Today's Greek reading brought me to something I never noticed before. In Luke 4:5 Satan says HE has authority over the nations/kingdoms of the Earth and they're his to give to whomever he chooses. Not God, Satan.

That kind of puts a very different spin on things when someone says "God put so and so in that office". Sounds like maybe it was the other guy?????

I haven't seen a single commentary tackle this question. I confess I've been reading that passage since I was 4 years old and never noticed this before. Anybody have any thoughts on it?

Check Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary for Luke 4.

Also, John 8:44(ESV) --

"...[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Rather interestingly, Jesus on 3 occasions refers to Satan as, "the ruler of the world".

“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I , if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31-32).

“I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go from here” (John 14:30-31).

“… and concerning judgment, because the ruler of the world has been judged” (John 16:11).

Now did that put him in a position of authority of the nations and kingdoms? One would seem to follow the other. Does he still hold that authority? Good question.

Look around you. Listen to parents dealing with their children in public, to Karens in stores, note shoplifters and road rage, find out how many people are incarcerated in your county jail, read and take note of the stories on the first four pages of your daily newspaper. Who seems to be in charge, God and His love or Satan and his negativity, his evil?

Look around you in a different fashion. Look at the many churches where the Gospel is preached and people are loved and helped. Look at the many food banks and pregnancy help centers run by churches and Christian organizations. Observe the multiplied millions of acts of kindness and love which occur everyday. Look at the thousands of people a week who commit their lives to Christ. Read just this one testimony I saw this morning from a former graduate of our program. "August 2, 2020 I graduated from Righteous Oaks Recovery Center and it’s been 2 1/2 years since I kicked the devil and alcohol to the curb! The road has not been easy but with the help of God and great family and friends it’s been a blessing. God has truly blessed me over the past 2 1/2 years!!! I Thank God every day for Righteous Oaks!"

Now who seems to be in charge? As someone once said, "Not an atom moves in the universe without God's permission."

2 Corinthians 4:4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204%3A4&version=NASB1995)
...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

God gave us free will, to do as we wish, to love or to hate. On this earth, WE are in charge!

Check Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary for Luke 4.

Also, John 8:44(ESV) --

"...[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Except Jesus didn't contradict him. He only addressed the question of worship.

The whole "look around you" misses the question. It's not "what's going on," it's "who is the actual authority over this world and the nations that muck it up?"

Authority to do what?

On this earth, WE are in charge!You didn't give us that choice. "Who seems to be in charge, God and His love or Satan and his negativity, his evil?"


Except Jesus didn't contradict him.True. And I wonder if Satan, knowing who he was dealing with, would have bothered with lying about such a fundamental issue.

You didn't give us that choice. "Who seems to be in charge, God and His love or Satan and his negativity, his evil?"

Think outside the box.

As opposed to you framing your options more carefully?

As opposed to you framing your options more carefully?
And you were a teacher???

Today's Greek reading brought me to something I never noticed before. Are you referring to the process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework (“Greek philosophy”)?  
In Luke 4:5 Satan says HE has authority over the nations/kingdoms of the Earth Satan is in the counsel of God. We know about how he goes to and from the Earth...
and they're his to give to whomever he chooses. God, Gave Man Dominion and authority. Man gives himself over to the powers that be - darkness/light. Saten would have no Authority or "power" if man didn't hand it over to him...same Holds true for the King of Kings, AKA Jesus. Often times God will use Evil to destroy itself.
God gave us free will, to do as we wish, If that is what you truly believe, you are already lost. Man Doesn't have free will...God is the only one who has free will.  Thing is, you might think you're in charge. Jesus says we are slaves. Free will has more to do with being Created in his image...Free will is in the Image of God.

We are to give [All] Dominion and Authority to our Lord and savior...we are no longer in Charge.  

God created heaven and Earth
to do as we wish, to love or to hate. On this earth, WE are in charge! You just explained how Humans are the creators of Hell on Earth!

Welcome back, Walter.

Man Doesn't have free will...God is the only one who has free will.
Genesis 3?

God created heaven and Earth You just explained how Humans are the creators of Hell on Earth!
Yes, when they use their free will to do evil.

Are you referring to the process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework (“Greek philosophy”)? No. DW is good enough with NT Greek that he reads the NT in that original language.

Authority to do what?

He said it: to give them to whomever he pleases. The implications of that one statement seem enormous to me. I'm still sorting out what the rest of the questions are, never mind finding answers yet.

God created heaven and Earth You just explained how Humans are the creators of Hell on Earth!
And too often they are.

But sometimes Love wins out.

To reiterate what I said in an earlier post: "God gave us free will, to do as we wish, to love or to hate. On this earth, WE are in charge!"


https://apis.mail.yahoo.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-gZDaCRYw7OSFit491kHtGGTpYZoUBSFhRI1czRABCQeAP9XiR1 k9Ofi7AnBaPwPy6F676llwJijNHGM9Rx73ng/messages/@.id==AEyCceQ7zMsLYur-nwyiYPdd5bM/content/parts/@.id==3/thumbnail?appid=YMailNodin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=3

Well said, WG.

(Added later.) I don't entirely agree or disagree with your final line. I do think we have some freedom of will, but I don't know how that relates to God's sovereignty. I would not say that I think WE are in charge. We certainly think we are, but I doubt it is as simple as that.

DW, Col. 1:13 might interest you in your thinking. "He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son."

But while we live on this earth, believers or not, we each daily make choices to show love or hate, to do good or do evil.

It's not quite that simple.

"We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin."

"15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28110c)] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
Escape clause? ("It's not MY fault! The devil made me do it!")

Take that up with Paul.

Take that up with Paul.
He must not have believed that God gave mankind free will. Paul: "I didn't want to do that but golly gee whiz sin got into me and made me do it. I had no choice."

So let's see. Paul, "must not have believed that God gave mankind free will," but you do. Do you really think we should take your view over his? What part of the NT did you write?

And you put your paraphrase of the Romans passage in quotation marks. Bad, bad, bad.

So who got the free will thing?

My take on it: God gave us free will (cf. Genesis 3) but He and Satan are constantly trying to influence us to do good or to do evil.

I don't think we have free will in the sense you see it. Non-Christians are subject to sin and under its control. That is a very clear teaching as was shown above. Jesus put it this way.



Jesus returned, “Believe me when I tell you that every man who commits sin is a slave. For a slave is no permanent part of a household, but a son is. If the Son, then, sets you free, you are really free!

Only the Son can set a person free. So it's hard to understand. It's more than just being influenced by whatever kingdom we are living in. There is an element of control that is exercised.

I can choose to beat my young child or I can love him, read storybooks to him, take him on fun jaunts to parks and petting zoos. I can choose to gossip about my neighbor or I can invite her over for coffee and cookies and pleasant conversation. I can choose to take potshots at the neighborhood stray cat or I can humanely trap it and adopt it myself or take it to a nearby (well-run) cat shelter. The choice for each is mine.

We are ALL subject to sin, Christians as well as non-Christians. And even non-Christians can choose to love and not do evil.

So we are subject to sin, and yet we have free will? Very interesting theory.

Yes, we have the choice. Not a theory. It's reality.

Not a good one. We are subject to sin and yet have free will. Well…ok.

Not a good one. We are subject to sin and yet have free will. Well…ok.
You don't have free will?

Thanks to Jesus' love and sacrifice for us, we can ask Him for His help to say no to sin instead of yes.

Humans are either subject to sin or owners of free will. Can't have it both ways. Now I do agree with your final statement, but it only applies to those who trust Him as Savior.

What's your definition of free will?

When an individual has sole authority over his/her own decisions.

When an individual has sole authority over his/her own decisions.
And all humans don't have free will?

Are humans subject to sin? You have said previously that people are. If that is true, and you said it is, then humans do not truly have free will, do they?

Outside of Christ, that is.

Having free will is totally different from being subject to sin. They are two different concepts, not synonymous or even related.

Free will eliminates being subject to anything other than self. Your position is illogical.

Free will allows each person to make a choice for good or for evil, is the ability to act at one's own discretion, is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

God gave us free will so we aren't His puppets, so we can make our own choices to do good or evil, i.e. to sin.

But you said earlier we are subject to sin. If that is true, then how are we able to act at our own discretion? Paul's chapter 7 passage does not agree with you.

You must choose one or the other. You cannot logically take both.

We all are subject to sin, to temptation, to doing bad things, evil things. Thank God for giving us the victory, that we recognize sin possibilities and, with His Son's help, have the discernment to say no to sin. No disagreement with Paul whatsoever.

"We are all subject to sin." Oh? Then you don't have free will.

Earlier you ridiculed Paul's writing ("I didn't want to do that but golly gee whiz sin got into me and made me do it. I had no choice."), and yet now you claim to agree with it.

You seem to be confused.

Good night.

"We are all subject to sin." Oh? Then you don't have free will.
We are all subject to sin occasion by occasion, by choice. We can sin or we can not sin. We are free to do either. That's free will.

Earlier you ridiculed Paul's writing ("I didn't want to do that but golly gee whiz sin got into me and made me do it. I had no choice."), and yet now you claim to agree with it.
I was poking fun at YOU and your misunderstanding, not at Paul.

You seem to be confused.

Good night.
No,you do not understand what free will is.

We can sin or we can not sin.Then we are not subject to sin. It's one or the other for, dear WG, you cannot be subject to the control of something else and yet still be free. Sorry, but you are violating a very simple concept. The founding fathers understood that we could not be subject to the King of England and yet still be free. They understood what you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

I did not misunderstand Paul. I simply quoted Paul without attaching any interpretation to it. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=849582&page=2&p=3882934#post3882934

You are the one who claimed to understand what he meant. This is your quote.


He must not have believed that God gave mankind free will. Paul: "I didn't want to do that but golly gee whiz sin got into me and made me do it. I had no choice."

I do like the way this site preserves what is posted. It comes in handy, especially when someone has painted herself into a proverbial corner.

Then we are not subject to sin. It's one or the other for, dear WG, you cannot be subject to the control of something else and yet still be free. Sorry, but you are violating a very simple concept. The founding fathers understood that we could not be subject to the King of England and yet still be free. They understood what you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
You are thinking of sin as the condition. I am writing about it as an act. Even Christians sin (the act of sinning).

Then what is it that people are "subject" to? To be "subject to" has the meaning of being controlled by, so what is it that people are controlled by?

Then what is it that people are "subject" to? To be "subject to" has the meaning of being controlled by, so what is it that people are controlled by?
We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin; we are subject to sinful actions, temptations to do wrong things. Jesus' love and sacrifice didn't take the sin condition away but did provide God's forgiveness for our daily acts of sin.

We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin;Then you are saying we are not free, for how can a "bound" person be considered free?

You are not daily beset by temptations, urges to lie/cheat/steal/disrespect another, etc.?

You are being evasive. You have just said we are all "bound", and yet you have claimed that we are "free". You need to explain how a bound person can be free.

If you can.

You are being evasive. You have just said we are all "bound", and yet you have claimed that we are "free". You need to explain how a bound person can be free.

If you can.
Where did I say we are free?

#45. "We are all subject to sin occasion by occasion, by choice. We can sin or we can not sin. We are free to do either. That's free will."


Honestly, I have no idea why you would ask that. You know full well that the core of your argument has been an appeal to free will, so to ask, "Where did I say we are free?" is really wild. But if you want to argue about it, I'll rephrase it.

You have just said we are all "bound", and yet you have claimed that we have free will and are free to choose what we do. You need to explain how a bound person can have freedom of will/freedom of choice.

My apologies for the "evasive garbage" comment. I get frustrated here with these round the Maypole discussions and I let it get to me. That was on me.

The whole "look around you" misses the question. It's not "what's going on," it's "who is the actual authority over this world and the nations that muck it up?"WE Know that God gave Man Dominion and Authority, right?
here’s Luke 4:5–7: “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, ‘To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.

Satan will have his hour: Revelation 20:7 (The binding of Satan implied restraint put upon his power and freedom of action; the loosing means the removing of these restraints.) here we find the vision picturing to us how Christendom will be invaded by the influences of the evil one.

I might not be touching on the subject matter. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.
I think it has more to do with God giving Human (body) All dominion and Authority... than having human (a body) giving that authority to Satan.


You have exalted Your word above all Your name Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Means; Humans are 100% in charge (God will not interfere unless we give him Authority) of the goings on in our body (life) in this World.

1 John 5:19
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

Meaning Humans are 100% in charge (God will not interfere unless we give him the Authority)of the goings on in this World.
Like I've been saying, God gave mankind free will to do good or to do evil in this world. Every day we see evidence that that's going on -- the newspapers are full of mankind's cruelty to mankind (and to animals), yet there are also reports of mankind's love and care. And God is watching....

God gave mankind free will to do good or to do evil in this world.
It has nothing to do with Mankind! It is not you (as Mankind) that can do anything in or of yourself.
mankind's love and care.Need I inform you? Man's love is not God's love. We are either Sons of God or of the Devil!!! Yet we will all die a Human death.

Could you please drop your free-will malarkey... it's off-topic.


