Evidence for God from Science

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Scripture DOES tell us that No One on earth knows the time or day or anything related to when the rapture will take place

ok

Go ahead and laugh at Scripture if you choose to.

ok, well i am not doing that, but you are right, that was unkind anyway, and i am rightly accused of going right back to pulling tares.

Scripture does tell us that no one knows the day or the hour, yes. And i understand how this is then made into a single, group day, of a single, mass event, alright. For some single, "last" generation. But another interpretation has that applying to each, in their own time, only God knows when, in each case, and this allows for Christ's Word to Caiaphas to also be true, whereas a Rapture interpretation cannot, wadr. <edit>or, i'll take that back, there might be some way, i am not God, but you would have to explain to me how Christ's Word to Caiaphas could also be true, and not negated by that.

I have just this morning posted a ref to Christ's Word to Caiaphas, two or three posts back from this one, not sure which thread though, sorry. might even be this one? but i cannot tell in this edit window, the format here being what it is, so my apologies there.

Regarding the format, you can find a topic review just down from where you type a post, if that's what you're after.

RickD wrote:Maybe someone here can help me. I'm looking for a good bible translation. Every one I read, seems to say in John 3:16, that if one believes, one has eternal or everlasting life.

It seems all biblical translations got it wrong. Can someone please point me to the translation that has the correct translation of John 3:16? I don't understand how all the scholars clearly missed the fact that everlasting/eternal is wrong, and should correctly be translated to the English word, "temporary".


How did so many get it so wrong?

oh, the Book explains how.
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/3-16.htm

People want to have their cake and eat it, too, wanna fence-surf, and you can't do this with God. So, we cobble up a definition of "faith" that comes to mean "beliefs"-

Only the context indicates whether 4100 /pisteúō ("believe") is self-serving (without sacred meaning), or the believing that leads to/proceeds from God's inbirthing of faith. http://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm

-and there are many, many people, pastors and "bishops" even, with whom you cannot separate the two, no matter how many Scriptures you ask them to explain their understanding of, where "faith" and "beliefs" are plainly delineated--and then we cobble up another def of "eternal" that God didn't mean, turn it into something that starts in some tomorrow, based upon something that we believe happened in some yesterday,

[166 (aiṓnios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /aiṓn) it relates to. Thus believers live in "eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life" right now, experiencing this quality of God's life now as a present possession. (Note the Gk present tense of having eternal life in Jn 3:36, 5:24, 6:47; cf. Ro 6:23.)]

neverminding all of Christ's admonitions against this, and assurances that He is with us always, and Understand I AM, which no one i know understands, or at least i have never heard another exegesis that allows that the "AM" is EMPHATIC, and not a Title, and i've read entire books on the subject (and all those hits you get when you search it are me; no, wait! it has been completely obscured, now-

-in Google, "Did you mean: "understand i am" empathic am?" https://www.google.com/#q=%22understand ... atic+am%3F, and that is what you have to mean now, the option to correct has been removed, see that? You now cannot mean "emphatic," the "Empaths" {another lie, they are just Codependents} have got you now;

and in DuckDuckGo, they are all, so far, "accidental" hits, people saying "understand i am emphatic" about this, or that-

-so, turned into some useless gobble, at least as far as i can search, although i can't be the first, the real ones are surely just occluded, i guess...

so then, next thing you know, you got religion, you got a way to "believe Jesus," you got yoself a Snake on a Pole, and don' worry, you don't have to ever read about Nehushtan if you don' want (who manages to have no Witness, no "2" verses--very important--and yet still does have a Witness, back there in the desert, huh, 'cause He is separated from the Exodus by a couple chapters, so you don' have to see the obvious allusions being made, by the descendants of the Wanderers (Cain, "go out 2-by-2," Ark, come in 2-by-2, ignore the 7-by-7)(and the Raven, who did not return), who have "made it to the Promised Land," (just a'restin', and a'waitin' on Jesus, they are), worshipping a Snake on a Pole, got the scales on their eyes, and don't even realize that they proclaim this from their rooftop, gurgling and cooing, but can't hear Paul whisper, can only hear him shout.

jpbg33 wrote:bbyrd009 you are not reading those verses right. Jesus was not talking to the high priest and saying that the high priest was going to see these thing but He was saying not in respect of the high priest seeing these things but that one day people on earth would see him come back in the clouds.

yes, i am aware of the argument, and the syntax is such as to make it impossible to determine, actually, with both sides possessing validity; which is exactly, imo, what the Bible is meant for, meant to do. That way you can read what you need, and an Atheist can read what they need, and i can read what i need, all led by the Spirit, see?

And we can have the same arg at "Baptism," where It clearly states "born of water," and Tongues, and Rapture, and, andandandand. You are not wrong, ok. You are reflecting your understanding, your heart, just like i am. You are divided, joints from marrow, and so am i.

