1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Speeding

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007.

Top Posters
Page 6 of 10
  1. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gen 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


    Luk 3:38




    Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

    I have to keep teaching you Tim. :)

    I just use adultery for it is easier to type I guess, it is no different than murder Tim.
     
    #101 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
  2. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually adoption has to do with sonship as well. We are born into the family as children, but we are adopted (really a poor choice of translation really) as sons. Adoption has to do with a matter of placement. The words literally means place as sons. The only ones able to be placed as sons are children. So adoption is not equal to eternal (spiritual) savlation.

    But even now I have hijacked my own thread. Shame on me :tonofbricks:
     
    #102 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  3. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    Ok, if we go with out chastisement, we are bastards... not God's child.
    Also we are "born again" into God's family...
    Jesus to Nicodemus... "ye must be born again"

    Also, we are adopted which gives us the legal rights to be joint heirs with Christ... A joint heir is a child...

    And then Jesus states that there are those that have the devil as their father...
    John 8:44
    (44) Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


    It just has always made sense to me that in order to be in God's family, we have to be "born again"

    And until we are, we are not a child of God.
     
    #103 tinytim, Jan 17, 2007
  4. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob that doesn't prove your point. That says Adam was of God. [the son] means that's not in the text.

    So let me ask again where does it say that all of mankind is a child of God?
     
    #104 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  5. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim that's not what Scripture says. Scripture says we are bastards, but "not God's child," is not in there. We are still God's children, just not sons.

    Actually our adoption is future. Hasn't happened yet.

    Amen!
     
    #105 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  6. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do realize the word's "the son" in the above is not in the original..that is why they are italicized in the KJV, don't you? So to read it as it was originally written,
    it would say, "which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God."

    The translators were not inspired... so therefore, we can never prove anything from italics... Just like the word "unknown" in all the tongues passages should not be there....But that is another thread....

    Wow... we did hijack this one... didn't we...
    I am sorry....

    Brother Bob, I do depend on others to teach me... That is called Christian fellowship... I thank God for all of you.
     
    #106 tinytim, Jan 17, 2007
  7. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    Hmmm never heard that before.. but will have to wait.. I am about ready to get busy with something.... so I will be back later..
     
    #107 tinytim, Jan 17, 2007
  8. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does not really mean it not mean that the translators didn't think that was the proper word that was there.
     
    #108 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
  9. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, it was son after son after son after son. Unless someone needed to change it to fit his theory.

    It used the same word for [son] of Adam for Seth. Seth was Adam's son wasn't he?
     
    #109 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
  10. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not the point of the passage in question. The point is that they came from the O/originator. Adam came from God, Seth came from Adam, etc.

    The only "change" that is being made is that you are taking "man's" ideas to be 100% accurate. Again as Tim and I have both said [] means that's not in the text, but added by man.

    It doesn't make sense when tested with the rest of Scripture, so therefore the brackets do not "prove" your point.
     
    #110 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  11. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    so they [] are all correct except the one where Adam is the [son]of God.

    Well, I think my way makes a lot more sense J.Jump.:)

    Lets look at this, man has a spirit in him that come from God and will go back to Him. Man has breath in him that comes from God and will go back to Him. Man has a natural life which came from God and God will take it. hmmmmmm
     
    #111 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2007
  12. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now see this is what I don't understand. Why do you much such statements? Neither Tim or I said that. Neither of us even implied that. So such a statement is just plain out of place.

    Then are you a universalist? Because being a child of God means you are going to "heaven" when you die according to most. So you're going to have an awful hard time making your no adulterer is going to be in heaven fit with all humans are children of God. See it just doesn't work.

    hmmmmmmm is absolutely right. What does that have one iota to do with everyone being a child of God? Nothing. That's what cracks me up about you and why I like reading your posts. You back yourself into such a corner that when you don't have anywhere else to go you just start wiggling and squirming around. It's quite :laugh:

    Bottom line is the Bible doesn't say all of mankind is a child of God. God is the Creator of all mankind and therefore mankind is His creation and thereby His creatures. Not all mankind belongs to the family of God!
     