God has a new arrangement - Release dominion of sin over your life.

It has nothing to do with Mankind! It is not you (as Mankind) that can do anything in or of yourself. Need I inform you?
Read Genesis 3.

Man's love is not God's love. We are either Sons of God or of the Devil!!! Yet we will all die a Human death.
Please stop mixing up your reasoning points, your metaphors!

Could you please drop your free-will malarkey... it's off-topic.
It's the whole ball of wax.

God has a new arrangement - Release dominion of sin over your life.
What does that have to do with this thread?

Plus, releasing the dominion of sin over my life says I do have free will and can make that decision.

Like I've been saying, God gave mankind free will to do good or to do evil in this worldYou've also been saying mankind is bound to sin. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, those two positions are contradictory. You have yet to explain how both can work together.


Plus, releasing the dominion of sin over my life says I do have free will and can make that decision.That is at least going somewhat in the right direction. However, that cannot be extended to mankind in general.

You've also been saying mankind is bound to sin. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, those two positions are contradictory. You have yet to explain how both can work together.
You're a member of mankind. Do you ever do mean or bad things, break a commandment, i.e., sin? By choice? Do you ever choose to do good?

You are being evasive. You are describing pure free will, but you know that is not the question. So again, how can mankind be bound/subject to sin and yet have free will? For one to be true, the other cannot be true.

You are being evasive. You are describing pure free will, but you know that is not the question. So again, how can mankind be bound/subject to sin and yet have free will? For one to be true, the other cannot be true.
Evasive? Any one of us can make the choice to do a bad thing or make the choice to do a good thing. Each of us has done bad things AND good things today.

So again, how can mankind be bound/subject to sin and yet have free will? For one to be true, the other cannot be true.

So again, how can mankind be bound/subject to sin and yet have free will? For one to be true, the other cannot be true.
We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin; we are subject to sinful actions, temptations to do wrong things. We have the inclination, a choice, free will, to do a sin, a bad thing. Or we can do good.

I just realized. You don't like the word "bound". You think if sin binds us, we are powerless to do good actions. How about: our free will allows us to do good things but too often is restricted by sin so that we also do bad things.

You are still trying to have your cake and eat it, too. After starting with, "We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin; we are subject to sinful actions, " you then continue with, "temptations to do wrong things. We have the inclination, a choice, free will, to do a sin, a bad thing. Or we can do good." To be "bound" and "subject to" is not the same as merely being tempted or having an inclination.

Even worse is to suggest that being "restricted by sin" causes us to, "also do bad things." So you finally reach a conclusion that we do not, in fact, really have free will since, being restricted by sin, we therefore do bad things. Very interesting!!

You earlier stated, "You (JL) are thinking of sin as the condition. I am writing about it as an act." But now you say, "We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin." You need to make your mind up.


You think if sin binds us, we are powerless to do good actions.I have suggested no such thing. These are your utterly contradictory ideas we are discussing.

Do you do bad things each day?

Do you do good things each day?

Yes and yes.

Now are you able to explain your plainly contradictory ideas? Evidently, no. This has become tiresome. If you can offer up an explanation, then we can discuss it. Until then, you are left with the utterly nonsensical position of trying to say people are bound by and subject to sin, and yet those same people have free will. I suspect you are trying to land somewhere in the middle, saying that we exercise free will when we can, from time to time, break free from our bondage to sin, your position thus being one of "occasional (transitory) free will".

1. You have the free will to always do good things. Why don't you do good things all the time?

2. You have the free will to always do bad things. Why don't you do bad things all the time?

You cannot defend your nonsensical position by asking questions. Put your mind to work. Explain how a person bound to and subject to sin can, in any sense, have genuine free will.


You have the free will to always do good things.So you say. That's what I'm asking you to defend. You plainly cannot do so.

You cannot defend your nonsensical position by asking questions. Put your mind to work. Explain how a person bound to and subject to sin can, in any sense, have genuine free will.
Thus, your comment says you are not free to do good. Everything you do is negative at one level or another. You have no choice (free will) in the matter.

So you say. That's what I'm asking you to defend. You plainly cannot do so.
In Christ, you do have the freedom (free will) to always do good things. So why don't you?

Thus, your comment says you are not free to do good. Everything you do is negative at one level or another. You have no choice (free will) in the matter.Wonderful post except, sadly, it is untrue. I have said nothing about not being free. My statement ( Explain how a person bound to and subject to sin can, in any sense, have genuine free will.) was based upon a comment by YOU. A little honesty would be helpful here.


In Christ, you do have the freedom (free will) to always do good things .We have discussed this previously. The key in your statement is to be "in Christ". However, you have said that mankind in general has free will and yet is also bound by/subject to sin. That is the statement I wish you would defend.

What's your definition of free will?

What's your explanation of your contradictory views? Asking an abundance of questions just comes across as a diversion on your part. Why are so afraid to attempt an answer???

What are my contradictory views? I don't see any.

That could very well be true, sad to say, but I'll post it again for the 412th time. Keep hope alive!!

"However, you have said that mankind in general has free will and yet is also bound by/subject to sin. That is the statement I wish you would defend."

Also here. "So again, how can mankind be bound/subject to sin and yet have free will? For one to be true, the other cannot be true."

Here as well. "Explain how a person bound to and subject to sin can, in any sense, have genuine free will."

And again. "Until then, you are left with the utterly nonsensical position of trying to say people are bound by and subject to sin, and yet those same people have free will. I suspect you are trying to land somewhere in the middle, saying that we exercise free will when we can, from time to time, break free from our bondage to sin, your position thus being one of 'occasional (transitory) free will.'"

So those four were on this page alone. Still, I'm sure you just overlooked them...somehow...or other...you know.

God created Adam and Eve, then gave them free will. He asked them not to do one simple thing. They decided to do that forbidden thing and thus they disobeyed God. Sin entered the world.

Are we on the same page so far?

Yes, a page that you have posted several times. Hopefully, an explanation of your seemingly contradictory position, thus far unposted, will soon follow. Keep hope alive!!

I started this with a question about a Bible passage. It's turned into word games.


You are still trying to have your cake and eat it, too. After starting with, "We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin; we are subject to sinful actions, " you then continue with, "temptations to do wrong things. We have the inclination, a choice, free will, to do a sin, a bad thing. Or we can do good." To be "bound" and "subject to" is not the same as merely being tempted or having an inclination.

Even worse is to suggest that being "restricted by sin" causes us to, "also do bad things." So you finally reach a conclusion that we do not, in fact, really have free will since, being restricted by sin, we therefore do bad things. Very interesting!!

You earlier stated, "You (JL) are thinking of sin as the condition. I am writing about it as an act." But now you say, "We are all bound by sin, the condition called sin." You need to make your mind up.

You think if sin binds us, we are powerless to do good actions.
I have suggested no such thing. These are your utterly contradictory ideas we are discussing.

I suppose a person could look at it like that. If you would prefer, I'll drop it. Still not too sure how to piece together free will with the idea that we are subject to sin, and there is plainly going to be no answer to that, but it has gone on too long. I'd agree with that.

Your self-identity is an illusion, who or what you identity as is just a concept created by your thoughts. The you that you think you currently are (your deepest sense of I am) are just thoughts that pop in and out of existence from nothingness, and you have no control over them.

Don’t believe me? Try this right now, sit down with your eyes close and see if you can stop your thoughts (good luck).

Did you notice that all you have are thoughts? Thoughts on top of thoughts on top of thoughts, and there is no you that is doing the thoughts, the thoughts are doing you! The you that you think you really are is called the ego, your entire identity is the ego. So once you realize that you as perceiver is an illusion than you realize that there is no you that there is no free will. How can there be free will if there is no you in control? Romans 7: For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing” (verse 19). In short, Paul was saying, I do what I don’t want to do (thoughts are doing you)!

Romans 7: For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing” (verse 19). In short, Paul was saying, I do what I don’t want to do (thoughts are doing you)!


The Fall occurred because man used his free will to listen to Satan. No longer having free will (as we know it). How can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good? We have become sin aka darkness. It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes “free.

We will always be Darkness (we will always be sinners). God does not make us light. Jesus (is that light) gives us light...Light overcomes our darkness. It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person’s will to regenerate that person.

Your idea of free will - Without the opportunity to sin, there is no opportunity to choose for God by choosing against something else? Would this explain the tree of good and Evil that was in the garden??


@Wondergirl; You act as if "Oh I'm just so full of love, I think I'll go produce some fruit!"
Instead, maybe we should be thinking - why it is we don't love God (not as we should love him)?

It was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the tree of good and evil. Big difference!

waltero, your post is full of contradictions. You don't even agree with yourself.

waltero said: How can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good?

WG asks: How then can people who have never heard of God choose to do good and be kind and loving?

The Fall occurred because man used his free will to listen to Satan. No longer having free will (as we know it). How can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good? We have become sin aka darkness. It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes “free.This is a good paragraph.


We will always be Darkness (we will always be sinners). God does not make us light. Jesus (is that light) gives us light...Light overcomes our darkness. It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person’s will to regenerate that person.Not so sure about this one. Jesus said, "You are the light of the world". Paul wrote, "that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world."

God does not make us light. Maybe I should rephrase: God Does not change our Darkness into light. He does not turn us into light

JESUS TOOK OUR SIN SO WE COULD HAVE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS.


waltero, your post is full of contradictions.This coming from somebody who believes the Bible is full of them as well.

WG asks: How then can people who have never heard of God choose to do good and be kind and loving?
We call that Sin!
Is as Filthy Rags.

We are empty Vessels. We are God-shaped containers made to receive and be filled with God! Full vessels are of no use. Righteous self is a greater hindrance than sinful self.

Righteous self is a greater hindrance than sinful self.


Well said. It certainly seems to be true.

God does not turn our darkness into light??? "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

So I'm not real sure what you are trying to say.

God does not turn our darkness into light. God looks on us as "if" we are righteous.


If God is light then Darkness is the opposite of light.


who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." It's like God Added to himself.
Calling Darkness out into the light. and for that we will sing his wonderful praises for all eternity...thank God he lives!

Why are you treating "light" and "righteousness" as though they are synonyms?

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." We don't simply appear to be righteous. We have, and have become, the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

"This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile."

"And because of him5 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-corinthians/1/30#footnote1) you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption."

"Since, therefore, n (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/5/9#footnote1)we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from o (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/5/9#footnote2)the wrath of God."

It leaves no room at all for boasting on our part, but rather a deep and glowing appreciation of all that God has done for us.

This coming from somebody who believes the Bible is full of [contradictions] as well.
Not at all! The Bible has been translated many times. The translators have not always been true to their calling. Plus, the Bible is full of poetry, history, allegories, parables, prophecies -- all of which must be understood in their proper context (e.g., the hills did not literally clap their hands).

Saying the Bible has been "translated many times" is rather misleading. Some translations do vary in generally minor ways, but that does not alter the reliability of our current translations. The truth is there for those who wish to pursue it.

So you're not saying the Bible has contradictions, but rather that it has merely been corrupted in translation and is thus unreliable.
Nope, I'm not saying that.

BUT, the word "homosexual" was added to the Bible by translators centuries later. For instance, Leviticus 18:22 originally condemned pederasty/pedophilia (not homosexuality).

I edited my post. I'm still not sure what your post about the Bible being translated many times by sometimes dishonest, inefficient, biased, or whatever "not always true to their calling" translators is supposed to mean. Perhaps you can clarify.

Actually, having many English translations is a positive.

We don't simply appear to be righteous. Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith. And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. any way you put it - we are darkness/and full of sin. We aren't changed into light. We are hidden in the body of christ Jesus.

I am a sinner and I can do nothing to change that. But Jesus can, that being the case it is all Jesus.

While living on Earth, I don't know anything about becoming Righteous. I only know of God's righteousness.
Far too many Christians believe they are righteous. I never want to be counted with the Pharisees (they declared themselves righteous), by considering myself righteous. I will leave that up to God. Jesus is righteous, it's not our righteousness we are seeking. We acquire Jesus' Righteousness. God looks on us as "if" we are righteous (not good enough?).

Doesn't your last line heavily work against your idea?

OK. You dropped that line.


any way you put itI haven't "put it". I have shown you scripture. If Jesus said we are the light of the world, then I can believe Him or believe you. Is that not correct?


it is all Jesus.With that I can agree completely.

For what it's worth, this is how I see it. Jesus is like the sun. He generates His own light by virtue of His glory. We are like the moon. We reflect the light of God onto a dark world. It's not our light, but rather it's His light that shines through us. I can't speak for you, but I am not darkness and full of sin. I still have areas of darkness in my life, and I still have issues with sin, but I wouldn't say I am, "darkness/and full of sin." That is true of sinners, but not of Christians.

"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'” John 8:12

I still have areas of darkness in my life, and I still have issues with sin, but I wouldn't say I am, "darkness/and full of sin." That is true of sinners, but not of Christians. We move with the World, we operate as the World, we are sinners waiting to be sanctified.

The light of Jesus.

If you have light, then are you in darkness?
If you have the righteousness of Christ, then are you full of sin?

