Evidence for God from Science

I know the story of how the King James Bible was written. I have even seen the documentary and the move of who it was written and I have read a lot about it. If you are saying that King James translated it to say what he wonted it to say then you do not know what you are talking about.

But one other thing about how the KJV used the word believeth present tense. I do not know a translation new or old that used anything but present tense form of believe. There may be one but I haven't see it. Every translation I have come a cross used either believeth or believes doth present tense. If y'all were right then the verse should have been translated "For God so love the world that who so ever hath believed on him should not parish but have ever lasting life.", but no one translates it like that.

We are debating what the bible "English" version says not what you think it should say. So I also would like to stop debating Greek.

jpbg33 wrote:I'm not making a fool out of my self.

Yes, you are. You can choose to ignore that, but you are, regardless.

It is you I never said I new Greek at all. I know English and the English translation of the verse uses a present tense form of belief. So the English way to write that verse according to 100's of Greek scalars is to use the present tense form of the word belief. You do not think they are right because you wont to believe osas.

No, I think it is wrong because it is incorrect. If you would listen and ask questions rather than preach, perhaps you would learn something.

So in English the tense do mater and Greek scalars know that they mattered in English. So they used believeth because they felt that believeth was the only way to not lose the real meaning of the verse in English. Because they knew in English tenses do matter.

This is incorrect. They did not use "believeth becaues they felt [it] was the only way not to lose the rela meaning of the verse in English." They used it because they adhered to what we today call the formal-equivalent theory of translation, and because no translation happens in a vaccuum, and the other translations of the day (some in English, others in Latin) used a simple present tense for "believe" or its equivalent. Again, they did not use it "because they knew in English tenses do matter." You are just factually and historically incorrect.

So they couldn't use the word believed because they felt that wouldn't be right in English. I am not saying that I know Greek better them or you, but what I am saying is that I trust there translation more then I trust yours.

They certainly could have used the word "believed." I'm not saying that would be a proper translation. That depends on a lot of related issues. They could have said, "keeps on believing" or "has believed" or "repeatedly believes" or "believed" or any type of construction with other semantically related words like "trust" or "rely upon" or "place their faith in." They could have avoided translating all together and simply transliterated the Greek word into English like they did with "baptize" (did you know "baptize" is not a translation, and was not an English word at all when the KJV was first created)?

There are LOTS of things they could have done. Again, you just don't know what you are talking about.

one other thing believeth is in the bible many times so they did have other text to compare with.

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean what you think it means, either. I'm not going to walk you through that idea, because it is complicated. If you want to get a better grasp on that issue, I'd refer you to a book by Moises Silva titled Biblical Words and Their Meaning.

I'm not saying I am right because of any Greek argument. I've not raised anything about the subject. I'm saying you should stop trying to cite Greek or tenses or other such things because you are mistaken. Just cite your Enligh Bible and admit that you are relying solely on the authority of others in making your claims. Anything less is dishonest on your part and makes you look foolish. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with limiting yourself to English translations and recognizing them for what they are: very, very, very highly studied and peer reviewed commentaries. There's absolutely no shame in that whatsoever. There is a lot of shame in pretending like you are doing more than that when you are not.

I not the one making a fool out of my self if any one is it is you. I have never said I know Greek better then you or anyone, and I did say that I am baseing what I believe on what someone else wrote. It is foolish to say I am saying something that I am not saying.

You are trying to belittle my agument by belittling me and that is bum.

If you are going to do that then at lest don't lie about what I said.



what I said

The point you make about Greek is wrong.

To say that in Greek, if it says while you currently believe you get something eternal. Then you can not loose it if you stop believing. that isn't right.

the only true mean of that verse is if you believe when you die then you have eternal life.

that verse is obviously talking about what happened to a believer when they die.

you your self said it is saying that in English. Then you said but it was originally written in Greek, Then you say in Greek you have to over look the present believe part and go to the eternal part. then you go on to the meaning of the word life.

