Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: Let's see. You think it's possible to live a sinless life...

And the bible says in 1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.


And Ecclesiates 7:20
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.


Do you still think it's possible to not sin? Or are you starting to see that maybe you are interpreting scripture wrong?

I'm guessing he's going to say that 1 John refers to the sins from before we were saved which were cleansed. And Ecclesiastes is from the OT before the atonement. Although Paul seems to affirm it in Romans 3.

B.W., my response to your post is:

Little by little

jpbg33 wrote:Personally I do not care if people believe one saved always saved. Because it doesn't matter if you can loose it or not. As long as you are saved when you die you will go to heaven. What I have a problem with is people saying it doesn't matter if we sin because God for gives us any ways. The bible dose not teach that it is ok for Christians to sin. That is peoples reasoning not Gods and even if you can sin it is horrible when you do even if you are still going to heaven. I believe you can backslid and that doesn't mean I am saved or that I am not saved and people believing you can not backslid dose not make them saved or not saved either. That has nothing to do with someone salvation. The biggest point that I am trying to get across is that the bible says if you are saved you will not sin, if you are saved you do not sin and if you say you are saved and still sin you are a liar. The bible say if you love me then keep my commandments. The bible says to walk in Jesus's steps. The bible says be not conformed unto this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may know what is go and acceptable will of God. I could go on and on. It is not a matter of if we can sin or not (and we may make mistakes along the way if we do Jesus is our advocate) but we will not live a sinful life after we are saved. The bible does not say to think it is acceptable to sin but rather to shun the very appearance of evil.

Why do I feel like this is going around and around in circles?

It is not okay to sin!
Nobody is saying its okay to sin!
Perfection is not a state of being it is a direction. What we strive for, because God is transforming us for His kingdom. God does not expect perfection, infact He knows it's impossible, but He expects us to try and do the best we can, learn the lessons and keep moving forward.
Nobody can ever outsin the work of Jesus on the cross. Period.

I do not know one person who is without sin, no matter how much they love God. I know some pretty inspiring christians who do the best they can but they don't even come close to perfection but they are trying. That is the key. Trying. There was not one single person in the bible no matter how holy who was perfect but one. Jesus.

There is a path away from God and it's not sin, it is unbelief.

Edit:
You can't read a few verses from the bible and interpret it based upon those few sentences. In that way it is no different to any other book. I couldn't pick up a novel turn to chapter 7 and read one page and understand the context. I would have to understand the book in its entirety to interpret that page correctly. Verses in the bible that appear to contradict each other regarding sin, do not. you have to look at all that is said, who is saying it and the context. Those verses compliment each other when you don't just take the meaning of one or two or three but interlock the meaning and message of all scripture.

Absolutely agree with Mel here.

True, the Bible doesn`t teach us it`s okay to sin, and yes it`s horrible when we do but that doesn`t negate our salvation.

The Bible does not say that if you are saved you will not sin, it`s not possible for us not to sin because sin is inherent in all of us. All we can do is try not to and if, and when, we do repent.

Where does it say we will live a sin free life when we are saved? Could it not mean anyway, that once we are saved it is as if we have never sinned because Jesus died for all our sin?

Personally I try and live as close to Christ as I can, secure in the knowledge that I am saved through my faith, that any sin I may commit is forgiven. We are forgiven, continually, because we are sinners, always will be, maybe once with God we won`t, maybe then, the final transformation takes place?

Salvation has nothing to do with our actions, it has everything to do with faith.

So according to what is being said it is imposable to live a sinless life by the law? no one can do it but God.

In a nutshell, yes

Doesn`t mean we shouldn`t try though.

jpbg33 wrote:So according to what is being said it is imposable to live a sinless life by the law? no one can do it but God.

100% correct!

Read through the sermon on the mount again. Ever been angry with someone? Well that's equal to murder. Ever lusted for a woman even if you didn't act on it? Well that's apparently equal to acting on it. Obviously there are more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

That doesn't mean that doing those things is "okay." If they were okay, then God the Son wouldn't have needed to atone for us in the first place.

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

and we should live right now

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

jpbg33 wrote:Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

and we should live right now

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If it was automatic that we would not sin after accepting Christ then we would not need instruction in righteousness, would we?

I believe that once we accept Christ as our Saviour then the Holy Spirit will help us live more Christ like lives. If we were somehow changed by our belief we wouldn`t need the Holy Spirit to guide us, would we?