My mistake. go ahead and consider yourself righteous.

We are Darkness shrouded in the Glory of God. We know where we come from! You act as if Darkness is a bad thing?
Darkness, sin, has been conquered...it has no power and is very much irrelevant. Darkness is no longer darkness, sin is no longer sin (for those who are in Christ Jesus) It's okay, you (being darkness) are no longer in the dark, you have the life and the light of Christ in you. If you think of it like that it is all the more amazing! God Added to himself. he brought darkness into the light. Darkness which could have nothing to do with God...and now darkness (which once lived unto death) is a friend of God...don't you get it??? I don't think we fully grasp what God has done for us. That's why I believe once we reach our final destination we will continually praise and sing to God's Glory for all Eternity. Some people might think that would get a little boring but I think it will be made something new every time we sing the same song. Just more and more grateful every time we open our mouths to give him praise.

At the same time, God used Man to defeat Satan.

So darkness is not really darkness and sin is not really sin? I think I see now why you scarcely ever appeal to scripture.


go ahead and consider yourself righteous.I consider myself to be whatever the Bible says I am.


I believe once we reach our final destination we will continually praise and sing to God's Glory for all Eternity. Some people might think that would get a little boring but I think it will be made something new every time we sing the same song. Just more and more grateful every time we open our mouths to give him praise.With this I agree completely.

That's why I believe once we reach our final destination we will continually praise and sing to God's Glory for all Eternity.
I totally disagree. God has bigger and less egotistical plans for us than us just standing as a choir and singing His praises forever.

So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?

So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?
Giving praise to God does not involve only singing.

The Problem with the Church is -We don't know who God is, we Don't know who we are.


So darkness is not really darkness and sin is not really sin?Even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light as day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee.
I consider myself to be whatever the Bible says I am.And what does the Bible say you are? It tells me I am a sinner. Born in sin. Yet God gives me life, in Jesus. You might think of your actions as being righteous but you remain a sinner. King David nor any of the Prophets (any human that was from God) never thought of themselves as righteous. Jesus even mentioned that he was not perfect. Not forgetting Apostle Paul; Which I am Chief sinner. He didn't say - Which I "was" Chief sinner.


Giving praise to God does not involve only singing. I'm totally Okay with singing and giving him praise, for all of eternity!

Look at the levitical Priests (we are to be priests)...they did nothing but give service to God. Feel free to think anything you like. King Davids's most desire was to stay in the house of the Lord "always." Anything other than giving praise to God comes from you...there will be no you in Heaven (remember Empty vessal). Although we will still have our Character.

We are to live a song, a song for the Lord. Bible tells us; make a new Song every day. Be assured, God will put a song in your heart that will be everlasting life.

So the Scriptures need to remind us again and again to “sing a new song.” Sing Something New Three Psalms start with precisely these words — Psalms 96, 98, and 149 — “sing to the Lord a new song.” As does Isaiah 42:10 (“sing to the Lord a new song”) and Psalm 33:3 (“sing to him a new song”).

I'm totally Okay with singing and giving him praise.
Look at the levitical priests...they did nothing but give service to God.
And "service to God" is NOT singing. As I said, "Giving praise to God does not involve only singing."

there will be no you in Heaven (remember Empty vessal). Although we will still have our Character
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Body and soul will be reunited on the Last Day.

May I ask? Are you a Witness?

Giving praise to God does not involve only singing.Yet again, a direct question goes unanswered.\


And what does the Bible say you are?This. "9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."

And this. "For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

And this. "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."


It tells me I am a sinner. Born in sin. Yet God gives me life, in Jesus. Agree with this.


You might think of your actions as being righteousNow you are trying to be clever. That's regrettable. I have never said that. I have said repeatedly that I have the righteousness of Christ, imputed to me by grace. It is all of Him and none of me, and yet given to me to enjoy and rest upon.


King David nor any Profit (any human that was from God) never thought of themselves as righteous. Jesus even mentioned that he was not perfect.I assume you mean that Jesus said DAVID was not perfect as opposed to saying JESUS was not perfect. At any rate, do you think God answered this prayer of David?

"Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.

10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

And what does the Bible say you are? Yes. we become righteous in Christ Jesus...we are not Righteous. We should never consider ourselves to be Righteous. That's all I'm saying.

Not sure if you caught my earlier edited post. Paul Said he "is" Chief Sinner. Jesus mentioned that not even he was perfect.

I don't post Bible references much, because I just read it and don't feel the need to post it just to have others tell me I'm Wrong in my understanding. It's there. It is just as easy for you to look it up.

That's kind of a thing with me. People don't have to search the Scriptures anymore...they can just point to a verse and use it as they wish.

We are just an empty shell, how are we supposed to tell ourselves that we are Righteous? we tell ourselves he is righteous and we hitch our wagon to him. I think we are saying the same thing.

We know who and what we are. Our Sin (body) is covered with the Glory (Jesus) of God. We are clothed with his Righteousness. He no longer sees the sin, it is as if we were Righteous...because we know that it is not us, we are not righteous. Jesus's righteousness is as close as we will ever come to being Righteous. It is not us, it is what we receive from God. God gave us his righteousness. God Bless.

Yet again, a direct question goes unanswered.
Direct question? Praising God through service is much more than just singing. Service to God is unselfish giving of money and your own abilities to Him and to others, empathy, kind actions toward others..."love one another; as I have loved you" (John 13:34).

Praising God through service is much more than just singing.That is equivalent to saying - God's righteousness is much more than just God. Why would you not be happy with simply Praising (singing) about the Glory You have received from God, too God?

that is equivalent to saying - God's righteousness is much more than just God
Huh? That makes no sense. There is no equivalency at all.

Direct question? Praising God through service is much more than just singing. Service to God is unselfish giving of money and your own abilities to Him and to others, empathy, kind actions toward others..."love one another; as I have loved you" (John 13:34).You are nothing if not consistent. Still unanswered. Here it is again. I feel certain it will still remain unanswered, but perhaps not. We'll see. "So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?"

I would say this that I think you will possibly agree with. I don't think the Bible says we will spend all of our time singing, but I can't imagine anything more satisfying or glorious that praising, loving and worshiping the triune God. I eagerly look forward to it. Christians should all go out with a wonderful smile on our faces as we remember that in just a few more seconds we will see His face and His glory. Wow!!

Paul Said he "is" Chief Sinner. Jesus mentioned that not even he was perfect.Are you suggesting that Jesus claimed He was not perfect???


I don't post Bible references much, because I just read it and don't feel the need to post it just to have others tell me I'm Wrong in my understanding. It's there. It is just as easy for you to look it up.Oh brother. You have become just like WG. You make an assertion which you cannot support, and then you want to tell the other person to find support for you. That's unspeakably cheap. Stir yourself to do your own work.

God no longer sees our sin because it is gone.

Two more passages for you to ponder.

Therefore if any person is [ingrafted] in Christ (the Messiah) he is a new creation (a new creature altogether); the old [previous moral and spiritual condition] has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come!

From Hebrews 8.
For this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 And each person will not teach his fellow citizen,[e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8&version=CSB#fen-CSB-30086e)]
and each his brother or sister, saying, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
from the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will forgive their wrongdoing,
and I will never again remember their sins.

OK. One more. "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." How far is the east from the west? An infinite distance.

You are nothing if not consistent. Still unanswered. Here it is again. I feel certain it will still remain unanswered, but perhaps not. We'll see. "So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?"
Every moment with Him, every second! that we spend giving to and sharing with others (yes, in heaven!!!) will be a song of praise to Him!

And this begins at the moment of death --

"The topic of near-death experiences has been a widely-debated subject, but scientists are claiming to have discovered that a person's consciousness continues to work after the body has stopped showing signs of life..."
https://popculture.com/trending/news/how-brain-works-after-death-died/

Still unanswered. I do admire your consistency, though in this case it is inappropriate, but I appreciate you demonstrating that I know you very well!!

I am all for you and hope you do well.

Asked and answered!!!

So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?"
"Every moment with Him, every second!"

I added more while you were busy raking me over the coals. Please return to finish reading Post #110.

Nah. Just your usual evasiveness. Why are liberals so afraid of answering direct questions, and especially in this case? It was a simple question. If it bothers you, then we'll just move on.

Service to God is unselfish giving of money and your own abilities to Him and to others, empathy, kind actions toward others..." love one another; as I have loved you" That tells me that, that is all it is to you. It's not about how well we can Love.


Praising God through service It's not in the Sevice it's in the Life. It's not a service that you can live his life. He is living His life in you, you are not to live your life in him.


Are you suggesting that Jesus claimed He was not perfect?
I'm not suggesting. I just read (in the Bible)it. You can find it if you disagree. If I go back and find and post, then you will simply ignore it. is that your position; No, NO! I am not looked upon as if I am righteous...I'm Righteous. Have it your way, I'm okay with that.

I know God looks on Jesus when it comes to my life. We are being transformed into his likeness. We are in the Body of Jesus...he has become sin. So If Paul thought of himself (not past tense) as Chief Sinner, we as Christians are to think of ourselves as Righteous? All because I understand it as; God looks on us as if we are Rightoues. Regarding Abraham, it was credited to him as being righteous.

You understand that your entire argument (that seems to be your thing) is unimportant. it might be important to you, being that you want to be made righteous. So you are made righteous...go tell it to the mountains.

@JL; It seems to be a little harder to find than I would have thought. I was going to look at it to see if I misread it.
Jesus was Talking to his Disciples and said; I have not been made Perfect until I am (can't remember)...indicating having to go through...? I have Bibles placed all around my house. I will have to wait till I go downstairs to see if I can find it. I think it's a few Chapters back from where i left off.

It's not in the Sevice it's in the Life. It's not a service that you can live his life. He is living His life in you, you are not to live your live in him.
Jesus lives in us and we live in Him. His love for us prompts us to share that love with others.

Nah. Just your usual evasiveness. Why are liberals so afraid of answering direct questions, and especially in this case? It was a simple question. If it bothers you, then we'll just move on.

"So how much singing do you think will take place? Will you not desire to praise Him endlessly, the one who gave His life for you?"
Do you want to know how much time will be spent singing in the heavenly choir? In heaven, it will be always Now. No measurement of time passing.

@JL; It seems to be a little harder to find than I would have thought. I was going to look at it to see if I misread it.
Jesus was Talking to his Disciples and said; I have not been made Perfect until I am (can't remember)...indicating having to go through...? I have Bibles placed all around my house. I will have to wait till I go downstairs to see if I can find it. I think it's a few Chapters back from where i left off.I think you're offbase on that one. He is the perfect, flawless, sinless Lamb of God. That has been Christian doctrine for ages. It took a perfect sacrifice to atone for millions of people.

Jesus said, "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.”

Peter said, "who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth."

He also said, "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ."

Paul said, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Hebrews 4:15. "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."

John said, "You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin."

Do you want to know how much time will be spent singing in the heavenly choir? In heaven, it will be always Now. No measurement of time passing.So frequently it's the conditional, "answerless" answer.


Jesus lives in us and we live in Him. His love for us prompts us to share that love with others.I like that. Very true.

His love for us prompts us to share that love with others Yes. Remember it has nothing to do with our love. It is not to be considered a service.

Jesus lives in us and we live in Him.Just don’t act as if you still live in the sphere of the flesh...Praising God through service is much more than just singing...coming from the flesh?

In Christ Jesus, you have been drawn into the order of redemption. There is no part of you that you can hold back for yourself. There is no part of you that belongs to the world.

Walter, I think you are referring to Luke 13:32 where it reads in the KJV, "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." But the context does not really support that translation, and virtually all other translations render "perfect" as having the meaning of finishing His work at Calvary. It certainly fits the context much better and does not put the passage in disagreement with the rest of the NT, nor the half-dozen passages I noted above.

WG: Do you want to know how much time will be spent singing in the heavenly choir? In heaven, it will be always Now. No measurement of time passing.

JL: So frequently it's the conditional, "answerless" answer.

The answer? We dont know how much time will be spent singing in the heavenly choir. I hate to sing, so I will joyfully volunteer for something else on Cloud 9.

The answer? We dont know how much time will be spent singing in the heavenly choir.Fair enough. I'd even agree with that. It's why, however, I asked, "So how much singing do you think will take place?"


I hate to sing, so I will joyfully volunteer for something else on Cloud 9.No one will hate singing in heaven. It will be a supreme joy above joys.

Fair enough. I'd even agree with that. It's why, however, I asked, "So how much singing do you think will take place?"
My understanding of heaven is that it will be a perfect Earth with life much as we know it now.

No one will hate singing in heaven. It will be a supreme joy above joys.
My singing will be done privately in my spiritual shower.

My understanding of heaven is that it will be a perfect Earth with life much as we know it now.Life will not be like it is now. It will be far, far better and far more glorious, and the great difference maker will be to be in God's presence unhindered. As Paul said, "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I [d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29384d)]cannot tell. 23 [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29385e)]For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better."

Life will not be like it is now. It will be far, far better and far more glorious
By a perfect Earth, I mean the landscapes -- lakes, oceans, mountains, prairies, forests -- that we enjoy now plus the wild animals that will all be tame. No disease, death, trash thrown around. AND we humans will all enjoy each other's company.

