walk with them and deliver them through it. Right... and, well, after, too... <smile> Of course, then, there will be no more trouble of any kind. <smile> Grace and peace to all.

Absolutely not. For you to accuse me of that... I mean, you can't; I'm not denying the original prophecies in any way whatsoever. Absolutely. But the promise is much bigger than you make it out to be. Even ~ probably ~ much greater than even the prophets of old realized. Right, who is...

Right, and they were both in paradise, that day. Neither one of them physically, as Jesus's body was obviously in the tomb, and presumably the thief's was, too, but still, regarding their spirits ~ Jesus committed His spirit to the Father and breathed His last (Luke 23:46)... He said "It is...

But his prophecy was made while the Jews were in Babylon, Marks, in Babylonian captivity. Yes, his prophecies were as yet future even then, but his prophecies had an immediate fulfillment ~ when King Cyrus later released them and they returned to the promised land ~ and will have an ultimate...

He certainly did. No one here disputes that. The only question, Marks ~ the question you seemingly refuse to entertain ~ is whether that promise made by God had an immediate or an ultimate fulfillment. The answer, of course, is yes. He did save Israel, leading them through the Exodus to the...

That's just not true. Hmmm. So, give me one or two. <smile> It is. So is the ESV. And the NIV. See above. It's impossible to go strictly one-to-one from the Koine Greek to English. The language structure of the two is very different, I disagree that emphasis is lost, but am willing to...

The ESV adheres to an "essentially literal" translation philosophy, taking into account differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Even still, it emphasizes word-for-word accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning. Ah, I...

Yes, I guessed the KJV. I would argue that the ESV (and NASB and NIV) are not less literal than the KJV. My issue with the KJV... if it could really be called that... is not regarding its literal-ness, really, but rather that, because of the antiquated 15th century English, it is in many...

So, since I answered your question, I would ask (again) that you answer my question. <smile> Is there some reason why you won't specify your own preferred translation? What is it? Again, no matter, but I'm willing to speak to you on your terms. <smile> Grace and peace to you.

I guess I could have been more explicit, but I'm directly quoting the English Standard Version. So, I don't "don't want to say," if that makes sense, and no, it's not "my own translation." Is there some reason why you won't specify your own preferred translation? I mean, no matter, really...

I prefer, in order, the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV. But I will speak to you in terms of the one you prefer, just for your sake. It does. In Romans 2:28-29, he specifically says who true Jews are, and in Romans 8, he speaks of all who are in Christ Jesus being no longer under condemnation, and...

They all say the same thing. What translation would you prefer? Grace and peace to you.

Ah, I meant you might make my answer out to be ambiguous, when it's not. Right, but the answer can be no and yes... depending on the sense in which the question is asked, and with both senses in view at the same time, can be both no and yes at the same time. LOL! Well see??? So this is what...

See above. Right, but not overly so. That's the problem. Yes, the prophets only saw the immediate. But that doesn't negate the ultimate. I did no such thing. I'm not. <smile> Never would I do such a thing. Grace and peace to you.

Ahhhh, good question. So ~ there can be no ambiguity in this, although you will try to make it so ~ no... and yes... it depends on the sense in which that question is asked. No, in the sense of the immediate fulfillment, but yes in the sense that what God was saying through the prophets was...

Ah, so the question then is, Marks, who is the house of Israel? Just Jews? Well, in a sense, yes, but really, God's true Jews, in the sense that Paul speaks of them in: Romans 2:28-29 ~ "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical... a Jew is one...

We agree on that, of course, and that's what I was saying to him. But that's where he's ~ mistakenly, of course ~ getting that idea from. Right; Paul uses the word harpazo in the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage. You know that, I think. That's what he's referring to, Grace and peace to you.