Hebrews 10:23

I see you're now the one who hates the truth.

Can't deal with it any other way than to suspend me, huh?

You have that right, you have those who will applaud your decision.

God Bless and learn to deal with the Truth.

 

God inspired the thought, not the Greek. The shoe you wear has a big hole in the sole.

 

All of this time you have been arguing for actual words and now you admit that it is only thought that have been preserved??? I repeat again ... Do you even think before you say some of this stuff???

Orthodoxy has always held to verbal inspiration, i.e., that God inspired the words. The word he inspired in Heb 10:23 was elpidos, not pistis. In deference to God who inspired "elipidos" we shoud at least have the common courtesy to translate it for what it is, rather than exchanging it for something that "fits the context better." Don't you think God knew what the context was when he used a word that means "hope"? I do ... And I am pretty sure that God didn't give you or anyone else the authority to change it.

 

Larry, face the facts. "Deceived" doesn't carry the same thought as "did flatter". Those words that relate the actual thought in context are correct and you know it. You keep suggesting some of the most ludicrous things.

 

Neither does hope carry the same impression as faith. Yall disregard the thought process altogether along with the rules of English grammar.

The "baby sitter" has slobber running down his chin ( he thinks it's "hellfire") and you are just another to worship the Greek over the inspired thought given to holy men as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. You act as if the Mind of Christ is somehow limited to the Greek you worship, along with the "Bible" concocted in your own minds.

Learn to deal with the thought over you demanding certain definition which is contrary to thought. It can only help, Larry, it can only help.

 

you still don't get it. God wrote the Bible (NT) in Greek, MAN translated it into English. i.e. "Let God (who wrote the NT in Greek) be true, and every man (who attempts in his flesh to translate) a liar". An the Anglican human translators were biased...meaning they sometimes trans certain words to fit their view...

 

Man are you lacking reason. Hello, God wrote His NT in Greek, not English. Earth calling Precepts, earth calling Precepts. You're getting deeper and deeper into your myth as your 1,700 plus posts grow and grow.

 

I for one would not want to see you go...you give me my daily dose of laughs and demonstrate for the entire Baptist world how silly many (not all) of the KJVO's:kjbo's really are.

 

"Ludicrous things"? I have literally never met a man as blind in "calling the kettle black" as Mr Precepts..never

 

Man wrote what God inspired in his mind in the language that man used. Somehow you left Hebrew and Aramaic to the side. Your worship of the Greek has been exposed, face it.

 

Interesting. You hold to a view of inspiration that says God breathed out one word in Greek and a totally different word in English.

Andy

 

Your posts are getting desperate, b/c if you are talking about what I wrote you need to notice I was talking only about the NT, not at the exclusion of the OT. "Onlyist mentality" shown yet again

 

I can't help but notice you avoided the issue of verbal inspiration. You ahve shown us that you don't know Hebrew. You have shown us that you don't know Greek. You are taking the word of man for what God said.

Where did I say anything ludicrous?? You haven't shown even one place where I have been wrong. You keep making this charge against me because you can't actually sustain an argument in favor of your position. Everything you have tried has been easily shot down. You are not even saying things that have to be thought about to answer.

You say Neither does hope carry the same impression as faith. But you chose the believe the one that God did not say. Why? Who are you correct God. If God had meant "faith" he would have said it. Most of the time, in order to cover up for this obvious mistake, people argue that faith and hope actually mean basically the same thing.

The reality is that you are so far off base in your theology about Scripture that you are unorthodox. Based on what you have said here, we no longer have reason to believe that your doctrine even remotely resembles the doctrine revealed in Scripture.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I was wondering. If 500 years ago, I said: It is impossible for me to tell a lie, for I am in the truth of Christ Jesus our Lord. This was something that was so important to me, and so important to those who heard it, that it was therefore memorized and written down throughout the following centuries, and carried on also throughout other languages. Now if this saying was so important to those who held to this, and copied it down from generation to generation, from language to langage, as accurately as one could, would a compilation of all these texts 500 years later, be accurately preserved?

Now what if around 200 years after I made this statement, and many people had memorized and copied this over and over, there were also some that didn't quite believe it, or did not accurately memorize it, or just plain didn't agree with it at all, and thought I said something else, and wrote that down. Now 700 years later, when many are looking at the compilation of these things again, look also to those copies recently found, that had not been known within the transition of the message all those years. They remained stagnant for 500 years, that maybe there were many, but were distorted from the majority in most areas, but grealtly even amongst themselves. But because they were much older, and closer to the time that I made the statement, compared to the other ones, would this make them more accurate? Which compilation would you put your trust in? And why? Does older necessarily mean better, and more accurate?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Sister Michelle, you are being "too" logical for this crowd.

Read your PM's. I am wanting to know what is going on with the "emails". Trotter syas he sent me an email, but I must have deleted it because I didn't recognize the sender right away. I have never gotten any "spam" or "flaming" emails on wmconnect, but recently I have gotten a few that look like they could be and I deleted them .

In Christ,

Brother Ricky

 

I can't help but notice you avoided the issue of verbal inspiration. You ahve shown us that you don't know Hebrew. You have shown us that you don't know Greek. You are taking the word of man for what God said.

Where did I say anything ludicrous?? You haven't shown even one place where I have been wrong. You keep making this charge against me because you can't actually sustain an argument in favor of your position. Everything you have tried has been easily shot down. You are not even saying things that have to be thought about to answer.

You say Neither does hope carry the same impression as faith. But you chose the believe the one that God did not say. Why? Who are you correct God. If God had meant "faith" he would have said it. Most of the time, in order to cover up for this obvious mistake, people argue that faith and hope actually mean basically the same thing.

The reality is that you are so far off base in your theology about Scripture that you are unorthodox. Based on what you have said here, we no longer have reason to believe that your doctrine even remotely resembles the doctrine revealed in Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]I counted 16 times your use of the word "you" in this post.

The greek word meaning hope also means faith and you know it. It has to, hope means faith, faith means hope, that's orthodox enough for anyone, except "you" maybe. I'm right on base with the KJBtranslators and in context. All you are doing is worshipping the Greek.

 

So, in 1 Cor. 13, when Paul speaks about faith, hope, and love, is he just being redundant. Was he wrong when he said, "these three?" Is he really only talking about two different things?

Andy

 

Boy, there's a substantive argument. In the time it took you to count the sixteen, why didn't study the argument and explain why you are rejecting verbal inspiration??

Now you confuse me. Earlier you said Neither does hope carry the same impression as faith. So which is it? Do they mean the same or do they not?

If they mean the same, then why are they distinguished in numerous places?? You yourself said earlier in this thread that you have a know so salvation based on faith, not a hope so salvation. It appears that you understood back then that they didn't mean the same thing. Now you want to say they do ... Why not make up your mind??

 

Boy, there's a substantive argument. In the time it took you to count the sixteen, why didn't study the argument and explain why you are rejecting verbal inspiration??

Now you confuse me. Earlier you said Neither does hope carry the same impression as faith. So which is it? Do they mean the same or do they not?

If they mean the same, then why are they distinguished in numerous places?? You yourself said earlier in this thread that you have a know so salvation based on faith, not a hope so salvation. It appears that you understood back then that they didn't mean the same thing. Now you want to say they do ... Why not make up your mind?? </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry- I had read the same thing about what Master P said concerning "hope-so" salvation; and "know-so" salvation based on faith. Precepts, please explain and clarify what you mean. ( and notice for once I did NOT question your sanity )
The inspired language of the N.T. (Greek) says elpis and it means hope. Why can't we accept God's Word, instead of forcing the English?