My only concern is the complete absence in your description of what will make heaven truly glorious.

My only concern is the complete absence in your description of what will make heaven truly glorious.
The presence of our glorious God among us, making our new home far more wonderful than anything we can ever imagine! Heaven will be the MOST Glorious, MOST wonderful, most COMPLETELY perfect, and MOST beautiful place beyond our most vivid imagination.

Amen, Wondergirl.

By a perfect Earth, I mean the landscapes -- lakes, oceans, mountains, prairies, forests -- that we enjoy now plus the wild animals that will all be tame.
We know that there will be no Oceans. Some Scholars understand it as there being no animals Either. I'm not sure we will even notice or think about the Earth. it will be a new heaven and new Earth. we will not remember anything of the old. Nothing will even resemble anything similar (except Jesus).

To throw something at you; might have something to do with this perfection bit. - Will Jesus be Judged and who will be his Judge?

Something I want to ask WG; Why was the tree in the Garden? Does it have anything to do with free will? Before you start - you know what tree I'm talking about.


With life much as we know it now. This is true, but it is not true in the way that you think. In other words; you are saying it but you don't understand what you are actually saying. I can tell you my take on it. I'd like to hear it (if you could kindly elaborate) from you, first. I see you as a pretender...that's why I don't want to try and explain...telling you before I know what it is you don't know before you now know what I already know. That which you should already know, but you don't know.

Something I want to ask WG; Why was the tree in the Garden? Does it have anything to do with free will? Before you start - you know what tree I'm talking about.

The Christmas tree? Oh, you mean the tree that Adam and Eve picked the fruit from and ate? Please tell me its name. The apple tree? Granny Smith or maybe Red Delicious?

The Christmas tree? Oh, you mean the tree that Adam and Eve picked the fruit from and ate? Please tell me its name.Okay, just shut it. you're on my ignore list.
That's what you do, there is nothing straight about you. you are off kilter!

I try to listen and understand. I believe JL makes an effort. You have it already figured out. That being the case, there is no use in speaking with you.


With life much as we know it now. Like I said earlier - The Church doesn't know who God is and we don't know who we are...But WG knows all. You go ahead and believe you can live the life that you are living now the same as if you were living in heaven.

Okay, just shut it. you're on my ignore list.
That's what you do, there is nothing straight about you. you are off kilter!
Bible stories don't have it be as dry as dust; they can be fun too. Lighten up, waltero!

Do you really know the correct name of that tree? You called it something else in Post #80. It makes a big difference if a certain two words are missing from the name.

By the way, that story is an allegory.

By the way, that story is an allegory.Pure speculation masquerading as fact.

The Christmas tree? Oh, you mean the tree that Adam and Eve picked the fruit from and ate? Please tell me its name. The apple tree? Granny Smith or maybe Red Delicious?It is very difficult to ever get a simple, straight answer from WG. Not real sure why, but it does seem to be the case.

By the way, that story is an allegory.

Pure speculation masquerading as fact.

Oh, c'mon! The Hebrew OT writers were excellent storytellers and poets. Allegories, proverbs, psalms (aka songs) were their unique ways of expressing God's truths.


It is very difficult to ever get a simple, straight answer from WG. Not real sure why, but it does seem to be the case.
Because I am not a pedant.

Oh, c'mon! The Hebrew OT writers were excellent storytellers and poets. Allegories, proverbs, psalms (aka songs) were their unique ways of expressing God's truths.That's true, but it certainly does not render the entire OT as a giant allegory.

What is your standard for deciding when a passage should be considered non-literal? Note to reader. This question will almost certainly not be answered.


Because I am not a pedant."Dodger" describes you well, I think.

Something I want to ask WG; Why was the tree in the Garden? Does it have anything to do with free will? Before you start - you know what tree I'm talking about.

According to the allegory, God created a beautiful Garden, then created Adam and Eve to live there and enjoy it. There was no need for free will; there was nothing negative, no evil.

As a test for Adam and Eve, God placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden and told Adam and Eve, "Don't touch this particular tree! If you do, you'll die" -- whatever THAT means since death didn't exist yet! (This is a test sort of like Mom putting a pan of freshly-baked and still hot brownies on the kitchen table to cool and telling her kids, "Don't touch! If I see any missing, I will punish you severely.")

That's true, but it certainly does not render the entire OT as a giant allegory.
Did I say the OT is "a giant allegory"? No! I said, "Allegories, proverbs, psalms (aka songs) were their unique ways of expressing God's truths."
They also recorded their own history in very visual language.

What is your standard for deciding when a passage should be considered non-literal? Note to reader. This question will almost certainly not be answered.
What is an allegory: A story is constructed in such a way as to convey a central theme or moral lesson. Characters' names decipher their literary purpose: Adam = man from the earth ; Eve = mother of all the living. Thus, an allegory is a symbolic literary device to explain abstract ideas beyond the story itself.

Here's an OT poem, Psalm 114 (KJV). Do you understand it as literal?

1 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-1.htm)When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language;2 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-2.htm)Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion.3 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-3.htm)The sea saw it, and fled: Jordan was driven back.4 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-4.htm)The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.5 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-5.htm)What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back?6 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-6.htm)Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs?7 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-7.htm)Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob;8 (https://biblehub.com/psalms/114-8.htm)Which turned the rock into a standing water, the flint into a fountain of waters.

Yep. A dodger for sure. When asked, "What is your standard for deciding when a passage should be considered non-literal?", you respond with a long definition of what an allegory is. But that was not the question, was it?

To decide that Genesis 3 is an allegory, you must employ a standard for deciding when a passage should be taken as an allegory as opposed to being strictly literal. I'd still like to know what your standard is. I know that will not be forthcoming, and perhaps you don't know that yourself, but I'd still like to know.

To complicate matters, a passage can be BOTH literal AND allegorical. Perhaps you are appealing to that interpretation.

Yep. A dodger for sure. When asked, "What is your standard for deciding when a passage should be considered non-literal?", you respond with a long definition of what an allegory is. But that was not the question, was it?

To decide that Genesis 3 is an allegory, you must employ a standard for deciding when a passage should be taken as an allegory as opposed to being strictly literal. I'd still like to know what your standard is. I know that will not be forthcoming, and perhaps you don't know that yourself, but I'd still like to know.

To complicate matters, a passage can be BOTH literal AND allegorical. Perhaps you are appealing to that interpretation.
No dodge. The description of an allegory matches the elements in Genesis 3. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "standard".

We'll find out in heaven if it was literal. Meanwhile, I'll learn a moral lesson from the allegory.

Did I say the OT is "a giant allegory"? No!I didn't suggest you did.


The description of an allegory matches the elements in Genesis 3. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "standard".Everyone employs a standard as to when to take a passage literally versus when to regard it as strictly figurative. What is your standard?

Everyone employs a standard as to when to take a passage literally versus when to regard it as strictly figurative. What is your standard?
Do you know that story is literal? If so, what is your standard?

The return of the dodger.

At any rate, since you dare not answer the question, I'll give you what I use which is what most people use. The passage should be taken literally unless there is a compelling reason not to. Just bear in mind that "literal" and "allegorical" are not mutually exclusive.

The return of the dodger.

At any rate, since you dare not answer the question, I'll give you what I use which is what most people use. The passage should be taken literally unless there is a compelling reason not to. Just bear in mind that "literal" and "allegorical" are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, I'm a Sox (not Dodger) fan.

I agree that the story may also be literal. Like I said earlier, we'll find out in heaven. Its real value lies in its being an allegory. To repeat myself:

"We'll find out in heaven if it was literal. Meanwhile, I'll learn a moral lesson from the allegory."

Its real value lies in its being an allegory. Not sure I agree with that, but it's OK. See how easy this was once one of us (me) decided to say something definite?

Not sure I agree with that, but it's OK. See how easy this was once one of us (me) decided to say something definite?
Oh, JL, you are such a teacher! A mentor!

I'm happy to be of help to you.

Do we need to separate you two again??

Do we need to separate you two again??
This is what happens when the thread starter leaves the room. At least JL and I are playing nice (for now).

At least JL and I are playing nice (for now).Very true. We have even managed to agree on two or three items. That probably means the end of time is just about here.

“And the devil (he describes only his vision, having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority) took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the worldHere, if proof were wanted, we have evidence that all that passed in the Temptation was in the region of which the spirit, and not the senses, takes cognizance.


Except Jesus didn't contradict him.Why would you think Jesus should (verbally?) Contradict him?

He only addressed the question of worship. There is no attribute so essential to God as this. It is for his holiness, more than for anything else, that his creatures worship him.
The whole "look around you" misses the question. It's not "what's going on," it's "who is the actual authority over this world and the nations that muck it up?"The whole earth is full of God's glory." Men, whether they will it or not, are working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires.

Colossians 2:20 "If you died with Christ to the elements of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?

People, in America, Talk about being a Christain Country. When did a Christian country, Christain Kingdom, or Christian State, enter into the picture? Sorry, there is no such thing as a Christain Country/Kingdom (other than the Church/Kingdom of Heaven), It's about the Church, It has always been about the Church. I really don't think Politics should be brought up in the Church. We belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, we can not belong to Both.


Satan says HE has authority over the nations/kingdoms of the Earth and they're his to give to whomever he chooses.Jesus has nothing doing with this. His sight is set on High (So should we). Jesus talks about the people of this world coming to him...He says; I don't know where you come from. Satan shows Jesus something, what does Jesus care (much less know) about something that is not of God?


Today's Greek reading brought me to somethingHaving one's thought pattern derive from the Greeks as opposed to???
Are you referring to the process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework? Let the Word Live to us oh Lord

He says; I don't know where you come from.He did?


Having one's thought pattern derive from the Greeks as opposed to???He's just talking about reading the NT in the original Greek language. It doesn't concern a thought pattern.

It does happen eventually. "Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.'"

He says; I don't know where you come from.
He did?Luke 13:27


Today's Greek reading brought me to something
He's just talking about reading the NT in the original Greek language.Is there Nothing more to it?


It does happen eventually. "Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."Where exactly are you trying to go with this? Yes, I'm sure this is Talking about America or any other "one" Kingdom of the World pffft!

We all belong to the Kingdoms of this World, there is no getting away from it. Humble ourselves before the Lord, for the sake of his (not for our sake) Great mercy...it's the only way. Otherwise, we might reap the whirlwind that is coming against the Kingdoms of the Earth.

Luke 13 passage in context. "And he said to them, 24 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-24.htm)“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-25.htm)When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-26.htm)Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-27.htm)But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ 28 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-28.htm)In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. 29 (http://biblehub.com/luke/13-29.htm)And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God."

Not really sure what your point is in relationship to the Kingdom of God.


Is there Nothing more to it?Well...no.


Where exactly are you trying to go with this? Yes, I'm sure this is Talking about America or any other "one" Kingdom of the World pffft!I'm not trying to do anything other than point out that the kingdom of this world will belong to God in the end. It is very clear. Not real sure how you saw America in that passage. I certainly didn't other than we are very much a part of this worldly kingdom. Or at least it sure seems that way to me.

Not really sure what your point is in relationship to the Kingdom of God.
Satan says HE has authority over the nations/kingdoms of the EarthWasnt referring to the Kingdom of God.
Well...noReading the Bible vs having a greek read it to you?
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out that the kingdom of this world will belong to God in the end.Another time, another Kingdom, Another World.

Reading the Bible vs having a greek read it to you?When you read the Bible in English, you are reading a translation from the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). So to read in the Greek actually puts a person closer to the original text.

So to read in the Greek actually puts a person closer to the original text.Closer to a proper understanding...closer to God? It might in many ways be a hindrance...The process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework (“Greek philosophy”)?

dwashbur, once mentioned - "Than would make my lifes work meaningless." I'm still trying to wrap my head around that? Something seems amiss. We don't work, a Christian lives the life. it is who we are. It is the will of the Heart.

Jesus is the message we can't receive the message without receiving the messenger. Greek has nothing to do with it.

As far as "who is in Charge." Whomever you want Brother.

I know from three years of studying and translating Latin and from knowing German as my ancestral language that translations of any language into English (or any other language) is fraught with incorrect understandings of words and phrases. That can also be true of Hebrew and Greek in the two testaments.

Thus, the best idea is to read the testaments in the original languages, Hebrew and Greek.

Closer to a proper understanding...closer to God? It might in many ways be a hindrance...The process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework (“Greek philosophy”)?So the original authors of the New Testament books were all believers in Greek philosophy? After all, they're the ones who wrote IN GREEK. Are they guilty? Come on, Walter. You're tilting at windmills.


translations of any language into English (or any other language) is fraught with incorrect understandings of words and phrases. That's why teams of experts are used in Biblical translations.

That's why teams of experts are used in Biblical translations.
Or if those experts have an agenda to promote.

Or if those experts have an agenda to promote.And you know that they do? In the business of translations, producing a corrupted version which is plainly tainted by an "agenda" would be widely known fairly soon.

