What is the non-Christian explanation to the origin and background of the Book of Revelation in the Bible?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Me either. I posted it, hoping you could help. And I so miss Athos!

I can't make noodles or donuts of it. And so do I.

The only non-Christian explanation I could speculate on would be the ravings of a severely deluded man.

My very intelligent and well-read son (autistic too) says it was a dream experienced by John of Patmos (not the Gospel-writer John). Magic mushrooms on the Isle of Patmos?

From Wikipedia:

"John of Patmos (also called John the Revelator, John the Divine, John the Theologian) is the name traditionally given to the author of the Book of Revelation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation). The text of Revelation states that John was on Patmos (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patmos), a Greek (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) island where, according to most biblical historians, he was exiled as a result of anti-Christian persecution under the Roman emperor Domitian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domitian)."

My son says John of Patmos' visionary experience was similar to that of Joseph Smith.

From Wikipedia:

"Living in western NY, an area of intense religious revivalism during the Second Great Awakening (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening), Smith reported experiencing a series of visions. The first of these (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision) was in 1820, when he saw "two personages" (whom he eventually described as God the Father (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father) and Jesus Christ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ)). In 1823, he said he was visited by an angel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni) who directed him to a buried book of golden plates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates) inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. In 1830, Smith published the Book of Mormon, which he described as an English translation of those plates."

Then the author of Revelation lied.


9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30712d)] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
If it had been a dream, he would simply have, "I had a dream last night." That very kind of statement happened repeatedly in the Bible (such as Joseph in the OT and Joseph in the NT), but John intentionally avoided that description.

Might add that the testimony of the early church fathers was that the Apostle John wrote the book.

Yes, he lied. Magic mushrooms? Mentally ill? Caught up by ecstatic hysteria?

Early church fathers were wrong (as they were about many things).

So I'm supposed to doubt the early church fathers, far closer in proximity, both in time and geography, than you or I, and instead believe he was drinking mushroom tea?

Moving on along.

John of Patmos

Let me now weave a curious little tale, constructed from factual evidence in relation to John of Patmos and his incredible chapter in the New Testament known as Revelation. Most scholars agree that this portion of the Bible was written by John of Patmos sometime between 68 and 95 AD. The meaning of Revelation is fiercely disputed, though. Some posit that it spells out the Apocalypse. Some think that is it simply a deeply symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil. Apocalyptic literature was a fairly common form in the first century, and many academics believe that John was writing specifically to reassure the Christians of Asia who were being persecuted, and perhaps to pass them clandestine messages.Others believe that parts of it, such as the below quote, is a retelling of the Greek mythological story of a champion fighting a monster, which was John’s way of allowing as many as possible (especially new converts to Christianity) to identify with his vision. In the parallel mythological story, the pregnant goddess Leto is pursed by the dragon Python. She escapes to an island where she gives birth to Apollo, who later kills the dragon. That idea seems as viable as any of the other theories of its meaning and interpretations. With that being said, lets instead read it from the perspective that was the result of a vision induced by a trance state, so we can later examine if there’s any evidence to substantiate this seemingly wild speculation.
http://entheology.com/peoples/revelation-a-psychdelic-vision/

Most scholars agree that this portion of the Bible was written by John of Patmos sometime between 68 and 95 AD. No, they don't.

Completely idiotic nonsense from your site.


Uncovering the use of entheogens ( in Early Christianity has been a subject of my research for quite some time now. The more I dig, the more obvious it becomes that an entire portion of Early Christianity has been systematically deleted, especially when it comes to the use of psychoactive substances as sacraments early on in the history of this and other religious systems that arose.

entheogens. psychoactive substances that induce alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior for the purposes of engendering spiritual development or otherwise in sacred contexts.

Yeah, Paul talked about the use of psychotic drugs all the time. Sorry, but I'm done with this ludicrous, unscholarly garbage. I should have known better from the outset, but I thought I'd give it one more try. As usual, the past is the best predictor of the future.

And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?

Read this:
https://petergoeman.com/homosexuality-was-added-to-the-bible-in-1946/

It is becoming more and more popular to argue that the Bible speaking against homosexuality is a recent innovation that was added to the Bible to make Scripture anti-gay.

One very common iteration of the argument is that the word “homosexual” was not in any Bible prior to 1946 (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2018/06/the-word-homosexual-does-not-appear-in-the-bible-pre-1946/). The implication of such argumentation is that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality, and that the church should therefore accept a gay lifestyle as being compatible with biblical teaching.