So now i see you, with your beliefs about yesterday, which culminate in tomorrow, and haven't asked about your grasp of "Understand I AM" yet (and not going to, either)--all put, perhaps, unkindly--and you see me, now, with my "New Age" beliefs of "Kingdom, Now" i guess is what i am, this week, or some other refute, that would prolly be less kind, when "kindness" is prolly really the whole message, i recently had an OP Evangelist argue that if all i was trying to suggest was that kindness would get one to heaven, then i was going to go down in flames, and, well, he didn't do so good. To put it kindly. Or at least i'll say that he never answered me, when i was done. I gotta link, if you like.

So, there you go. I'm not interested in challenging your "beliefs" anymore. Love believes all things.

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:Maybe someone here can help me. I'm looking for a good bible translation. Every one I read, seems to say in John 3:16, that if one believes, one has eternal or everlasting life.

It seems all biblical translations got it wrong. Can someone please point me to the translation that has the correct translation of John 3:16? I don't understand how all the scholars clearly missed the fact that everlasting/eternal is wrong, and should correctly be translated to the English word, "temporary".


How did so many get it so wrong?

Yes, if one believes. What if one does not believe any longer.

that is the beginning of faith, right there, Stu; stop blindly believing, and you can start having faith. We even have parables for this. (You) maybe are just becoming the First Son, then.

Nicki wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Scripture DOES tell us that No One on earth knows the time or day or anything related to when the rapture will take place

ok

Go ahead and laugh at Scripture if you choose to.

ok, well i am not doing that, but you are right, that was unkind anyway, and i am rightly accused of going right back to pulling tares.

Scripture does tell us that no one knows the day or the hour, yes. And i understand how this is then made into a single, group day, of a single, mass event, alright. For some single, "last" generation. But another interpretation has that applying to each, in their own time, only God knows when, in each case, and this allows for Christ's Word to Caiaphas to also be true, whereas a Rapture interpretation cannot, wadr. <edit>or, i'll take that back, there might be some way, i am not God, but you would have to explain to me how Christ's Word to Caiaphas could also be true, and not negated by that.

I have just this morning posted a ref to Christ's Word to Caiaphas, two or three posts back from this one, not sure which thread though, sorry. might even be this one? but i cannot tell in this edit window, the format here being what it is, so my apologies there.

Regarding the format, you can find a topic review just down from where you type a post, if that's what you're after.

awesome, ty, been looking for that one, yes.

RickD wrote:via Imgflip Meme Generator

understand that you have just acknowledged "speaking in tongues" though, ok

i can maybe interpret, if you do a snip and ask. maybe. or maybe it's for someone else to pick up, or maybe it's for someone else to interpret, we'll see.

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:Maybe someone here can help me. I'm looking for a good bible translation. Every one I read, seems to say in John 3:16, that if one believes, one has eternal or everlasting life.

It seems all biblical translations got it wrong. Can someone please point me to the translation that has the correct translation of John 3:16? I don't understand how all the scholars clearly missed the fact that everlasting/eternal is wrong, and should correctly be translated to the English word, "temporary".


How did so many get it so wrong?

Yes, if one believes. What if one does not believe any longer.

and i got Scrip for that, i got Witnesses, for when you have given up, that's when you become useful to God, for that weird thing. You prolly already heard 'em? Let go, and let God? Only of course that is made into some religious thing, that God does not mean, because God hates religion, Stu, and i got Witnesses for that, too, right from the Head, the Horse's Mouth

RickD wrote:via Imgflip Meme Generator

wait'll you find the wine, Rick, the 200 proof stuff, and start getting accused of being drunk at the "3rd" hour; you're a smart-ass--if i may say that about you, as a compliment--you aren't drinking the kool-aid, even if maybe you are still giving it some lip-service, dunno--religion, i mean.

Use that, it will come in handy. Course, you'll lose all your friends, though, they'll wanna "put you away," ok, you gotta go it alone.

Just go find the beginning of that "Bible 101" thing, maybe that's for you.

Faith and belief are widely interpreted as the same thing, I disagree.

I think I have always had faith, in fact I think that faith is one of my gifts, But belief, no? I haven't always believed. I feel like I have always known God, that, to me is faith, tis only recently I believe.

The last few weeks for me have been scary, lonely, bewildering and I have really felt out in the wildnerness so to speak. Tis only now, having found my way home again to God that I see that Christ was indeed using me to reach people.
I have always been vulnerable, open and dare I say approachable. People see something in me that I kinda sense but I can't explain, I think it's my faith rather than my beliefs. My beliefs may differ to someones and they may resist those but no one has resisted or argued my faith.

One question about OSAS, as I am undecided on this, if one no longer believes, how can you be saved by an entity that you don't believe in? Why would He save someone who no longer believes?

Storyteller wrote:Faith and belief are widely interpreted as the same thing, I disagree.

I think I have always had faith, in fact I think that faith is one of my gifts, But belief, no? I haven't always believed. I feel like I have always known God, that, to me is faith, tis only recently I believe.