And you know that they do? In the business of translations, producing a corrupted version which is plainly tainted by an "agenda" would be widely known fairly soon.
And it was -- and was accepted (and not challenged) because many Christians wanted to believe that interpretation.

Be specific.

One is Paul's coined word, arsenokoitai.

There is an agenda on display about that word alright, but it's not the translators. It's you. No major translation since the days of the KJV renders it as anything other than what is should be rendered as which is homosexual or words to that effect. It comes from two Greek words, "men" and "bed". Not too hard to figure that one out.

But you don't even need Paul's scripture. Jesus settled the issue when He plainly described marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since sex is only allowed within marriage, then the matter is decided.

There is no definite evidence that Paul coined the term.

Nope, temple or shrine prostitute, as Paul put the two words together, even as boy molester.
https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-used-the-greek-word-arsenokoitai.html

To say that is a minority position would be the understatement of the year. It is ridiculous and to see that it is on a gay website really settles the issue. Talk about having an agenda???

There is nothing about boy in the two words. "Arsyn" is a Greek word for man. "Koite" is a Greek word for bed that sometimes carries sexual connotations with it. Your speculation is just silliness driven by your own agenda.

Interestingly, you had no comment on this. It really closes the door on sex between two individuals of the same gender. "But you don't even need Paul's scripture. Jesus settled the issue when He plainly described marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since sex is only allowed within marriage, then the matter is decided."

Additionally, there is not a single instance in the Bible of same-gender sex being approved. It simply is not there.

The centurion and his servant whom Paul encountered were very likely a gay couple. Homosexuality was very common in the Greek world back then.

There is no definite evidence that Paul coined the term.

Wrong. The word appears nowhere else before Paul, and he was not above inventing words. They did that sort of thing, much like modern German.

The word doesn't mean "bed", it means "rape" as our culture would define its reference. Basically, it's master-slave pederasty.

It has nothing to do with what we call homosexuality today. The fundamental principle behind it was abuse of power.

Jesus didn't define marriage. He condemned divorce for frivolous reasons. He said, what God has joined together, do not sunder. Yet Christians today want to sunder thousands upon thousands of loving bonds because they don't like the plumbing involved. For starters, what they do is none of your business. Or mine. Or WG's or Joe Blow's. It's their business and it's between them and God.

Thanks for shutting down walteroo. Masterfully done and well explained. I appreciate it.

1. The vast part of what was written prior to Paul has disappeared, so it's impossible to say it was not used until Paul used it. Now your point is well taken, but it remains true that it cannot be definitely established that Paul invented the term.

2. As to the meaning of "koite", J. H. Thayer does not agree with you. I can only think that you are descibing "arsenokoite" as opposed to only "koite". Otherwise, your statement that koite means rape is really hard to grasp. But even if you were referring to "arsenokoite", your understanding of the word is most likely incorrect. No major translation agrees with you.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2845: κοίτη

κοίτη, κοίτης, ἡ (ΚΑΩ, ΚΑΙΩ, κεῖμαι akin to κοιμάω); from Homer, Odyssey 19, 341 down; the Sept. chiefly for מִשְׁכָּב, also for שְׁכָבָה etc.;a. a place for lying down, resting, sleeping in; a bed, couch: εἰς τήν κοίτην (see εἰμί, V. 2 a.) εἰσιν, Luke 11:7 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/11-7.htm).
b. specifically, the marriage-bed, as in the Tragg.: τήν κοίτην μιαίνειν, of adultery (Josephus, Antiquities 2, 4, 5; Plutarch, de fluv. 8, 3), Hebrews 13:4 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-4.htm).
c. cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful (Leviticus 15:4f, 21-25 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/15-4.htm), etc.; Wis. 3:13, 16; Euripides, Med. 152; Alc. 249): plural sexual intercourse (see περιπατέω, b. α.), Romans 13:13 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/13-13.htm) (A. V. chambering); by metonymy, of the cause for the effect we have the peculiar expression κοίτην ἔχειν ἐκ τίνος, to have conceived by a man, Romans 9:10 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-10.htm); κοίτη σπέρματος, Leviticus 15:16 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/15-16.htm); Leviticus 22:4 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/22-4.htm); Leviticus 18:20, 23 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/18-20.htm) (here κοίτη εἰς σπερματισμόν); on these phrases cf. Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans 2 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/2.htm), p. 291f

3. As to marriage, what Jesus said in Matthew 19 is a restatement of God's initial definition and description in Genesis. It very plainly describes a union between a "man" and his "wife". It is as clear a definition of marriage as a person can imagine.

And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Yes, what other people do is their own business. No one here has tried to tell anyone else what to do. We are discussing Bible translations and God's view of marriage. In all of the Bible, there is not a single instance of same-gender sex, much less of gay marriage, upon which God places His stamp of approval. Marriage is never, ever described as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, and I would sincerely suggest that you be very careful in trying to propose otherwise. We will all give an account, and for you to seem to stand in opposition to what Jesus said is alarming. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.

4. Not real sure where Walter is coming from. I think your study of Greek is to be lauded.


The centurion and his servant whom Paul encountered were very likely a gay coupleI know of no place where Paul ever encountered a centurion who was accompanied by a servant. Now Jesus did, but the only way to get the idea that they were lovers is to simply read your own prejudices into the account. I suspect that is exactly what you are doing. There is not a shred of evidence in the story to lead a person to reach that conclusion. But even at that, if Paul or Jesus had indeed encountered a centurion with a servant who was providing sexual services for him, it is extraordinary to conclude that they were approving of that arrangement simply by meeting the person. It is just 100% conjecture driven by your own agenda. You are doing exactly what you are accusing scholars of doing.

This is what the pro-gay advocates are reduced to doing. "Well, maybe this," or "Perhaps that." There is never anything definite, and the many statements in the Bible to the contrary have to be gotten around by the use of linguistic calisthenics.

@JL:
Today's Greek reading brought me to something I never noticed before.Do you understand why this was brought up? Look at you all...Debating the "Greek understanding"...how foolish is that?
Is this a valid question, for a self-proclaimed Christain to ask? How are you going to give an answer to this (who is in Charge)? Is this a question for only those who study and understand the Greek? somebody, who read the entire Bible, who's been studying it for over 1 yr...and this in question? Maybe somebody would be better off if they seek spiritual reading, instead of Greek! They should read it themselves as opposed to having a Greek read it to them (you think?)

You misunderstood my earlier statement. I was simply asking where it(this topic)was coming from (I already knew)...Now, all can see.
But enough with that.


So the original authors of the New Testament books were all believers in Greek philosophy? After all, they're the ones who wrote IN GREEK. Are they guilty?It would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community.

@JL: Do you understand why this was brought up? Look at you all...Debating the "Greek understanding"...how foolish is that?
dwashbur was not talking about the "Greek understanding" or Greek philosophy. The NT was originally written in the Greek language. dwashbur has studied that language for many years and enjoys/learns from reading NT books in the original Greek.

I know of no place where Paul ever encountered a centurion who was accompanied by a servant. Now Jesus did,
I apologize. Yes, Jesus, not Paul. I was trying to post here while helping a very upset friend figure out how to get relief for a pinched nerve in her neck.

The centurion Jesus spoke with was not accompanied by his servant. The servant was at home ill. Jesus would have had no way (naturally speaking) of knowing what the relationship was. On top of that, the centurion was commended by the Jewish leadership. It is unlikely in the extreme that they would have done so knowing that he was in a homosexual relationship with the servant. So I just think your suggestion that they were "very likely a gay couple" is without any support at all.

That's my primary objection to much of what the pro-gay side of the argument has to say. It is always just conjecture supported by suppositions which are founded upon speculation. There is nothing of substance.


Look at you all...Debating the "Greek understanding"...how foolish is that?
Is this a valid question, for a self-proclaimed Christain to ask?Actually, it's extremely foolish NOT to look at these issues. The questions are quite valid.

Walter, you seem to be irritated about something, but I don't know what it is. No one has said anything about "Greek philosophy" other than you. It wasn't even in the conversation, so I just can't figure out what has you out of sorts.

Look at you all...Debating the "Greek understanding"...how foolish is that?
Actually, it's extremely foolish NOT to look at these issues.You become more in tune with the debate than with truth.
The answer is right in front of you. You bypass the Answer and continue to debate on who knows what!


Today's Greek reading brought me to something
No one has said anything about "Greek philosophy" other than you. I asked a Simple Question - "Is there Nothing more to it?."
You simply say "No." I think there might be more to it.
Repeat: It would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community. But let us get off that for the moment, if you please.
That seems to be an ongoing thing with you and WG...you post just to argue. You both have what you believe to be truth, in your head and there is no changing that...Okay then.

Question:
Wait is this a sudden relapse or something? Or is your Greek messing with you?
WHO is in charge??  Men, whether they will it or not, are working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires.
Except Jesus didn't contradict him.I know why you expect this...This site is commonplace...affirming the opposite of.
He only addressed the question of worship....and there is your Answer.
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only." There is no attribute so essential to God as this. It is for his holiness, more than for anything else, that his creatures worship him.
WHO is in charge You Honestly don't know? Does it Matter?
Satan says HE has authority over the nations/kingdoms of the Earth and they're his to give to whomever he chooses.
"who is the actual authority over this world and the nations that muck it up?"Jesus has nothing to do with this World. His sight is set on High, aka God. Jesus talks about the people of this World coming to him.
I haven't seen a single commentary tackle this question.There is a good reason for that...those who know Jesus know who's in Control.
I confess I've been reading that passage since I was 4 years old and never noticed this before. Anybody have any thoughts on it? Yeah, Don't give it a second thought.  we know that Satan is a liar and he is the Father of lies. Focus on the things above. This World and the things of this World are going to pass away...all of it is death.


Thanks for shutting down walteroo. That's my point -Today's Greek reading...Doesn't seek truth, he only wants to discuss it in Greek. Thinking he is Quite possibly, the foremost authority (this site) on Jesus and the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Men, whether they will it or not, are working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires.
And women aren't? (Actually, they, with empathy and unselfish love, are doing as much as or more than men are.)

doing as much as or more than men are Yah, that's it. We're all about, who does the most!
After all, it has everything to do with us [doing]...Not!!!


Actually, they are doing as much as or more than men are. Actually that's very Sad.
they, with empathy and unselfish love Replace "empathy and unselfish love ." with Jesus, then "they" would have something. OR - Actually, "he(that be a man)" with empathy and unselfish love - might give them the edge...them as in men ;-)

I do believe, just as Jesus Presents us to the Father, Husbands will present their spouse to Jesus... that might just be me though.

You do understand that Men include Women?

Yah, that's it. We're all about, who does the most!
After all, it has everything to do with us [doing]...Not!!!
You didn't mention women, just men DOING ... "working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires."

Are you a Witness or LDS?

That's my point -Today's Greek reading...Doesn't seek truth, he only wants to discuss it in Greek. I don't think that's true. I don't always agree with DW, but he does seek the truth.
Thinking he is Quite possibly, the foremost authority (this site) on...the Christian Greek Scriptures.Well...he certainly is.

That's my point -Today's Greek reading...Doesn't seek truth, he only wants to discuss Greek.
he does seek the truth.If that is true, how do you explain
Thanks for shutting down walteroo.this?
Well...he certainly is.Sounds like somebody wanting to be recognized...has little too nothing to do with truth that is found in the Spirit.

It runs along the same lines as - I want to feed the poor, but I'll have to take a cooking class before I can get with it.

You were suggesting DW was trying to advance Greek philosophy by mentioning his Greek reading. I'm sorry, but that missed the truth by a mile.

Not only is he the foremost authority on NT Greek on this site, but he is the ONLY person here who has studied Greek formally. It took a great deal of commitment for him to get where he is. Now you are correct in saying that knowledge of Greek won't guarantee a person will arrive at the truth, but I think you are entirely too dismissive of his achievements.

I would suggest you take the burr out from under your saddle and just civilly engage in discussions here. And I say that as one who has had to learn how to tolerate some of the evasiveness and ugliness that has gone on here for as long as I've been involved. I've just had to decide not to return ugly with ugly and to try and be respectful. It ain't easy at all, but I won't advance the gospel any by throwing bricks.

What are you talking about?
return ugly with ugly Read my posts.
I was simply (nicely) questioning the ability to gain a full understanding while being served Greek. It stemmed from -"Today's Bible reading." - where does, "today's Greek Reading" fit in? first thought - Greek influence???

Then I read this
Thanks for shutting down walteroo. Masterfully done and well explained. I appreciate it. Where did that come from? What, - I dare question his life's work...how Dare I !!! You can Kiss each others Arses all you want.
Clearly, this guy still believes within the sphere of the flesh.

Who's in Charge...as if a simple Greek reading, will bring a whole new meaning? I suggest a person have a good old fashion Bible reading if he misses such an obvious answer (I mean the answer was right there, he even said it)...really. Apparently, he is still oblivious to the Truth...it was not written in Greek, ah yah, yah, that's it.
Watch out for Pride....it's a sure killer.