Those who put forward such argumentation typically point to Luther’s German translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Cor%206.9), which uses the word Knabenschänder, or “boy molester” rather than the typical idea of homosexual found in modern translations. Additionally, proponents point to the KJV translation, done in 1611, which translated 1 Corinthians 6:9 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Cor%206.9) as, “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” It was not until 1946 with the translation of the RSV that the term homosexual came to be utilized in Bible translations. How should Christians respond to such argumentation? Is it true that the Bible is accepting of homosexual behavior, and that it was only recently (after 1946) when the Bible was twisted to be anti-gay?There are multiple arguments which are important to work through in order to think accurately about this issue.First, a translation does not determine meaning, but is a reflection of the translator(s) understanding of a text, conveyed through the capacity of a target language.

One very common iteration of the argument is that the word “homosexual” was not in any Bible prior to 1946 (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2018/06/the-word-homosexual-does-not-appear-in-the-bible-pre-1946/). It's a very poor argument that I have answered before. "Homosexual" was not in any Bible prior to 1946 because it was not in common usage even at the turn of the century. The word prior to that was "sodomite" or sometimes other expressions. Practically all modern translations render it as "homosexual", "sodomite", or an expression meaning the same thing. The Old Testament provides very direct descriptions. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. It is a very clear picture, and that the Bible condemns same gender sex is very plain. To suggest otherwise is to do a terrible disservice to those caught in that sin.

A good book on the subject is Born Again This Way. It was written by a woman who lived her life as a lesbian until her early twenties.


And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?The "tweaks" of NT texts are well-known and noted in most modern translations. It is another dead-end argument.

I am glad you have abandoned the idea of the Gospel being due to the use of psychotic drugs.

How many scribes have tweaked the Bible writings? Not that many. Textual criticism tells us that what we have, even before modern methods developed, is well over 99% exactly as it came from the writers' hands. There are problems, such as the book of Jeremiah, but all in all we know that, as one scholar put it, "we have not got a bad text."

As for the word homosexuality, the plain fact is, all our translations are guesses. We have no solid idea what the word means because it appears Paul invented it. It doesn't show up anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature, biblical or otherwise.

Building a theological principle on that is leaning on a broken reed, as my dad used to say.

The word Paul possibly coined comes from two Greek words, "man" and "bed". The meaning is pretty clear. But even at that, that marriage is the only proper relationship for sexual expression, and that marriage is always between a man and a woman, and that same-gender sex is never, ever endorsed in the Bible, are all very clear.

There has been an lgbtq+ community on Earth since the beginning of time.

You have no way to know that, but even if true, it establishes nothing. It is no more compelling than to say that racists have been around since the beginning of time, therefore racism must be an acceptable condition. Christ came to give us victory over sin, not to teach us to celebrate it.

The word Paul possibly coined comes from two Greek words, "man" and "bed". The meaning is pretty clear.
Yep, the meaning is VERY clear: STRAIGHT men grooming and luring children to bed, especially young boys, to bed. And you also say humans have always been bisexual, no homosexuals. Those straight Catholic priests get tired of masturbating and need to enjoy an altar boy now and then. (Btw, Athos and I were friends since 2006. He had been a Catholic altar boy....told me about his experiences. Maybe that priest was gay....bwahahaha.) Of course, straight translators deliberately redefined Paul's word to protect themselves and other straight men.

As for the word homosexuality, the plain fact is, all our translations are guesses. We have no solid idea what the word means because it appears Paul invented it. It doesn't show up anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature
And what fun times straight Greek men had with each other, women, and children -- especially boys -- during temple worship!

Yep, the meaning is VERY clear: STRAIGHT men grooming and luring children to bed, especially young boys, to bed. Complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the two Greek words (men + bed) that would lead to that conclusion unless, like you, a person was resistant to the simple truth of the matter. It is far, far more likely that the word means what it clearly seems to mean, and that is men going to bed with each other in the same sense that a woman and man would. And to your comment about translators, you have no evidence at all for that. It's all the product of a mind that knows the truth but doesn't like it, and so grabs any alternate explanation no matter how foolish it might be.

I might add that the Catholic Church was not responsible for the vast majority of Bible translations, so a desire to protect those sordid priests certainly was not a motivation. You really should know these things if you want to comment on this. So the fact that the vast majority of recent PROTESTANT translations (and there are many) translate the word as homosexual, sodomite, or other clear terms really works against your idea as do the contributions of Greek lexicons. I have found NO translation that renders it as male pedophiles. It's a ridiculous idea.