    #112 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  13. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets take this one at a time. You accuse me of saying things about you all the time which are not true. What in the statement I made is wrong. YOu will agree that all the rest are son after son after son except Adam son of God, will you not?

    You have never backed me into a corner only in your dreams.
     
    #113 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2007
  14. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course I didn't. You don't need any help :wavey:. You get there all by yourself.

    No accusation, just a statement of fact.

    Well having re-read your statement again I think that I went further than what you were talking about. The way I read your statement to begin with was that ALL [] contained in the Bible were right, but the [] in this instance was wrong.

    Now in reading it again I think you meant all the [] in this passage except the one dealing with Adam.

    I don't think any of the [] in this particular passage are needed for understanding. Actually I think the addition of the [] in this instance leads to confusion.

    All those spoken of were biological sons of their originator. However Adam was not a son by biological means, but was a son by creation. He was a firstborn son by creation. Again the context is not that of all of mankind, but a family tree speaking of origin (where one came from). It doesn't prove your point at all.

    Those are sons yes, but it has nothing to do with your point. Your point is that all humans are children of God. There is zero Scriptural backing for that. This text doesn't say we are all children of God. That I am aware of there is no such text that exists in Scripture.
     
    #114 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  15. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, now you are admitting you accused me falsely.

    Now you admit that Adam was a son of God but it don't prove my point.:laugh: :laugh: :applause:

    Are we not sons of Adam, or multiplied Adam?

    Do I sense you just don't want to have made a mistake?
     
    #115 Brother Bob, Jan 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2007
  16. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all. What you said was not true. It wasn't true when you said it, and it's still not true now.

    Would you like to own up to your false statement?
     
    #116 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  17. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bapmom's husband again - Missionary Boy

    You are the first on here that says the inward part does not sin, I thank you. I agree with the outward part but not to the point of adultery.
    That seems to be an arbitrary standard on your part - God's standard was that all sin is forgiven by salvation - "Venal" as well as "mortal" Otherwise David lost his salvation when he murdered Uriah and took his wife in adultery - neither David nor Bathsheba died from those sins. The sin unto death was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, i.e. refusing to believe that Jesus was Deity - this will result in an unsaveable condition until belief in His deity occurs in the heart. This is from the context.

    I John 2:1 If a person who sins cannot be saved, then why does he give a way to fix our unrepented sin before God by employing a lawyer on our behalf when we want to get it right? Keep in mind he's talking to saved people (My little children)Because as I have quoted on here many times, there is a sin and there is a sin unto death which the children of God do not do. See above

    I John 2:3-4 The word "know" does not just imply knowledge, it also has a connotation of intimate awareness and dwelling with. (And Adam knew his wife, and she bare a son) If you claim to be so intimately close to Jesus, and live with unrepentant sin in your life, you are a lying saved person, and are not walking closely with Him. Just like we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at salvation(The earnest of our salvation), we are not always filled with the Holy Spirit. We are filled with the flesh, not the Holy Spirit at those speeding times. I agree to the point of lying saved person. There shall be no liars in Heaven but they have their part in the Lake.
    Abraham is in heaven. He was a liar - he lied about his wife after he attempted to sacrifice Isaac - and the Bible said about Abraham that he believed God (concerning Isaac) and it was counted unto him for righteousness - a very clear testimony from God about his testimony of salvation.

    "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" Saved people, remember, and they all have sin.     I agree whole heartly but not a sin unto death, like adultery. SCRIPTURE PLEASE. Where does the Bible say the sin unto death is adultery or murder?