I suggest a person have a good old fashion Bible reading if he misses such an obvious answer (I mean the answer was right there, he even said it)...I mean really. Apparently, he is even still oblivious to the Truth... it wasn't written in Greek, ah, that must be it.
Full of Pride.
Which translation/version of the Bible do you use?

Which translation/version of the Bible do you use? I use the Holy Spirit translation.
oops, you're still on my ignore list!
Kindly Shut it ;-)

What are you talking about?
return ugly with ugly


Something like this. "Kindly Shut it ;-)"

Something like this. oops, you're still on my ignore list!
Kindly Shut it ;-) That's all you have? ooow, Sooo ugly...You've just made the list :-P



Today's Greek reading brought me to something
The image is, speaking a foreign language, such as Greek, that others (such as me) can't possibly understand.
Thanks for shutting down walteroo. Do you still not get it (clearly has to do with "Greek authority")?
Masterfully done and well explained. Explained what? (Arse tickling)
I appreciate it. Who's Speaking Greek?
WHO is in charge??
Men, whether they will it or not, are working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires. How are you going to shut this Down?
He only addressed the question of worship. Do you not Understand???
Maybe because; there is no attribute so essential to God as this. It is for his holiness, more than for anything else, that his creatures worship him. This is not Greek...Any Questions?

The image is, speaking a foreign language, such as Greek, that others (such as me) can't possibly understand.That's the image you have of it. It is not the image I have. In fact, you and I can both understand NT Greek if we are willing to put some work into it. I do it all the time. Now certainly not to the level that DW does, but it can be done.

WG asked a good question of you. Are you JW or LDS?

That's the image you have of it. It is not the image I have. In fact, you and I can both understand NT Greek if we are willing to put some work into it. I do it all the time. Now certainly not to the level that DW does, but it can be done.I understand this to be true. It is easy enough, and readily available.
That's the image you have of it. It is not the image I haveI'm not talking about Greek. I was wondering about the Greek reading person who posted the question.It has been made plain as Day. His Posts make it, plain as day.
Are you referring to the process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established frameworkHis reaction speaks louder than Words. Why should he feel threatened by such a question?


WG asked a good question of you. Are you JW or LDS? I assume you are asking this because of my previous statement; Husband presenting wife to Jesus. The same as Jesus presents us to his Father?

Why would you have a problem with this? Any chance you are missing something?

I'm not talking about Greek. I was wondering about the Greek reading person who posted the question.It has been made plain as Day. His Posts make it, plain as day.Perhaps to you. Not to anyone else.


Why should he feel threatened by such a question?What makes you think he feels threatened?

You are welcome to your opinion. I get frustrated with DW because he makes posts and then won't respond to answers to those posts, but that's his prerogative. The central point remains that he was not trying to advance "Greek philosophy" as you suggested.

Let's move on. We've beaten this to death.

You know that is what is so frustrating about the two of you. You read a post with preconceived understanding. I am constantly having to go back and search and repost, and after I do you are off on another tangent. Then when we come back to the heart of the matter, you ask the same questions...having me search for one of my previous posts...knowing that the two of you are anal retentive, having to use exact verbiage as before.
Why should he feel threatened by such a question?Give the benefit of the doubt...you tell me? I'll give you a little help - Thanks for Shutting Walteroo down. I simply asked a question and his response told me what I first suspected. I'm a bit flabbergasted that you still don't see it. Your first response was a solid no - Greek does not influence...I believe it can and does...such as here and now. And it would be foolish for somebody like DW to blow it off, as offensive...to even suggest such a thing! I'm not saying it is a stupid question. I'm saying that maybe DW lost sight of the ball, and it might have something to do with the Greek...for a Christian...There should never ever be any doubt about "who is in Charge." At some point in our lives, it doesn't even matter who is in Charge... it should only be about praise and Worship.

Anybody can find the Greek meaning, it's at our fingertips. It's not that Complicated. But when you become educated by it or give your life over too it, that's a different story...Our Eyes become disordered.



Now we can shut it!

You are right in that you initially simply asked a question. But then you started down roads like this. "Reading the Bible vs having a greek read it to you?" So how you come up with "having a greek read it to you" is beyond me. No one said anything about a Greek reading the NT to DW.

"It's not that Complicated." Actually, it does become complicated. I'm glad we have people like DW. I don't just blindly accept his conclusions and I wouldn't recommend that anyone else do so, but his area of study is very useful. If not for people like him, you and I wouldn't have English translations to read.

Does waltero know the NT was written in a language called Greek? English didn't exist back then.

"The basic reason why Greek was chosen for the New Testament instead of Aramaic or Hebrew was that the writers wished to reach a broad, Gentile (non-Israelite) audience, not just a Jewish audience."
https://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-is-new-testament-written-greek.html#:~:text=The%20basic%20reason%20why%20Gr eek%20was%20chosen%20for,Gentile%20%28non-Israelite%29%20audience%2C%20not%20just%20a%20Jewi sh%20audience.

The basic reason why Greek was chosen for the New Testament instead of Aramaic or Hebrew was that the writers wished to reach a broad, Gentile (non-Israelite) audience, not just a Jewish audience."


I'm lovin' this. Hi, Waltero!


Nice article, WG, but I have a quibble or two (or three).


To quote:
Why was the New Testament originally written in the Greek and not in Hebrew or some other language?

Matthew first wrote in Hebrew.




He could have, but did not, use the much harsher Hebrew term for dogs commonly used by the Jews in their hatred and contempt for Gentiles.


The underlined leads to present day anti-semitism. Did the author really have to use such inflammatory terms?




Given that the Bible is the most popular book ever printed, proved wise indeed.


And the least read/understood of all those books.




So nice to be back.

Hello Athos, was wondering when you would show up ;-)



So how you come up with "having a greek read it to you"What's the difference? He said, "Greek reading" (belonging to a book club?)...Funny how words can be so open to interpretation...think maybe he wanted to get into some Greek?
Today's Greek readingI understand what he said. - It's no use, if you don't see it by now, you will never, never see it.

Okay, one last try: What if I started off with - Today's spiritual reading? or "Today's Latin reading"??? "Today's Bible reading" puts us all on the same level, same playground...When referring to one's Greek/Bible - It’s important, to distinguish between terminology and techniques in contrast to tenets...Don't you think?


"The basic reason why Greek was chosen for the New Testament instead of Aramaic or Hebrew wasThe greeks were the World stage.  Worldview, morals, and central claims of Judeo-Christianity far predate Greek philosophers. virtually all questions of truth, ethics, worldview, and morality are still discussed using the basic principles of Greek philosophy.

Would it be fair to say that, when Western culture thinks of “philosophy,” what’s in mind is really “Greek philosophy?

What's the difference? He said, "Greek reading""What's the difference?" Seriously? There is an enormous difference between reading Greek versus listening to a Greek read. The NT authors were not Greeks.


Would it be fair to say that, when Western culture thinks of “philosophy,” what’s in mind is really “Greek philosophy?Interesting question. I'm not well versed on philosophy so it would be hard to answer. For many people, it seems to be eastern philosophy that rules the day, but I think western culture has been more influenced by Christianity than anything else. Hard to say.

"What's the difference?" Seriously? There is an enormous difference between reading Greek versus listening to a Greek read.What's the difference when reading DW's [Greek] interpretation vs some other Joe Smuckatelli's interpretation...that I can find on the Web?
Maybe somebody would be better off if they seek spiritual reading, instead of Greek! They should read it themselves as opposed to having a Greek read it to them (you think?)What's the difference [too any of "us"] - is what I was speaking of...even if we were involved, in learning Greek. Do you now understand where DW (wittingly or unwittingly) was going with this??? That's where we get this - "(speaks volumes) Thanks for shutting down walteroo. Masterfully done and well explained. I appreciate it (you clearly recognize his athoriti)"...Are the two of you speaking/reading greek? cause I don't see it.

I think it has to do with DW believing he trumps all others with his interpretation of the Scriptures...Hence "thanks for shutting Down Walteroo!"
WHO is in charge??Where did this come from?
Except Jesus didn't contradict him...He only addressed the question of worship.Maybe it was the greek in him that missed it???
Men, whether they will it or not, are working out God's purposes, advancing his designs, accomplishing the ends that he desires... It is for his holiness, more than for anything else, that his creatures worship him.
And all we get is -"thanks for shutting down Walteroo!" He can't see it because he can't get past the Greek (pride).

It's Okay if you don't see it that way. there really is no matter for you. It should matter to him.


Hard to say. Not so hard really. virtually all questions of truth, ethics, worldview, and morality are still discussed using the basic principles of Greek philosophy...I believe most of us would understand this to be the case.

It would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community. "Today's Greek reading brought me to something I never noticed before"...Exactly!

@JL: I don't understand how you feel this is hate speech. I am being open and honest and in no way hateful. If somebody feels hate or hurt, it is only their pride that they are feeling...and that's OK.

I might not enter this site as frequently as most of you. But I do keep up on most of the Posts. I don't respond because I have no interest in responding to a predictable outcome...hate often rules the day in here, then comes -The End!

This is where I come, trying to hone my writing skills and maybe visit with Friends. Tis good to search the Scriptures as well.

This is where I come, trying to hone my writing skills and maybe visit with Friends. Tis good to search the Scriptures as well.
Searching the Scriptures can be done when they are in Greek, Latin, Urdu, Tagalog, Farsi, or English. Philosophy has nothing to do with it.

Searching the Scriptures can be done when they are in Greek, Latin, Urdu, Tagalog, Farsi, or English.
Philosophy has nothing to do with itOh brother, you really want to go there? It has a lot more to do with "just searching" Scripture.
Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom."
Bye for now.

I said enough. I'll let you work it out.

What's the difference when reading DW's [Greek] interpretation vs some other Joe Smuckatelli's interpretation...that I can find on the Web?Every time you read your English Bible, you are reading "some other Joe Smuckatelli's" translation. To translate is not the same as to interpret.


This is where I come, trying to hone my writing skills and maybe visit with Friends. Tis good to search the Scriptures as well.A worthwhile objective.


It would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community. "Today's Greek reading brought me to something I never noticed before"...Exactly!No one has suggested otherwise. But DW DID NOT use the Greek NT to advance Greek philosophy. What he did in the Greek is done in English translations millions of times a day. "In my Bible reading this morning, I noticed something I had never picked up on before." Exact same thing. We certainly don't suggest the person is trying to advance "English philosophy".

Oh brother, you really want to go there? It has a lot more to do with just searching Scripture. Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom."
Bye for now.

I said enough. I'll let you work it out.
As I said, searching Scripture -- in ANY language -- has nothing to do with a formal study of that country's philosophy but has everything to do with making the Scriptures available to all people and promoting the Gospel of Christ through the learning, study, and application of God's Word.

Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom."Proverbs 4. Then he taught me, and he said to me,
“Take hold of my words with all your heart;
keep my commands, and you will live.
5 Get wisdom, get understanding;
do not forget my words or turn away from them.
6 Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you;
love her, and she will watch over you.
7 The beginning of wisdom is this: Get[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-16498a)] wisdom.
Though it cost all you have,[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-16498b)] get understanding.
8 Cherish her, and she will exalt you;
embrace her, and she will honor you.

As I said, searching Scripture -- in ANY language -- has nothing to do with a formal study of that country's philosophy.Well said. Wycliffe Bible translators do a great job with translating the Bible into hundreds of indigenous languages, frequently for tribes with just a few thousand members.

Dear goodness, we are agreeing again. What a glorious week this has been!!

"Todays Greek reading - Todays Bible reading." The juxtaposition of these two images.

Quote: Todays Greek reading..."that kind of puts a very different spin on things"

Todays Greek reading - brought me to something I never noticed before;"who is in Charge."
What brought this question about? You, having Studied Greek, honestly don't know "who is in Charge"???
You have given your life to Christ Jesus,
you, most assuredly know who is in Charge!

"kind of puts a very different spin on things" What do you mean? the Greek or what Saten said? Could it be that you simply lost yourself while in the greek? Or by saying - "Today's Greek reading" - presents this as an unusual question, that demands an unusual answer?

Todays Bible (spiritual) reading - Always tells me that God is in Charge. "Putting a very different spin" in life.
"When someone says God put so and so in that office. Sounds like maybe it was the other guy." Sure, I suppose that might be, only while listening to the Greek. Reading the Bible is God speaking. It appears that reading the Greek puts a very different spin on things when someone (that someone being Satan) says..


has nothing to do with a formal study of that country's philosophyChristianity was born into a world steeped in Greek thinking. Greek philosophy.
Dear goodness, we are agreeing again.now your scaring me.

It's about the Spirit. It is all Spirit. You are only interested in interpretation... Continually going at it with the many different interpretations. You have given yourself over to interpretation of Language, scripture, writers, etc. The proof is in these posts. continually filled with arguments about "in which way it is interpreted." It can only be interpreted with that of the HolySpirit.

It is about the Spirit and having the Word of God that lives in you. Your Greek Learning, your greek reading, and your greek (or otherwise) intellect isn't going to get you there.