The fact we do points to the fact that we will always inherently be sinners, it`s just that we can rest in the love of God and trust that as long as our hearts are open to Him, He wil never let us down. If He took away our salvation He would be letting us down. He would be breaking His promise to us and Christ died for nothing.

jpbg33 wrote:Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

and we should live right now

Yes the Mosaic law never stated that even being angry was a sin and that just looking at a woman with lust was a sin. Jesus came and made things harder by stating these things in the sermon on the mount. i.e.,
Matthew 5:21-22
Matthew 5:27-28

I think this was to emphasize how hopeless it is for us without Him. Not just to help us stop sinning less, but to save us completely from the sins we have committed and will commit. When you accepted Jesus and were given to Him, He knew of all the things you'd do in the future. And yet He chose you still. Isn't that amazing? When your child sins, you discipline them, but they don't stop being your child.

jpbg33 wrote: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Yes perfectly furnished, but not actually perfect as in to not sin ever again. Here's another version of the same verse (NIV):
"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

that is why I do not like the NIV it changes the meanings of verses

Or just changes how you interpret the verses?

jpbg33 wrote:that is why I do not like the NIV it changes the meanings of verses

Actually it could be a lot closer to the original meaning than the KJV since it's based on the eclectic text and note solely the textus receptus. (The eclectic text includes the TR, btw)
But I propose the KJV translators didn't mean what you think they meant in the version you cited. Language changes over time and there are plenty of things said in the KJV that if you took the meaning of today's use of English, you might be very confused.


Let's look at other version of the same two verses.

ESV:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

NASB:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

NKJV:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Actually I think the way the KJV was written is way more prone to accuracy then the bibles that are write to day.

Back when they wrote the KJV if you translated it wrong you would have been killed

Now days it is not that way but people translate it according to how they fill it meant according to there believe which is prone to inaccuracy.

During King James time there were all kinds of interpretations like it is to day but for some reason King James wonted to know what the bible really said not what people though it was support to say so he did something really smart he took all the different denominations together and told them to translate it together and if they didn't all agree on all of it then they would all be killed that way you would not get a translation according to what someone believe but an exact copy of what was actually said. Because none of the religions thought the same they had to put what is said not what they though it meant or they would be killed because none of the gropes thought it meant the same.

I think that is more accurate then some Group of people setting around writing what there believe say it means.

jpbg33 wrote:Actually I think the way the KJV was written is way more prone to accuracy then the bibles that are write to day.

Since the KJV is based solely upon the TR and not the majority manuscripts, that is an incorrect statement. The KJV is indeed a good translation, but the translators were not inspired and would have consulted the majority text if they'd been available. Please read the introduction from the translators of the KJV.

Fun fact: They used weird readings for the Book of Revelation specifically because the version they used from the TR was extracted from a commentary and not an actual manuscript.

jpbg33 wrote: Back when they wrote the KJV if you translated it wrong you would have been killed

They translated it fine according to the materials they had access to.

jpbg33 wrote: Now days it is not that way but people translate it according to how they fill it meant according to there believe which is prone to inaccuracy.

Just like you did when you cited that verse. You wanted to read perfect into it in relation to not sinning, but I propose that's not even what the KJV translators meant. In any case, you're wrong. We can know what the oldest manuscripts say because we have scholars that are familiar with Koine Greek. However, there are versions that do precisely what you say they do, but they're generally not taken seriously by scholars.
(I.E., The Message, The New World Translation, etc.)

jpbg33 wrote: During King James time there were all kinds of interpretations like it is to day but for some reason King James wonted to know what the bible really said not what people though it was support to say so he did something really smart he took all the different denominations together and told them to translate it together and if they didn't all agree on all of it then they would all be killed that way you would not get a translation according to what someone believe but an exact copy of what was actually said. Because none of the religions thought the same they had to put what is said not what they though it meant or they would be killed because none of the gropes thought it meant the same.

Please expand upon how many versions of the text were available in King James's day. That's a very rotten and barbaric way to have the text translated, but whatever- I maintain that the KJV is a good translation of the TR.

jpbg33 wrote: I think that is more accurate then some Group of people setting around writing what there believe say it means.

If that's indeed what the other translations did. Please show me how the text was corrupted in the versions I cited from the majority text.