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this. Otherwise, I'm done. Your idea has no valid support that I can find anywhere.

I'm okay with you chickening ooooppps bowing out.

Yeah. Right. Everyone here knows better. You have, as usual, nothing more than a personal opinion. You really need to learn to study this material to the point where you can support your POV.


But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this. Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.

Yeah. Right. Everyone here knows better. You have, as usual, nothing more than a personal opinion. You really need to learn to study this material to the point where you can support your POV.
I have. I even went to a Christian college where I learned this.

Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.
I posted factual links. Unfortunately, the information doesn't agree with your OPINION.

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this.


Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.Just as I predicted.

The most abrupt change in biblical translations referring to same-sex behavior happened in the 1946 RSV.

It was here for the first time in any translation, and in any language that two Greek words in the New Testament, arsenokoitai and malakos, were combined to one word and translated as “homosexual."
https://canyonwalkerconnections.com/word-homosexual-first-introduced-bible/#:~:text=The%20most%20abrupt%20change%20in%20bibli cal%20translations%20referring,combined%20to%20one %20word%20and%20translated%20as%20“homosexual.”

The NASB uses 'homosexuals' for Paul's word "Arsenokoitēs", which, according (http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Arsenokoites.php) to gay-friendly websites (http://stravagantisimo.blogspot.com/2010/04/arsenokoites-and-androkoites.html), is not referring to homosexual as we know it today, because there already was a word "androkoitēs" to describe the real homosexual activity.

So, what did Paul have in mind, when he wrote about and condemned "Arsenokoitēs"? Did he condemn the kind of sexual activity associated with male prostitutes back in the days of the Romans or gay love as we know it today?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8493/what-did-paul-mean-by-arsenokoitēs-was-he-condemning-homosexual-activity-as-w

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this.


Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.To be clear, you would need something like this. It took very little time to find this.


KJ21 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=KJ21)
for whoremongers, for those who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine


ASV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ASV)
for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;


AMP (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=AMP)
for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


AMPC (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=AMPC)
[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers—and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine


BRG (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=BRG)
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


CSB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=CSB)
for the sexually immoral and males who have sex with males, for slave traders, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching


CEB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=CEB)
They are people who are sexually unfaithful, and people who have intercourse with the same sex. They are kidnappers, liars, individuals who give false testimonies in court, and those who do anything else that is opposed to sound teaching.


CJB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=CJB)
the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching


CEV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=CEV)
The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won't tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching


DARBY (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=DARBY)
fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,


DLNT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=DLNT)
sexually-immoral ones, homosexuals, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and if any other thing is contrary to healthy teaching


DRA (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=DRA)
For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,


ERV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ERV)
It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.


EHV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=EHV)
for sexually immoral people, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is opposed to sound teaching—


ESV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ESV)
the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


ESVUK (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ESVUK)
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


EXB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=EXB)
who take part in sexual sins, who ·have sexual relations with people of the same sex [are practicing homosexuals], who ·sell slaves [are kidnappers/slave traders], who tell lies, who speak falsely, and ·who do anything against [or all who live contrary to] the true teaching of God.


GNV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=GNV)
To whoremongers, to buggerers, to menstealers, to liars, to the perjured, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to wholesome doctrine,


GW (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=GW)
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.


GNT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=GNT)
for the immoral, for sexual perverts, for kidnappers, for those who lie and give false testimony or who do anything else contrary to sound doctrine.


HCSB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=HCSB)
for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching


ICB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ICB)
who take part in sexual sins, men who have physical relations with other men, those who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.


ISV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&version=ISV)
for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching

Let me add, please begin to read your own links. The one above contained this clear refutation of your idea.


The term Paul used that is translated 'homosexual(s)' came directly from the two Greek words in the Greek translation of the Levitical passage (i.e. the Septuagint, which Paul quoted regularly) condemning homosexuality. Paul "coined" the compound word, but it did not come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, "Don't 'bed' [koite] a 'man' [arseno] like you would a woman." Hence, arsenokoites.

Neither did Paul contextualize the act confining it to prostitution or child abuse or pagan idolatry. If he did, and if the author of Leviticus did as well, then a consistent hermeneutic requires that the neighboring sins these texts condemn would only be prohibited in the same context, but would be acceptable otherwise. So incest, murder of a child, adultery, and bestiality are permissible as long as they are practiced outside of the context of prostitution or pagan idolatry. This is obviously an untenable position.

