Search results

Apparently you have comprehension problems. (Rom. 5:13) "..until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Stranger

(Rom. 5:13) does not say "No sin- where there is no Law" . It says (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." It says just the opposite. Nice smoke screen. Stranger

Again, you are not paying attention. (Rom. 5:13-14) shows you are mistaken in your post (#1056) and in your fantasy of Abraham being under law. Plus you said where there is no law there is no sin, and that is just opposite what (Rom. 5:13-14) is saying. Stranger

You need to pay attention. You need to give the chapter and verse. (Rom. 5:13-14) says just opposite of what you said. Sin existed before the Law. That is why death reigned. It reigned over them that were not under the law. That is the whole point of these verses. Stranger

You can repeat your usual all you want. See again (Rom. 5:13-14) There was no law from Adam to Moses. When Abraham lived, there was no Law. Is (Rom. 5:13-14) speculation? Stranger

My argument is with you not the text. The Law did not exist in the days of Abraham. Paul states in (Rom. 5:13-14) that "...until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses." What does that mean? It means...

The statement of Clements doesn't hide your ignorance of James of (Acts 12) and James the Lords brother and head of the Jerusalem Church. And Clements ain't Scripture. Stranger

Where does the statement that Eve shall be mother of all living come from, Einstein? Who said it? In your post (#164) you clearly made the gross error of not knowing James of (Acts 12) was not the same as James who was the Lord's brother and leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Now you do...

Without a doubt there are many symbols in the book of Revelation. As was stated at the beginning of the book. (Rev. 1:1) "...and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" Which means it was made known through the use of signs and symbols. It is the interpretation of such...

Myself. I don't see how we have any other choice. Everything I don't like is in the Democratic party. Stranger

Usually when I vote I try and vote for the individual. Sometimes it will cross party lines. But this year, if ever there was a time to vote straight ticket, this is the one. The Nation is divided. During the Supreme Court hearings we saw the Democrats united in stopping at nothing to stop...

I know it sounds all good and patriotic, but America is anything but united. One has only to keep up with current events to see that. Americans love to sing of unity, but that is a myth. Stranger

You gave two quotes from Ryrie. One was on (p. 37). The other on (p.45). No need to thank me for making up for your poor work. The milk's on me. Stranger

I would say that the Bible is the Word of God that comes from the very mouth of God. Of course we have the Spirit of God and Christ in us, so that we communicate and walk with Him. And He directs us in matters not mentioned in the Bible, but that will not contradict what He has said in the...

GodsGrace But the written Law makes a difference. It makes men accountable to it. It makes men transgressors and not just sinners. That is what the Mosaic Law did. (Rom. 5:13-14) "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death...

Made mistakes!? If, as you say, Abraham was obeying all these laws and commandments, then why don't you say he was equally breaking all these laws and commandments? Why don't you say Abraham was sinning against God? Thus why would God establish a Covenant with Abraham when he was such a...

This has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law which did not exist at this time. God had given no such Law at this time. Abraham was under no such Law at this time. Abraham obeyed the voice of God and in so doing was obeying what later would be in the Mosaic Law. Stranger

No, you're the one manipulating my quotes. It is your scenario I protest. It is your dishonesty I protest. Stranger

My point was and is your dishonesty in not presenting the full statement. Which you continue to do. If you are willing to do that, patch and piece words out of their context in order to bolster your case, then no doubt you do the same with the Bible. Which means what? Your not...

To quote part of what I said, and not all of what I said, in order to give the appearance that I agree with you is being dishonest. That is the trap you fall in when you pick partial phrases and statements out of what people write to bolster your argument. My statement in post #967 concerned...