We can only hate things and concepts.

[Born_Again]

John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Okay, if we are all done beating each other up......Lets look at this one to get started...... Christ died for all sinners.. That cannot be refuted. But what 3:16 is referring to is that yes, He died for all sinners but ONLY THOSE who believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life...

As I read through a lot of these posts, we have a breakdown in translation and the more I read the less stock I am putting in KJV, or at least those who cant seem to interpret it for what it is..

I have pointed out in numerous other posts about all the translations meaning the same thing but you need to bust out your thesaurus. (A history book or two wouldn't hurt either)

Stanj, Love ya brother but.....
Matthew 13:37-39 says NOTHING about God's love, it's talking about salvation"

How do you figure? I read a few different versions of the same verse and I don't pick up on "Salvation" in that. I see that as "Being the example of God and Christ.. Sewing the good seed. If it were about salvation, would that mean those who go out in the world, sewing the good seed are giving salvation... which we cannot do. Only Christ can give salvation. Help me out here Stan...... I don't follow how it's not about love....

I'll be back with more... after some research.


BA

 

[StanJ]

John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Okay, if we are all done beating each other up......Lets look at this one to get started...... Christ died for all sinners.. That cannot be refuted. But what 3:16 is referring to is that yes, He died for all sinners but ONLY THOSE who believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life...

As I read through a lot of these posts, we have a breakdown in translation and the more I read the less stock I am putting in KJV, or at least those who cant seem to interpret it for what it is..

I have pointed out in numerous other posts about all the translations meaning the same thing but you need to bust out your thesaurus. (A history book or two wouldn't hurt either)

Stanj, Love ya brother but.....
Matthew 13:37-39 says NOTHING about God's love, it's talking about salvation"

How do you figure? I read a few different versions of the same verse and I don't pick up on "Salvation" in that. I see that as "Being the example of God and Christ.. Sewing the good seed. If it were about salvation, would that mean those who go out in the world, sewing the good seed are giving salvation... which we cannot do. Only Christ can give salvation. Help me out here Stan...... I don't follow how it's not about love....

I'll be back with more... after some research.


BA

Luv ya too Bro.

Yes I agree BA. My point was the WORLD contains ALL mankind, and WHOSOEVER are those who accept the Son's redemption. What many people don't get is that redemption is one thing and salvation is another. That's why John 3:16 says two things, that God provided the WORLD redemption and that those who accept that redemption are saved and receive eternal life. Basic salvation 101 IMO.

As far as Matt 13 is concerned v38 makes it pretty clear the sower is sowing salvation, and He is Jesus as v37 teaches. Luke 8 is also talking about this same thing. As FHII was being vague, I took a shot at what he was actually referring to, but as he refuses to support his assertions, I don't really know what he was referring to. It's a lot to deal with but as the word field was involved, and Jesus explains what that field was in v38, I thought it might provide some clarification. Quite honestly I was not hopeful, given our exchange up to that point.
Oh well, onward and upward.

 

[FHII]

Funny how he uses the NIV when it suits him but resorts to the old KJV when it doesn't. This is a typical ploy for those that read the bible eisegetically.
You can lead a horse to water but sadly if they don't want to drink it in, they won't.

Well, I agree with you there, Stan,. Thats why I stay with the kjv. But the funny thing is that justaname is on your side on this.

 

[StanJ]

Well, I agree with you there, Stan,. Thats why I stay with the kjv. But the funny thing is that justaname is on your side on this.

Actually I was referring to you, not JAN.

 

[FHII]

Actually I was referring to you, not JAN.

Well, then once again you are mistaken. I have always relied on the kjv and have been vocally against the practice if switching bibles. I've even caught flak for it. Nowhere in this thread (or any other, unless prompted to do so) have I used any other version. That includes the verse in question which is exo 20:13 which says thou shalt not kill. That's exactly what I said; justaname is the one who said otherwise.

 

[StanJ]

Well, then once again you are mistaken. I have always relied on the kjv and have been vocally against the practice if switching bibles. I've even caught flak for it. Nowhere in this thread (or any other, unless prompted to do so) have I used any other version. That includes the verse in question which is exo 20:13 which says thou shalt not kill. That's exactly what I said; justaname is the one who said otherwise.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Your scripture quote in post 22 is from the NIV, not the KJV. You also embolded and underlined person and false witness as if they were the subject when indeed THINGS is the subject. Things are not people. Things are sins.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The KJV does not use the proper English rendering in Ex 20:13 and I have posted this before.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Even 400+ years ago the Hebrew word râtsach [/SIZE]and the Greek word phoneúō, BOTH connote MURDER.