It is about the Spirit and having the Word of God that lives in us.Is that your interpretation? (definition of "interpret": to explain the meaning of, or to understand)

You can believe if you wish that DW is a gross heretic. That is, I suppose, your interpretation of his words, but I think you have misinterpreted his post. His question essentially centered around the devil saying he had authority over the kingdoms of the world. Jesus did not contradict that statement. So DW simply asked what we thought of that. Now note that the KJV ENGLISH translation agrees with that. 5 (http://biblehub.com/luke/4-5.htm)[d] (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/luke/4.htm#footnotes)Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 (http://biblehub.com/luke/4-6.htm)And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 (http://biblehub.com/luke/4-7.htm)Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

Paul seemed to agree with that idea in 2 Cor. 4. "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Thankfully for us, in Colossians Paul tells us that we Christians have been transferred from the domain of darkness into the Kingdom of His beloved Son.

So DW was not making something up or being influenced by Greek philosophy. But you are most welcome to pursue your interpretation of his words, and your interpretation of the Luke passage.


now your scaring me.It kind of scares me too, and I imagine it scares WG. It is unusual!

waltero -- And the Bible in English is not fraught with awkward and even incorrect understandings of words and phrases, thus of its teachings?

Every time you read your English/[greek] Bible, you are reading "some other Joe Smuckatelli's" translation. To translate is not the same as to interpret.
I'm not looking for Either. It is Spirit, Only God is able to interpret /translate for you. It is not in a person's ability to project his translation or interpretation to others. It comes through life...It is the Life...living the life. Will of the Heart.

I'm not looking for Either. It is Spirit, Only God is able to interpret /translate for you. It is not in a person's ability to project his translation or interpretation to others. It comes through life...It is the Life...living the life.
Why then are there pastors/ministers/priests who explain God's love and purpose to parishioners? Why then are there Bible classes where Christians gather to study and understand the Bible's teachings?

Seems as if (hanging around here) all of you are seeking and or knowing your own interpretation/translation. And Satan said...what up with dat? It would be futile to search the proper interpretation of what satan said...right? doesn't matter what satan says, it is all lies. Only hear Jesus responce.

You haven't understood a word I've said.

In Short; It would have been more agreeable if he started off with; Today's Bible reading. LESS ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION!

waltero -- And the Bible in English is not fraught with awkward and even incorrect understandings of words and phrases, thus of its teachings?Anndddd just like that we are back to disagreeing.

Walter, I agree with you in the sense that only the Spirit of God can shine a proper light on His Word. But words still have meaning. When the Sadducees tried to corner Jesus with a question about which brother would be the wife of the six brothers who died, he replied by quoting the Word. "I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." And then He interpreted it. "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." And He then told them they were very much mistaken. He often discussed the teachings of the Bible.

On another occasion, which has been discussed here, the Pharisees asked Him about the teaching of Moses on divorce. Jesus replied by appealing to the first statement in the Bible about marriage, and then gave an interpretation of it. "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." So Jesus constantly taught people so they could have a better understanding of the Word of God. But yes, if the Holy Spirit does not give enlightenment, then all is lost. I don't see it as a contest between teaching, discussing, and enlightenment. They work together, and I have frequently received fresh insight from God in the middle of a discussion of the Bible.

WG to waltero -- And the Bible in English is not fraught with awkward and even incorrect understandings of words and phrases, thus of its teachings?

Anndddd just like that we are back to disagreeing.
No, we aren't. I wasn't clear. It's those who read the Bible, especially on their own with no help and input from others -- and try to understand it on their own -- who have problems.

It's those who read the Bible, especially on their own with no help and input from others -- and try to understand it on their own -- who have problems.I would come closer to agreeing with that, but not completely. Even in your own faith, Martin Luther largely (not completely) worked on his own to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bible as regards faith.

BTW, I'm reading a book on Luther now. I know that will please you. It's about 450 pages so it'll take me a month, but so far it has been very good.

Seems as if (hanging around here) all of you are seeking and or knowing your own interpretation/translation. "And Satan said"...what up with dat? It would be futile to search the proper interpretation of what satan said...right? doesn't matter what satan says. knowing that he is all lies...Here, if proof were wanted, we have evidence that all that passed in the Temptation was in the region of which the spirit, and not the senses, takes cognizance.


the Bible in English is not fraught with awkward and even incorrect understandings of words and phrases, thus of its teachings? This is not something that somebody can teach...and there lies the problem. We (like people throughout time) only need knowledge of Sacrifice, and believe! It is a person's life that speaks to others. Doctrine is just a bunch of papers. It is nice to know "of"Jesus, but we need know (see) the Man Jesus.

You haven't understood a word I've said. it really had nothing to do with Interpretation...all the while, that being the main focus!

In Short; It would have been more agreeable if WD started off with; Today's Bible reading. LESS ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION! Interpretation is the Enemy, we all lose.

Thank you all. I am pleased that God provided so many different openings for me to understand. It has strengthened my resolve. We can think what we like about the headliner, in this Post. It might not be for our understanding...It was meant for DW (or just me), regardless of what we think or think we know or understand. I was hoping to see more from Athos. It is good to see that the old Gang is still here. Still lost on the sidelines...Just know, I'm right here with you...although I don't want to be (on the sideline), to be Honest.

A big Thanks go's out to DW! Thanks for posting.

Doctrine is just a bunch of papersYou do realize that most of what you just posted qualifies as "doctrine"? (Definition of doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group) You have just stated a set of beliefs. Hence, doctrine.


You haven't understood a word I've said. it really had nothing to do with Interpretation...Interpretation is the Enemy, we all lose.Sorry Walter, but if you really believe that, then you don't understand what "interpretation" means. What you are posting is your interpretation of how we are to handle the Bible. You cannot possibly read the Bible without attempting to interpret, and certainly with the light of the Spirit, what the meaning is of what you are reading. And then your understandings begin to come together as doctrine, which is to say "beliefs". EVERYONE does it. You can't make sense of anything without doing it.

Now perhaps you don't read or value the Bible? Honest question. Not trying to be ugly at all.


"kind of puts a very different spin on things" What do you mean? the Greek or what Saten said?Perfect example. DW made a statement, and you asked the very common sense question, "What do you mean?" You ask that because you are trying to interpret his statement, to make sense of it. That's why I say everyone does it. You cannot read without interpreting what you are reading.

Maybe if you see it as; a non-intellectual (Me) listening to all you intellectuals.
Trying to reason yourself into the Christian faith....Plagues this Forum and all who engage. believing that by clear thinking, you can think yourself from a rationalist or atheistical position into the Christian position. With the Heart, men believe unto righteousness. you can not do it merely by the process of intellectual reasoning. The mere repetitious of a formula doesn't save a man. He must believe in his heart. There is danger in the believing the Doctrines of Salvation, instead of believing in the Person, and having a living faith in him. It is one thing to accept a body of doctrine with your mind it is another thing to have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You can be a perfectly orthodox theologian and yet have no spiritual life at all. We are not saved in believing in doctrine, we are saved by believing in a person. you must know the truth about him but you musent believe the truth about him without believing in him. don't allow the Doctrine to conceal the person. He is the Savoir, it is he that does the saving.

Our belief Must be with the Heart, not merely with the intellect...Intellect; It Starts there but then it must stop there
.
You have been going at this for years, getting nowhere.

God doesn't go merely by what a man says. God doesn't go by intellectual belief and apprehension. God knows the state of a Man's Heart. Saving faith isn't something that can't be taught.

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” [ Einstein]

I'm not looking for Either. It is Spirit, Only God is able to interpret /translate for you. It is not in a person's ability to project his translation or interpretation to others. It comes through life...It is the Life...living the life. Will of the Heart.

Too detailed. Please be more vague.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Even the Spirit had to have something to work with at creation, which is why God had to create a lump of dough for the Spirit to form.
Are you saying anyone who tries to understand the Scriptures more deeply is going to "project his translation or interpretation" rather than honestly seek the answers? That's beyond arrogant, and frankly insulting. I don't know who you think you are.
I have sought the Spirit's guidance in understanding the Scriptures for over 50 years. In this instance, I asked a simple question and you came at me like an angry cat. I don't know what your problem is, but get off my back.

Our belief Must be with the Heart, not merely with the intellect...Intellect; It Starts there but then it must stop thereI would generally agree with that since you include that the battle of the mind must be considered.
.

You have been going at this for years, getting nowhere.Very true. It bothers me and makes me wonder what the point is. Truthfully, virtually no one reads these posts anyway.

The written word is our anchor. The Spirit gives the light for sure, but without the written word we would be prone to going off in a thousand different directions. Something has to be objective, and that something is the Bible.


Too detailed. Please be more vague.This tongue-in-cheek remark is pretty accurate. I sometimes have a lot of trouble trying to figure out where Walter is going. I think I agree with at least some of what he is saying, but it tends to be a problem trying to follow his train of thought. And that is not a harsh criticism, but just an observation.

you came at me like an angry cat.I never mentioned your name until long after you made comment. How do I pose a threat to your life's work?
Are you saying anyone who tries to understand the Scriptures more deeply is going to "project his translation or interpretation" rather than honestly seek the answers?ah yah, Because that is what we do here. Enter any thread and you will see. we become so nervous for the word instead of preaching it instead of asserting it instead of proclaiming we argue. Maybe you missed my last post. That should better explain what I meant by this.


In light of DW's Response (now we know). It might be [more of] a question of Authority.
Today's Greek reading Believing that the greek has [more] authority or the same authority as the Bible, as a whole? Placing the Greek above (or equal) the Bible, so to speak. What would you think if somebody was to enter and say, "Today's Hebrew reading." your first inclination might be - she is of Jewish origin - error-prone (not just because a woman). The same thing with a Catholic - Today's Latin reading - initial thought; somethings got to be askew, or I don't know Latin...out of my league.

The Greek is the new testament, Hebrew being the old while Christians stick with the whole person, the entire Bible, as a whole, Old and new testament. The "Bible" is the whole deal. Stating, "Greek reading" sounds like divorcing the Lord Jesus Christ from the Bible (old testament)...The Apostles preached the Lord Jesus Christ and then in the light of that, they brought in the scriptures.  But they didn't start by asking them to accept the authority of the scriptures. The greek has no claim on the New Testament. It's the whole case that the Bible claimed for itself.

No one has said or suggested that the Greek NT has more authority than the Bible. Does it have the same authority? Well, yes since it IS the Bible. So if you read the NT in English, and DW reads it in Greek, you are reading, for all purposes, the same NT and thus from the same Bible. And if you read the OT in English, another person reads it in Spanish, and someone else reads it in Hebrew, it is still the same Bible carrying the same authority.
ah yah, Because that is what we do here. Enter any thread and you will see. we become so nervous for the word instead of preaching it instead of asserting it instead of proclaiming we argue.That fairly well describes it. The way this SHOULD work is for everyone to come here with a heart open to seeing things differently. To say it doesn't work that way is an understatement. For instance, there is no day of judgment coming, and dozens of clear statements from the NT to the contrary be hanged! There can be no day of judgment coming because...well, just because. And on and on it goes. It is a fruitless enterprise to be sure other than it helps me clarify my own beliefs. I am generally relieved to find that there are many positions held here for which there is either scant support, or no support at all. My regard for liberal theology has rightly been greatly diminished. From aionios to arsenokoite, it is largely a vain attempt to dispute what is plainly true.

And asking questions in the hope of clarifying positions seems to be a non-starter. The person, realizing the peril it might present to his/her position, simply ignores it. But that's the only real way of making progress, to exchange questions and analyze responses. It reminds me of this incident. 24 Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one [a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021%3A24%2D26&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23851a)]thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the [b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021%3A24%2D26&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23853b)]people; for they all regard John as a prophet.”

I do commend your honesty. Your use of the inclusive pronoun "we" is altogether correct. And you at least have no issue with openly proclaiming your beliefs. Now that is sometimes in a fairly incomprehensible manner, but at least you are willing to put it out there.

Today's Greek reading Infers NT, ONLY.
brought me to something.You won't find the answer in the greek. You (unbeknownst to you) might just be "projecting your translation or interpretation" rather than honestly seek the answers
Does it have the same authority? Well, yes since it IS the Bible.NO, since it only refers to the NT. The Greek can bring you questions, the Bible (NT, OT) will bring you answers. The Bible in its entirety is most important.

When I Read "Todays Greek reading." I get the impression something is amiss. Might be too much greek? Many Christians give themselves over to the NT only. The NT (alone) should not be looked upon as the "Bible." NT, OT is the whole case that the Bible claimed for itself.

Might I add; When directing a question, as you did, you are only speaking to NT believers. A Jew might represent an answer you are searching for. Chances are, a Jew would not engage in (greek) NT question.


Anybody have any thoughts on it?Yes ([B]You Asked).

Habakkuk 1:12 Lord, you appointed them (Chaldeans, aka Babylon) to execute judgment. He also talks about how the Kingdoms of this world are living in Satan's house (or something to that effect).

Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one [a]thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the [b]people; for they all regard John as a prophet.”I just read this the other day. I was thinking, could there be more to this than meets the eye? Might it be the first time Jesus didn't give an Answer to a question? Any chance you might be able to shed some light on this? Thought it strange you brought it up at the same time I found myself focusing on it.