    "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" He makes a provision for saved people to make their relationship right with God
    If you will go back and read again it is talking to the unsaved.
    Read the context - He is talking about Christians having fellowship with each other and Christ. He uses the word fellowship several times, and also addresses thaem as "my little children"
    VS 10 He reiterates vs 8
    "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" WE are not following the scripture when we sin, not losing our salvation.     Again, I agree but not sin unto death. Why not?Explain your reasoning with Scripture!

    II Timothy 1:12 I committed my salvation to Him when I trusted Christ - God will be faithful and keep it for me - I have no power to lose it or cast it away.     No, because He said he would keep you blameless. Explain yourself! This does not refute, explain, or agree with my statement. It is a non-statement. Does blameless mean that God will override your free will and stop you from sinning, or not hold you responsible for the penalty of death in Hell for your sin?

    BTW, Didn't Paul characterize himself as having to die daily in the struggle with his sin, and the chief of sinners? He must not be saved, and the writer of most of our New Testament (14 books) must not have the word in him. If Paul was an adultery then we all are wasting our time. You didn't answer my question. You are basing your comments on this passage, and then ignoring it when you can't answer a question put to you. Sin is sin. The passage does not make the Catholic distinction of big sin or little sin. It uses the word sin. And since adultery is obviously sin, you can't reconcile your view with what the Scripture says.


    BTW2, If Suicide is a sin unable to be repented of, wouldn't that make Jesus' death a suicide? He chose to die for us before the world began (Titus 1:2), "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, and he gave up the ghost"

    I find it hard to compare a "gift of life" to suicide. But you have me mixed up with someone else, I feel the mind is an organ of the body and can deteriorate as the other organs can.

    Thank you for your answers and please ask me anything you want.

    Suicide is certainly a sin unto death. And Jesus chose to die and put Himself in a life-threatening situation, and could have stopped it at any time, but chose to continue to provide salvation for all us speeders and adulterers. I don't see what the mind has to do with this last point.
     
    #117 bapmom, Jan 17, 2007
  18. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it doesn't Bob. It doesn't matter how many smiley faces and hand claps you but in there. It doesn't prove your point. Your point is ALL humans are chilren of God. That's NOT what that text says. Therefore it DOESN'T prove your point.

    This is really elementary stuff. If your point is that ALL humans are children of God produce a text that says ALL humans are children of God. There is not one that exists.

    Yes we are all BIOLOGICAL sons of Adam. Again that does not prove your point.

    I think it is quite the other way around. You actually prove your point with Scripture instead of placing a meaning onto a text which doesn't say what you want it to say and I will be more than happy to eat crow. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

    Now unless you want to come clean or you can produce a text that says ALL humans are God's children let's cut this rabbit tail off and get back to the topic at hand.
     
    #118 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
  19. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bapmom's husband again

    A little clarification on translation brackets (no hijack intended)

    Example:

    English - Excuse me!

    Spanish - Con permisso! (Literally, with permission, but translated
    With [your] permission

    The bracketed word is not in the original text, but is needed to complete the original thought of the original phrase. Not added arbitrarily by the translator, but essential to the meaning of the phrase. An honest translator will add the brackets to show that the word is not in the original per se, but the sense of the passage can only be complete with the word being there. You have to either accept all the bracketed words as part of the translation, or reject them all - which would make for some very confusing passages.
     
    #119 bapmom, Jan 17, 2007
  20. J. Jump

    J. Jump New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    bapmom I'm not sure I completely understand your latest post. But we in no way have to accept all of the bracketed words or none of them. We have to take them case by case and see if they belong. Sometimes translators add other words that are not in the text as well and didn't even bother to use brackets.

    But we must test all things that come from man against Scripture.

    The passage in question doesn't need the [son of] in order for it to make sense. It doesn't change the meaning of the text any at all to have it in there.

    What we have Bob trying to do is make a passage that speaks about apples say it is actually talking about oranges. The context of the passage isn't even remotely close to what Bob is saying.
     
    #120 J. Jump, Jan 17, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 6 of 10
Loading...