[SIZE=10.5pt]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2020%3A13&version=ESV;NET;NRSV;ISV;NASBhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex 20:13&version=ESV;NET;NRSV;ISV;NASB[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Clearly, the mistake is YOURS.[/SIZE]

 

[FHII]

Your scripture quote in post 22 is from the NIV, not the KJV. You also embolded and underlined person and false witness as if they were the subject when indeed THINGS is the subject. Things are not people. Things are sins.

The KJV does not use the proper English rendering in Ex 20:13 and I have posted this before.

Even 400+ years ago the Hebrew word râtsach and the Greek word phoneúō, BOTH connote MURDER.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2020%3A13&version=ESV;NET;NRSV;ISV;NASBhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex 20:13&version=ESV;NET;NRSV;ISV;NASBhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex 20:13&version=ESV;NET;NRSV;ISV;NASB

Clearly, the mistake is YOURS.

Rest assured I either was quoting from memory and missed a word or I was using a quote from someone else. Don't own an niv. Not a hard copy nor one electronically. You, on the otherhand aren't going by the kjv either. You are correcting it as you see fit. I don't do that.

 

[StanJ]

Rest assured I either was quoting from memory and missed a word or I was using a quote from someone else. Don't own an niv. Not a hard copy nor one electronically. You, on the otherhand aren't going by the kjv either. You are correcting it as you see fit. I don't do that.

Nevertheless, it was the NIV you quoted. You should get at least one modern English translation to keep you from making these kind of faux pas.

You're exactly right...as I see...it doesn't take a scholar to see where the KJV falls down in accuracy.

 

[FHII]

Nevertheless, it was the NIV you quoted. You should get at least one modern English translation to keep you from making these kind of faux pas.

You're exactly right...as I see...it doesn't take a scholar to see where the KJV falls down in accuracy.

Dude... I checked that post. I was quoting you! I was going on what you said and trusting that you posted accurately! I definitely see the error in that!

Justaname was debating exo 20:13. Not proverbs. You decided to make your accusation based on that exchange and after it. Not after post 22. You're grasping at straws in your criticism.

Nontheless, its clear that if I post a verse, you are going to either accept it or reject it based on whether you believe that verse is a correct translation. In other words, every verse in the bible is subject to your opinion and you have reserved the right to reject and correct the bible.

I am no longer going to stand for that. Why? I love God. I love his Word. I base my doctrine on what he says, and not just one or two verses, but by every word. I also love anyone who comes here to tell them the truth about what is written. I hope they enjoy it, but if they don't I still love them enough to tell them the truth.

In other words, I'm done with you. I can't argue with someone who corrects the Word.

 

[StanJ]

Dude... I checked that post. I was quoting you! I was going on what you said and trusting that you posted accurately! I definitely see the error in that!

Justaname was debating exo 20:13. Not proverbs. You decided to make your accusation based on that exchange and after it. Not after post 22. You're grasping at straws in your criticism.

Nontheless, its clear that if I post a verse, you are going to either accept it or reject it based on whether you believe that verse is a correct translation. In other words, every verse in the bible is subject to your opinion and you have reserved the right to reject and correct the bible.

I am no longer going to stand for that. Why? I love God. I love his Word. I base my doctrine on what he says, and not just one or two verses, but by every word. I also love anyone who comes here to tell them the truth about what is written. I hope they enjoy it, but if they don't I still love them enough to tell them the truth.

In other words, I'm done with you. I can't argue with someone who corrects the Word.

Dude...You checked it? If you did you would have seen you weren't quoting me, you were responding to KingJ but you still used the NIV. Sadly even when you get a chance to correct your errors you refuse to. I don't always agree with KJ but at least he knows his scripture and exegetes it properly here.

I was responding to YOU not JAN. I didn't have a problem with what he posted and said so.

What is VERY clear, is that you don't like being contradicted despite WHO responds to you and that is sad. It's also naïve of you to think you won't be challenged on a site like CBC.
If you can't properly defend your opinions and just get mad at people for doing so, I would respectfully suggest you DON'T respond to ANY post.

If you post from the KJV with an eisegetical perspective, you will most likely be challenged, for sure by me if I see it, as well as others who do understand the Bible and are not KJVO proponents.

The real problem is you can't argue with anyone who KNOWS the word and corrects you by reading the Word correctly. That type on intransigence is all over sites like this, and I'm used to dealing with false teachings/teachers, so no biggie. C ya!

 

[ewq1938]

You're not using that in context.

God never hated the man Esau. There would be no profit in hating any man.

But it literally says God hated Esau. Your own personal logic doesn't change what is found in the text:

Rom_9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[ewq1938]

Hate in your heart for another person fosters vile thoughts, words, and deeds. God does not hate people. In the case of Esau, the better translation would be "loved less".

Not so. In this case, "loved less" cannot be applied. When God said he hated Esau, it was literal hate.