Believing that the greek has [more] authority or the same authority as the Bible, as a whole? Placing the Greek above (or equal) the Bible, so to speak.

This may be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this board. The "Greek" IS the Bible, in fact it's more the Bible than your English version because that's how they wrote it.

I can't decide if you're really that uninformed, or if you're deliberately trolling. Either way, I don't have time for this kind of garbage. Keep spouting your nonsense, I won't be reading. I'm done with you.

NO, since it only refers to the NT. The Greek can bring you questions, the Bible (NT, OT) will bring you answers. The Bible in its entirety is most important.Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. You acknowledge in your own statement that the NT is part of the Bible. So when you are reading from the NT, you are reading from the Bible.


I just read this the other day. I was thinking, could there be more to this than meets the eye? Might it be the first time Jesus didn't give an Answer to a question? Any chance you might be able to shed some light on this? Thought it strange you brought it up at the same time I found myself focusing on it.I think Jesus did answer their question. He asked them a question that, if honestly answered, would have answered their own question as well. He was basically saying, "My authority was verified by no less that John the Baptist when he baptized me and heard a voice from heaven." And they knew that if they agreed that John's baptism was from Heaven (therefore God), then they could not question the validity of the ministry of Jesus.

waltero, the NT was written in a language called Greek.

Examples of the same word in several languages:
Greek = αγάπη
Latin = amor
German = liebe
Japanese = ai
English = love

I Corinthians 13:4 in Greek:

καὶ γὰρ εἴ ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀλλὰ ζήσομεθα σὺν αὐτῷ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς

P.S. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Together, they are the Bible.

Come on guys, You know Exactly what I am Saying. The Old Testament is part of the Bible (body), and The New Testament is part of the Bible (life). Combine the two and you have the full body of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, aka Bible. There is a good chance you'd be able to get through life reading only the New Testament (same with OT), but you’ll impoverish your spiritual life if you do that. - All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God.

"Todays Greek reading" - Who does that??? Somebody who studies Greek - yes.
Somebody who studies the NT -Yes. Somebody who studies the Bible - Not necessarily. Many, many Christians think that the “Old Testament” is something that is boring and not relevant to their lives today, which is why they don’t read it.

I get it; When somebody mentions the New Testament I would understand it as being the Bible, Much the same when mentioning the Old Testament. Just as same as most, if not all, LDS members. When the book of Mormon is mentioned they open up the Bible. But when I open a thread and see; "greek reading." I'm not sure what to think. my first thought was - In what way does using the term “greek” affect the way in which the text is approached? The term “greek” isn’t concrete like the term “Bible.”

Either way, you can look it up for yourself. The NT is Part of the bible. as is the OT. When you speak of "greek reading" it is assumed you are referring to the NT alone.

The term “greek” isn’t concrete like the term “Bible.”
Greek is the LANGUAGE that the NT was written in!!!

Please see my post #223 just above yours.

Come on guys, You know Exactly what I am Saying. The Old Testament is part of the Bible (body), and The New Testament is part of the Bible (life).
No, the Bible is made up of the OT (Law) and NT (Gospel).

Come on guys, You know Exactly what I am Saying.No, we don't.


The Old Testament is part of the Bible (body), and The New Testament is part of the Bible (life).Who decided that (body and life)?


The NT is Part of the bible. as is the OT. When you speak of "greek reading" it is assumed you are referring to the NT alone.I wouldn't argue with that.


the Bible is made up of the OT (Law) and NT (Gospel).Sort of.

WG: the Bible is made up of the OT (Law) and NT (Gospel).

JL: Sort of.
OT = thou shalt not
NT = love is the fulfilling of the Law in the OT

OT = thou shalt not
NT = love is the fulfilling of the Law in the OTSort of.

There are many "thou shalts" in the OT, and many, many expressions of the love and mercy of God.

There is much said in the NT about a coming day of judgment.

I actually preferred your law/Gospel contrast better. John 1:17 provides some support for that. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth [p (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-26062p)]were realized through Jesus Christ.

Many, many Christians think that the “Old Testament” is something that is boring and not relevant to their lives today, which is why they don’t read it.

You are correct, I don't read the Old Testament in Greek. I read it in Hebrew. It's what my Masters degree is in.
I happen to be reading through the Greek New Testament. I have no idea what your problem is, but this whole thing is so far beyond ridiculous I couldn't tell you why we're even discussing it.

The NT is Part of the bible. as is the OT. When you speak of "greek reading" it is assumed you are referring to the NT alone.
I wouldn't argue with that.
SO you agree. - "the New Testament IS [part of] the Bible." NOT the Bible...Now I'm wondering what we were going on about. I'm not going to review any of the previous posts. all I remember is the bunch of you were talking as if the NT IS the Bible...I know, I know, it all depends what "is" is ;-P . It is not the Bible, it is only part of the Bible. That wasn't the point really. "When you speak of "greek reading" it is assumed you are referring to the NT alone.
I wouldn't argue with that.But you were! Okay, Okay moving on. If I can't convince you how important it is to take the Bible as a whole, I'll settle for - "greek reading" as referring to the NT alone.

Glad to see you're sticking around DW. This is not a problem with me. I've been involved in many silly discussions throughout my life, 87% of them come from this site. I Honestly trying to learn something. This is not meant to be an argument...for me at least.


This may be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this board.No worries, I expected this. Happens all the time. This will come in handy when I [try to] explain what I understand as going on here.
I couldn't tell you why we're even discussing it.Enquiring minds want to know
The "Greek" IS the Bible -
it's more the Bible than your English version Maybe we'll go with -"Authority of the Bible"?
What is it, who has it and where does it come from?
Any takers?? What's your take on this???

SO you agree. - "the New Testament IS [part of] the Bible." NOT the Bible.I've never said otherwise. In fact, I said that exact truth many posts back. "You acknowledge in your own statement that the NT is part of the Bible. So when you are reading from the NT, you are reading from the Bible. And if you read the OT in English...it is still the same Bible carrying the same authority." Also said it here. "So if you read the NT in English, and DW reads it in Greek, you are reading, for all purposes, the same NT and thus from the same Bible."

How on earth you can think that is in question is beyond me. You are the only one who's made an issue of it. In the same way, if you are reading in Matthew, you are reading in the NT. Is Matthew the ENTIRE NT? No, but it is certainly part of it. Why are we even talking about this???

I'd still like to know where you got this from. "The Old Testament is part of the Bible (body), and The New Testament is part of the Bible (life)."

Who decided that (body and life)?

I'll settle for - "greek reading" as referring to the NT alone.

I've talked many times about my project of reading through the New Testament in Greek. I have never implied anything else. I have no idea where you got any of the stuff you came up with, I must conclude that you pulled it out of your own head and it doesn't really exist.
I never said it was "The Bible" or any of the rest. Dude, you created this entire thing out of whole cloth, and it was and is absolutely pointless.

Just about right. It's OK to ask a question, but the answer should have settled the issue.

DW, if you are still following this thread, have you read How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth by Gordon Fee? If so, I just wonder what you thought of it.

I don't know how many times I've heard; that's the old testament, we don't go by the old testament anymore! That is the Old Testament, that's an allegory, That doesn't apply, etc.

The NT/OT "is" the bible until it's "not." The same could be said with the B.i.b.l.e. For instance - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, Basic Information Before Leaving Earth, Basic Instructions Before Living Eternally, Be Inspirational, Befriend and Love Everyone, Believers Information Before Leaving Earth...which one do you "subscribe to"?


The "Greek" IS the Bible -
it's more the Bible than your English version Here's the question: is this quote from DW an anachronism? In other words, If DW is right, where does that leave us?





I'd still like to know where you got this from. "The Old Testament is part of the Bible (body), and The New Testament is part of the Bible (life)."I don't want to go into it right now.

Edit:

I don't know how many times I've heard; that's the old testament, we don't go by the old testament anymore! That is the Old Testament, that's an allegory, That doesn't apply, etc.
No one here says "we don't go by the Old Testament anymore". It's very important. In it is the Law, an SOS -- Shows Our Sin. God loves us so much that He gave us commandments to rein in our sinfulness. To get that message across to us, the OT is full of Jewish history (telling of His people's failures and His forgiveness of them), plus teaching devices such as poetry, parables, and allegories.

The other SOS is in the New Testament, which tells us about God's son Jesus who suffered death in our stead and in three days rose again -- and Shows Our Salvation.

I don't know how many times I've heard; that's the old testament, we don't go by the old testament anymore!You haven't heard that a single time here.


That is t he Old Testament, that's an allegory,The Apostle Paul used OT passages in an allegorical manner. It doesn't mean they are fictional. Referring to a passage as allegorical does not mean it didn't happen. You really should learn the difference.


it's more the Bible than your English version.It is certainly as close to the original as you can get since it IS the original. Where does it leave us? It leaves us as reading translations which are generally WONDERFULLY faithful to the originals. That is unquestionable truth. Period.


The NT/OT "is" the bible until it's "not."And no one here has said that either. Where are you getting all of this from???

I think WG's statement was pretty good except that she left out the third SOS. Saved from Suffering judgment.

I think WG's statement was pretty good except that she left out the third SOS. Saved from Suffering judgment.
That's what the NT that Shows Our Salvation tells us, that we are saved from suffering judgment (SFS???).

Hmm. It WOULD be SFS, wouldn't it? How did I miss that? Well, leave it to a retired librarian to catch that. Well done.

The best acronym would be SBFIC.

I'm still plowing through the book on Luther. I'm in the good post-Wittenberg part.

Walter, I hope you keep posting. And while you post, I hope you will read our responses more carefully and thoughtfully. I think you sometimes respond to what you think we are going to say, and what others have said to you, as opposed to what is actually said here.

I'm a long-time proofreader and editor too. Do not mess with me!

And Luther and I share a birthday (but different year).

And Luther and I share a birthday (but different year).His was after yours??? (<;

His was after yours??? (<;
Yes, but different centuries.

CENTURIES after!! Wow. You are a living wonder.

If you find a particular part in the [greek] NT that you find confusing. Then maybe it would be a good idea to open it up for discussion while accepting the whole. It is important in these matters that we should start with the Whole, and not with certain parts.

The main theme on this site - raise some particular points and there's our discussing the scripture, we find ourselves spending the whole of our time upon some detail.

I am convinced there is an underlying reason why this question was brought up using the greek. It's become more a question of the "Authority of the Bible" than was originally (Who has Authority.") posted...ultimate "Authority" is man himself. Man's reason. It is what I decide to believe and what I decide to reject.

@DW, You might be focusing on a particular (Greek/Hebrew), and missing the whole. There is no such distinction drawn in the bible itself. The Bible comes to us and offers itself as a whole...Man Is ill-equipped to understand the Bible.


Walter, I hope you keep posting. And while you post, I hope you will read our responses more carefully and thoughtfully. I think you sometimes respond to what you think we are going to say, and what others have said to you, as opposed to what is actually said here.I get the question that DW has posted here. Simply put; I have never come across, "todays greek reading," regarding a Bible passage before...It's presented (NT or greek?) as a particular. I have to ask myself why.

Here you come at it as if there is nothing to it. I'm telling you there is. There is to me, and there is to DW (Unbeknownst to him). Just look at some of his responses. Later I mentioned that we (as Christians) should take the Bible as a whole...It's not put to us in part. You say the new NT is the Bible, I agree. You agreed, that the Greek refers only to the NT...therefore not being the whole!


The Bible is the Bible until it's not! Pick a stranger reading his "Bible." It's a Bible, Right? Pick it up and open it. Whoop! there you have it, the Book of Mormon!!! And there is the Jews, you have the Jehovah's witnesses, We have WG...



quote
As I said, searching Scripture -- in ANY language -- has nothing to do with a formal study of that country's philosophy. The whole purpose of language is to communicate meaning about the world around us.
Language in the Bible is more non-verbal than it is verbal...It communicates an entirely different universe around us.

What do you mean by starting with the "Whole"?

What do you mean by starting with the "Whole"?It has to do with this
"Authority of the Bible"

I get the question that DW has posted here. Simply put; I have never come across, "todays greek reading," regarding a Bible passage before...It's presented (NT or greek?) as a particular. I have to ask myself why.No, you don't. You just need to read the answer that has already been posted.


Pick a stranger reading his "Bible." It's a Bible, Right? Pick it up and open it. Whoop! there you have it, the Book of Mormon!!! And there is the Jews, you have the Jehovah's witnesses, We have WG...Except that it's not been an issue here. Just with your "strangers". While I frequently disagree with WG, she is not appealing to a book other than the Bible.

Pick a stranger reading his "Bible." It's a Bible, Right? Pick it up and open it. Whoop! there you have it, the Book of Mormon!!! And there is the Jews, you have the Jehovah's witnesses, We have WG...
Mormons read the Bible (but the Book of Mormon comes first). Witnesses read the Bible but understand many teachings in a different way. WG has been part of a major conservative Christian denomination, as both student and teacher, most of her life.