The last few weeks for me have been scary, lonely, bewildering and I have really felt out in the wildnerness so to speak. Tis only now, having found my way home again to God that I see that Christ was indeed using me to reach people.
I have always been vulnerable, open and dare I say approachable. People see something in me that I kinda sense but I can't explain, I think it's my faith rather than my beliefs. My beliefs may differ to someones and they may resist those but no one has resisted or argued my faith.

One question about OSAS, as I am undecided on this, if one no longer believes, how can you be saved by an entity that you don't believe in? Why would He save someone who no longer believes?

well, dunno if you're asking me, but it seems like you start out here acknowledging the difference in faith and beliefs, and end up conflating them again?

So, maybe, we have faith in a Creator, and we have beliefs about God, that we mostly pick up from others, our peers, our environment. And the second ones are mostly irrelevant, as illuminated in the parable of the Two Sons. God does not care what you believe. They are merely the framework for your faith, kinda something to start with, a beginning, and they should change over time, if you are in fact "changing your mind," right?

Note those engaged in religion, who mostly all "know," now--and when you "know," you cannot "not know," you cannot "change your mind," as God requires. And this is an indictment of their beliefs, and not their faith, alright; but "as above, so below" might be understood to be telling us that one's beliefs descend from, are manifested by, their faith. So beliefs are a mirror of faith, even if they are not the same thing. I do not know what i believe, iow. Weird, but that is the best frame of mind to have.

"Those who say they know do not yet know as they ought."

bbyrd wrote:
...God does not care what you believe...

God doesn't care if someone believes in Christ? John 3:16

RickD wrote:

bbyrd wrote:
...God does not care what you believe...

God doesn't care if someone believes in Christ? John 3:16

Note how easily we can be having a convo about "beliefs in Christ," v "faith in Christ," though, Rick. So really, which are you asking me? Because...arg, the only reflection i have for you, is that Muslims do not "believe in" Christ like we do, and we even condemn them for this; yet Muslims--at least practicing ones, believe me, Muslims are just like Christians, mostly religious, a few escapees--in general, even the religious ones, might be seen to have plenty of faith in Christ, the Spirit, ok. Even if they use different words. God doesn't care about that. just like the Native americans, totally different words, having their "Forgivneness Ceremony" at Standing rock, right after being attacked by your Masters, with rubber bullets and dogs, and water cannons, in 25 degree weather. Right after that, a forgiveness ceremony, you want the link again? and i never heard the Name "Jesus" or "Christ" mentioned once, ok? They are being First Sons, though.

Just like i could have you, essentially, witnessing how all of the thousands of Muslims in your county, the ones that surround you, are doing, right now, despite the attitude the MSM has fostered in us about Muslims, so their friends can get richer.

I didn't read it that way Rick. If I'm wrong I apologise but maybe it's more kinda like He doesn't care about things like creation stance, just that you believe you were created. Sure, personally for me, Christ is the only way to God, the key to Him. But could someone not have faith in God without belief in Christ? Or faith in God and Christ but not religion?

I have faith in God. I believe Christ is my Savour.
I don't think you can have beliefs (in this context) without faith but I think you can have faith without beliefs.

Bottom line, for me, is any interpretation of Scripture will be a personal interpretation, as faith is.

And bbryd... I do that a lot, conflate ideas, I think as I type a lot, kinda work things through as I type so sometimes you have to decode my posts before you can read them

I suppose I would sum it up by saying my faith is in God and I believe Christ is my Saviour, everything else is just details. (Not that some of those details might not be important)

nice. i might argue, a little, at "I don't think you can have beliefs (in this context) without faith," even though i agree with your intent there, because we are, most of us, led to some "church" because of a seed of faith, which the Book alludes to as our "first love," which is then pretty quickly co-opted by the beliefs that we adopt from that congregation, and so then we end up with a set of beliefs, that usually smother our faith. We say we trust in God, and believe in "healing," while eating garbage food, CAFO protein tortured every day of its life, devoid of nutrition, and buying insurance to "protect" us, trusting in Doctors--who, literally, have a Snake on a Pole on their lapels!--to keep us "healthy." (you just cannot make this stuff up, )

I'll stop right there, but i could fill the page. The point is, our beliefs are changeable, and in a big way irrelevant, and they are also a manifestation of our faith. Your beliefs are irrelevant to God, who cares about your faith. And your faith manifests your beliefs, when this relationship is also distorted for us, twisted, converted, flipped around.

This is the lesson of the little child--not, of course, what they tell us, that the "little child" allegory means "teachable," although that is somewhat relevant, too, it has a lot of truth--but another, central, lesson, that "teachable" is kind of descended from, and in fact also obscures, is that little children have a kind of faith that is independent of their beliefs, which they have no problem abandoning--"children are the most adaptable"--when they no longer serve them. So, this is made into "little children are teachable, that they may learn what we believe to be true, and they should not be teachable after that, because then they will of course "know," just like we know, they will know what we know, then ("death," to God; "Spiritually dead").