 

[ewq1938]

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.


8130

08130 sane' {saw-nay'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2272; v

AV - hate 136, enemies 3, enemy 2, foes 1, hateful 1, misc 3; 146

1) to hate, be hateful
1a) (Qal) to hate
1a1) of man
1a2) of God
1a3) hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)
1b) (Niphal) to be hated
1c) (Piel) hater (participle)
1c1) of persons, nations, God, wisdom

This verb is in the Qal tense and is an example of when God hates someone or something.

H8130
????
s´a^ne^'
saw-nay'
A primitive root; to hate (personally): - enemy, foe, (be) hate (-ful, -r), odious, X utterly.

It does not mean anything less than literal hatred.


Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

1. He hates a person who is prideful!
2. He hates a person who is a liar!
3. He hates a person who is a murderer!
4. He hates a person who devises wicked imaginations!
5. He hates a person who committs mischief!
6. He hates a person who give a false witness!
7. He hates a person who sows discord among brethren!

Those are people he hates doing things he hates! He doesn't "love murderers less" than people who never murder! That is absurd.

God does not "love sin less" than good works. He hates them and he hates some people as well.


Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.


God not only hates sins but also sinful people (like Esau)

 

[ATP]

God not only hates sins but also sinful people (like Esau)

Incorrect. Malachi 1:2-3 declares, “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” Malachi 1:3 is quoted in Romans 9:10-13, “Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau? If God is love (1 John 4:8), how could He hate anyone?

When studying the Bible, it is critically important to always study the context of a particular Bible verse or passage. In these instances, the prophet Malachi and the apostle Paul are using the name “Esau” to refer to the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau. Isaac and Rebekah had two sons, Esau and Jacob. God chose Jacob (whom He later renamed “Israel”) to be the father of His chosen people, the Israelites. God rejected Esau (who was also called “Edom”) and did not choose him to be the father of His chosen people. Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, were in many ways blessed by God (Genesis 33:9; Genesis chapter 36).

So, considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate. It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants. God chose Abraham out of all the men in the world. The Bible very well could say, “Abraham I loved, and every other man I hated.” God chose Abraham’s son Isaac instead of Abraham’s son Ishmael. The Bible very well could say, “Isaac I loved, and Ishmael I hated.” Romans chapter 9 makes it abundantly clear that loving Jacob and hating Esau was entirely related to which of them God chose. Hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau had died, the Israelites and Edomites became bitter enemies. The Edomites often aided Israel’s enemies in attacks on Israel. Esau’s descendants brought God’s curse upon themselves. Genesis 27:29 tells Israel, “May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed.”

 

[ewq1938]

Incorrect. Malachi 1:2-3 declares, “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” Malachi 1:3 is quoted in Romans 9:10-13, “Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau? If God is love (1 John 4:8), how could He hate anyone?

That doesn't mean he can't also hate. You quoted the proof and no argument has been able to counter what is written nor has anyone countered the meaning of the QAL tense.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

God says he hated Esau. Either we accept that or we use our limited human reasoning to argue against what God has declared.

 

[ATP]

That doesn't mean he can't also hate. You quoted the proof and no argument has been able to counter what is written nor has anyone countered the meaning of the QAL tense.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

God says he hated Esau. Either we accept that or we use our limited human reasoning to argue against what God has declared.

Well, it's one thing to read scripture and another to interpret it correctly. Paul gives a second example of God’s choice. Isaac’s wife Rebecca gave birth to two babies at the same time, Jacob and Esau. Before they were born, God said that the older son would serve the younger son. Esau was born first, but God chose Jacob. His choice made no reference to their character. God made his choice before their birth. He chose before they could act in good or bad ways. Esau’s *descendants were called the Edomites (or Edom). Jacob’s *descendants were called *Israel. The Edomites did serve *Israel at times in their history (for example, 2 Samuel 8:13-14). However, the words from Malachi 1:1-3 which refer to *Israel and Esau emphasise God’s choice. The original words ‘I hated Esau’ mean ‘I did not choose Esau’.

 

[ewq1938]

The original words ‘I hated Esau’ mean ‘I did not choose Esau’.

No, that's just re-writing scripture to make it say what you want it to say. It says hate and the word used can only mean hate not a lessor form.

 

[ATP]

No, that's just re-writing scripture to make it say what you want it to say. It says hate and the word used can only mean hate not a lessor form.

ewq, His choice made no reference to their character. God made his choice before their birth.

 

[ewq1938]

ewq, His choice made no reference to their character. God made his choice before their birth.

That is meaningless to God who can see the future.

 

[ATP]

That is meaningless to God who can see the future.

So the God of love hates people just to hate even before they are in the womb? That's a little silly. Rom 9:10-11 NIV Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: