Featured The value of books

Who did God show wrath and vengeance to for those endless ages before creation?

But there was love within the trinity all that time wasn't there??

Think on that a bit.

Is is not an insult, it is the truth.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

This is what I said about Calvinists rejecting scripture to hold to Calvinism. The scriptures are absolutely clear that God calls to men to come to him and be saved, but men refuse. This is God "trying" to save men, but being frustrated. And this is exactly what the scriptures show over and over again.

But you prefer Calvinism over scripture.

Legally, no. Morally, yes.

Just because you deny a term doesn't mean your system demands that term. R.C. Sproul called Irresistible Grace "the Holy rape of the soul".

He just tells it like it is and doesn't deny the obvious as you do.

You Calvinists seem to think saying "We don't say that" gets you off the hook. Maybe with simpletons.

 

Please...set the bible down, and slowly back away...away...away...away...away...

 

Yes, I have to shovel muck like this post, totally off topic, totally aimed at disparagement, and totally devoid of merit.

The fount of disinformation pushed the NIV and TNIV because they were "middle of the road" translations, thus a Calvinist not advocating the word for word translation philosophy versions, but the ones of a more thought for thought liberal translation variety.

Calvinists love the ESV, NIV and NLT, which replace the inspired text with the words of men, such as removing "from" and inserting "before."

 

This particular Calvinists;yes. I do not speak for all Calvinists on the matter. But of course it's your style to make sweeping broadbrush accusations.

And as for translations translating phrase-by-phrase and sentence-by-sentence being 'liberal' --you are delivering an entirely false message.

I believe that a sense-for-sense version is a better way of translating rather than the falsely advertised "word-for-word" method.

Calvinists love a variety of Bible translations. Presently the ESV is rather popular.

All versions (hence the very word 'version') replace the inspired text. Translators have to translate from the original to the target audience. Buty if you mean that some translators ignore the original and proceed to translate without regard for the original --you are sinfully mistaken --again.

 

Since Calvinists must redefine and add words to the text to alter it to be more in conformance with Calvinism, they all seem to prefer the more dynamic versions.

Now the Calvinist wants to redefine the meaning of liberal translation. LOL

Here is a definition: not literal or strict : loose - a liberal translation -

Your beliefs are your business, just do not peddle this fallacy to lead others astray. But at least I agree with you in part, the ESV is falsely advertized as using the word for word translation philosophy, but in actuality removes "from" and inserts "before," and changes nouns or prepositions into verbs to alter God's inspired words.

No, this has been documented. The idea was the text did not mean what it said and therefore had to be changed. From was changed to before on purpose and "to be" inserted to reverse the meaning of the inspired text on purpose.

 

"They all" do? Again, you sweeping generalizations are typical of your ways.

Why do you refer to me as the Calvinist? My handle is Rippon. You, Van, have come up with a completely novel concept of what constitutes a "liberal translation."

Your definition is deficient. There are gradations. On the left side of the ledger would be the NASB and other more form-oriented translations. Further to the right would be the mediating translations such as the HCSB,NIV,NAB,NET etc. Futher on the right :NLT,GWT and company. Moving to the other side of the ledger :CEV,GNT,NCT etc. Way on the right would be the old LB and The Message. The latter two are loose or unduly free. You need to know the basics.

Of course, since you have not read any books on Bible translation you make wild charges. In the theological realm you make reckless assertions on a constant basis and you are completely unfamiliar with any books on the subject. You can claim that you believe the Bible --but you have no company with any conservative biblical scholar.

Do you deny the value of books Van?

 

Folks, the Calvinist Rippon continues to spew nonsense. I say Calvinists all seem to prefer more dynamic versions, and the Calvinist suggested I was saying with certainty that every single Calvinist that ever lived bought the NLT. Fiddlesticks, truth cannot be marginalized with hate-mongering.

Calvinists love to redefine the meaning of words and phrases, claiming they do not mean what dictionaries and lexicons say, no they only mean what the Calvinists claim. The dictionary definition of liberal translation is claimed to be "novel" but in truth, the Calvinist redefinitions are novel. They constantly charge others with their malfeasance.

Next the Calvinist mind-reader asserts I have not read any books on bible translation. LOL Anyone who says liberal translations are not the best is making wild charges. On and on the Calvinist flails, trying to put up a smokescreen to hide his mistaken views.

The Bible is our authority for faith and practice, not the Calvinist Guide to Bible Nullification. There is nothing wrong with considering the insights of other people, i.e. compare the NASB95 with the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV, but we should study the Bible ourselves and not confine ourselves to the furrows of other men.

When I studied Calvinist doctrine as presented in scripture, it became obvious to me that it was no where to be found. For example God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth. God desires all men to be saved. Christ bought the false teacher. No charge can be brought against God's elect, yet we were by nature children of wrath. On and on, so I say again, if people actually study what the bible actually says, they too will come to the conclusion that the body of Christ is riddled with mistaken views, i.e. man-made doctrines.

 

You keep imploring "folks" but to no avail.

Rippon is my handle.

Can't sugarcoat it --you're telling one big lie. You sure have a lot of chutzpah Van.

Simply name them.

You and winman must sing Me and my Shadow a lot.

Both are scriptural. What's the problem? Calvinists don't deny either.

And so it does as it issues forth from the Vanmill.

 

I don't agree with everything Van believes, but he makes better points from scripture than any Calvinist here.

I know, and it is just too easy to call you Rippoff. :tongue3:

Van is not the one who is lying. He did not say every Calvinist uses the NLT. Go back and copy and paste where he said that.

There are lots of books I read many years ago I could not possibly name, but I read them.

We don't agree on everything, I believe God chose persons he foresaw would believe through his foreknowledge, Van doesn't believe that. Van believes Original Sin, I don't.

But we both agree that the scriptures do not teach Calvinism. :thumbsup:

Well, I understand his point, if you were elect before you were saved, then you were a sinner and thus charges can absolutely be made against you.

It's actually an excellent point that argues against anyone being elect until they believe in time.

He makes many solid, logical points. You don't.

 

A joke a day keeps the doctor at bay.

Of course he's lying. Just follow along.

You two, like peas in a pod.

Ha! You are Van's # 1 fan. I just knew there had to be someone out there that bought into his irrationality.

 

If you are happy, then I am happy.

The burden of proof is on you, you made the accusation. Show where he said every Calvinist uses the NLT. Maybe I missed it.

We are more similar than unalike, but not the same. I am King James only, Van certainly does not believe that. I believe all persons who believe on Jesus will be saved, he has implied that not everyone who believes on Jesus will be accepted with God.

No, I think you are Van's #1 fan. You seem fixated on him, you pay far more attention to him than I do.

 

A fan needs to be a supporter. And I certainly am not in support of his errant theology and his wacky translational pronouncements.

 

SNIP Winman is trolling and hoping in so doing to be fed all night. Leave him in his dissidence where he belongs. :type:

 

Tracing a lie

#84 Rip:"Calvinists love a variety of Bible translations. Presently the ESV is rather popular."

#85 Van :"Calvinists...they all seem to prefer the more dynamic versions."

#86 Rip :"They all do? Again, your sweeping generalizations are typical of your ways."

#87 Van :"I say Calvinists all seem to prefer more dynamic versions, and the Calvinist [Rip] suggested I was saying with certainty that every single Calvinist that ever lived bought the NLT."

#88 Rip :"Can't sugarcoat it --you're telling one big lie."

 

You are calling me a troll? What a laugh, I write posts with substance. I post scripture and show how it supports my view, and refutes YOURS.

You on the other hand just drive by and shoot. You are the troll, not me.