Well people that were way smarter then you or me wrote it in English to mean if you die believing then you have everlasting life.

they would not have put that if you currently believing when you die you have ever lasting life if that wasn't what it meant.

I did not say I know Greek better then you I said I Know what it means in English not Greek

I said that people smarter then me and you wrote it and I believe there translation of it not yours.

know wonder you are getting the bible wrong you can't even get my comments right.

When you say, "The point you make about Greek is wrong," you are directly engaging a discussion on the merits of Greek grammar. I didn't take that as directed at me. I took it as being directed at BW. With that said, I am engaging on you the Greek issue because you repeatedly make a point about it. You started this all in this post, which you claimed that:

you wrote:the Bible dose not say if you ever believed than you have everlasting life but if you presently believe. that is why it is using the present tense form "believeth". If the bible meant that all you had to do was believe at one time in your life and you would go to heaven then it would have said "He that believed on the Son hath everlasting life" but it didn't say that it said "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life".

When you appeal to the present tense form, you are appealing to grammar, and necessarily to the Greek grammar. The Bible, as you well know, wasn't written in English. So when you say "the Bible uses this tense" you are making a claim on the original grammar. And I pointed then, as well as I have again and continue to do so, that you are mistaken in your claim.

You have, as a matter of fact, been shown to be wrong time and again. You are a heretic, plain and simple. You believe a false gospel. I hope you repent.

Or to follow up with your snarkiness, no wonder you get the Bible wrong. You don't even know what your own words mean.

jpbg wrote:
so you are saying that you can interpret Greek better then the not just one but big groups of Greek scalars that translated it into English. That is a very big clam.

Indeed it is a very big clam.

Jac3510,


Please. It's not worth the aggravation. You're going to drive yourself crazy. You're better off just not responding.

You are the only one I know that doesn't believe the bible is the word of God.

wow what a clam!

when I am talking about the tenses everyone knows that I am referring to the English translation of the bible.

it is not heresy to say that the English version of the Bible is true. It is heresy to say it isn't true.

yes if you are like RickD and have not proved any thing here then please do not respond and leave the debate to us that have proved points here, and I have proved points here. Read earlier post and you will see that people were debating that you can not stop believing ounce you start really dumb. Then if you keep reading you will see where I prove you can stop believing.

jpbg33 wrote:You are the only one I know that doesn't believe the bible is the word of God.

wow what a clam!

when I am talking about the tenses everyone knows that I am referring to the English translation of the bible.

it is not heresy to say that the English version of the Bible is true. It is heresy to say it isn't true.

yes if you are like RickD and have not proved any thing here then please do not respond and leave the debate to us that have proved points here, and I have proved points here. Read earlier post and you will see that people were debating that you can not stop believing ounce you start really dumb. Then if you keep reading you will see where I prove you can stop believing.

http://www.really-learn-english.com/lea ... glish.html

jpbg33 wrote:Ywhen I am talking about the tenses everyone knows that I am referring to the English translation of the bible.

Yes Rick I do spell wrong but the points I am making are right. Albert Einstein had trouble spelling in English and his native language Germen. So obviously spelling does not prove logic.

neither do these smilies.

You've said very little right. You are teaching salvation by works. You don't believe what Jesus actually says. He promises eternal life, and you deny He gives that. Jesus says that He loses none given to Him, and you deny that. God says He never changes His mind, and you deny that. God says that salvation is by Him and dependent on His faithfulness, and you make it of us and dependent on our faithfulness. While doing all that, you add to His word, which He says results in a curse. You speak what is not true about Him, which God condemns in Job. In all of this, you make claims about things you don't understand (e.g., grammar, translation processes, etc.), and rather than learning, you arrogantly claim you know better than those who do. So in addition to your sin of heresy, you add the sin of hubris (which is to say, pride).

You are not open to correction, but for those who want to avoid saying the stupid and heretical things you do, I recommend Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck along with the very helpful Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson. Both were written by highly competent scholars and are an excellent introduction into the field of hermeneutics, which is to say, of how to interpret the Bible. For those who want something a little meatier yet still easy to read, I cannot strongly enough recommend Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hayes. I've read all of these and they are very good and helpful texts.

-------------------

RickD wrote:Jac3510,


Please. It's not worth the aggravation. You're going to drive yourself crazy. You're better off just not responding.

It's like I said to you what, twenty pages ago or so on this thread -- I'm not responding for his sake. He's long ago demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comprehend or respond to rational argument. But, as I said back then, other people do read these exchanges. I am happy for his "contribution" insofar as he makes it very clear what not to say, think, or do. I would much rather have someone like him make a complete mockery of his own position publicly as he is wont to do and let that dissuade people from his heresy than I would have somebody with some semblance of competency or sophistication lead people to think that there is validity to his ridiculous notions. So, again, in that regard, he does us a favor.

Although I suspect the time will come, sooner rather than later at this rate, when he'll have expended his usefulness in that regard. But where he continues to demonstrate novel or noteworthy ways of abusing Scripture, he makes, I tend to think, for a good case study.

God is and has always been a blood covenant God.God made a blood covenant with Abraham and the Jews rebelled and went after other God's,killed all the prophets,rejected Jesus their Messiah,yet God still has not broke the covenant with Abraham which is how 144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes of Israel will come out of the tribulation believing in Jesus so based on this fact God does not break blood covenants because of sin and the moment we get saved we enter into a blood covenant with God through the blood of Jesus and this proves OSAS and that nobody can lose their salvation,however not everybody who claims to believe in Jesus has been saved and these people have not entered in to the blood covenant with God.

Drop Your Knife And Hurry Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIUVr_1-23U

Quotes from Jac3510

You've said very little right.

I have said more right then you wont to admit. I agree with W.D. I can see how you can take a few verses here and there and make osas or salvation by works sound right, but I believe if you use every verse then you will see that both are wrong.
I do not believe in either one of them. One says sinning is ok the other say you must not sin or you will go to hell. the bible as a whole (English) version does not say either of those things.

You are teaching salvation by works. You don't believe what Jesus actually says.

I have never said you go to hell because you have sinned. I said you sin because you have no faith.

It is not me that doesn't believe what Jesus actually says that would be y'all.

I believe Jesus said a good tree can not bear bad fruit, y'all seem to forget that one.

I believe that Jesus said not to be so concerned with the out side but to get the inside right and the out side will take care of it self.

That is why I believe if you have faith on the inside you well clean up to because of your faith on the inside like Jesus said it would. Y'all are saying that faith on the inside wont Add to necessarily make a difference no the out side not me or Jesus.

He promises eternal life, and you deny He gives that.

I have not denied that.

Jesus says that He loses none given to Him, and you deny that

.

I have not denied that either.


Joh 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 
Luke 9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luke 14:26  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

God says He never changes His mind

,

that I do disagree with God has changed his mind in the bible

God says that salvation is by Him and dependent on His faithfulness, and you make it of us and dependent on our faithfulness

.

I do believe salvation is by His faithfulness

I do not believe it is dependent on our faithfulness

I believe it is because of our faith that we are faithful and that if we are not faithful it is because we do not believe.

While doing all that, you add to His word, which He says results in a curse. You speak what is not true about Him, which God condemns in Job. In all of this, you make claims about things you don't understand (e.g., grammar, translation processes, etc.), and rather than learning, you arrogantly claim you know better than those who do. So in addition to your sin of heresy, you add the sin of hubris (which is to say, pride).

Me not understanding is your pinyin truth may be that you do not under stand.

You are not open to correction

You are not open to correction either.

just like you I think I am right.

jpbg wrote:
I believe it is because of our faith that we are faithful and that if we are not faith it is because we do not believe.

Thanks jpbg,

Your quote has inspired a motivational poster.