See Romans 1:26-27 where the condemnation of homosexuality does not depend on the translation of a word coined by Paul in his other writings. In the Romans passage, Paul lists men and women abandoning the natural sexual act (heterosexuality) for what is unnatural (homosexuality) as an example of man's abominations resulting from abandoning the truth of God in exchange for a lie, as Paul describes it.

Let me add, please begin to read your own links. The one above contained this clear refutation of your idea.
Am just making sure you read the links I post. :-)

Good. Now if you can just get YOU to read them! [<;

I do. I try to trick you.

If you read the article I noted above, and I don't think for a second you did, you were foolish beyond belief to have linked it since it refuted the very idea you were trying to advance, so the only person you managed to trick was...Wondergirl!!

I will remember this link for future reference in any discussion of this difficult and painful topic.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8493/what-did-paul-mean-by-arsenokoit%C4%93s-was-he-condemning-homosexual-activity-as-w "

Yes, I did read it. I was trying to trick you -- to see if YOU read it. *roaring with laughter* (Ever teach school and use this ploy with your students?)

You're roaring with laughter because you were dumb enough to link to an article that destroyed your own argument?? I certainly hope that was not the case. It's why I prefer to think that you didn't even bother to read it. Take your pick. "Hey, I've found an article that destroys my POV. Now let's see if I can trick someone into reading it." Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You really want to go there?


Ever teach school and use this ploy with your students?I didn't use "ploys". I taught.

I didn't use "ploys". I taught.
I can only imagine.... *giggles*

And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?


Speaking as one who has written and lectured on textual criticism, none that I'm aware of. Recent translators don't qualify as "scribes". No scribes that I have ever seen made any changes to any of these passages. Your quote is wrong and lame. Sorry. If we want to talk about biased translations, that's one thing. But when you start talking about scribes, you're stepping into an area where this discussion doesn't go. The theologically-motivated changes scribes made are very few and very far bettween.
And there is no good reason not to conclude that John of Patmos and John the Apostle were the same person. I have yet to see an argument that doesn't boil down to "I don't think so". That's not scholarship.

DW, are you familiar with William Mounce?

Speaking as one who has written and lectured on textual criticism, none that I'm aware of. Recent translators don't qualify as "scribes". No scribes that I have ever seen made any changes to any of these passages. Your quote is wrong and lame. Sorry. If we want to talk about biased translations, that's one thing. But when you start talking about scribes, you're stepping into an area where this discussion doesn't go. The theologically-motivated changes scribes made are very few and very far bettween.
I'm sorry, dwashbur. I agree, I shudda said translators. It's the prednisode talking instead of the real me.

JL:
I've seen his books but haven't read any of them.

I am presently re-reading a book of his titled Why I Trust the Bible. I like his approach. I've also been looking at a translation/study help he put out called the Mounce Bible. It's a reverse interlinear of the NT. I imagine you would find it interesting.

It's the prednisode talking instead of the real me.

I have no room to talk about that. A week after I finally tested negative I still have the massive covid brain fog.

Why do I Trust the Bible Because I trust God.

God speaks, children hear, and men act on what they hear. Those who have become witnesses to [the] living of the word wrote it down. Jesus was the living Word. God came down and tried to explain the Scriptures, but nobody understood what on earth he was talking about. Only when the Holy Spirit came did they understand? They didn't understand according to the Scriptures, they understood through the life that he walked, talked, lived, and died. The disciples were witnesses to the life that is in the Scriptures. You can read the Bible all you want, but only until you give yourself over to the truth of the written word (aka Bible) can you be witness to it.

I came to an understanding (long ago) that I had to place all my trust and faith in believing that God preserved the scriptures of the OT, to be accurate and true. True enough so that the Son of man had been Crucified. I find myself having to trust that God is able to keep NT intact (just like the Body of Christ), for me to become a witness to the word that gives life.

Nobody could bear to hear God's voice. That's why they asked if God could talk to Moses and have Moses relay it to the rest of the people. Don't believe in whoever might be relaying the message to you. It's no longer about simply hearing the word of God, it's about being a witness to the truth of the Bible. We have a written account of Jesus's life. Jesus lived the life. we don't have to live the life, he has already done it. We aren't even able to live that life. We need only be witnesses to his life, which is to know and operate in truth (@WG) - and love.

Why do I Trust the Bible


Because I trust God.Circular reasoning, is it not?

"Why do I trust the Bible?" "Because I trust God."

"How do I know about God?" "I discover God in the Bible which I trust."

"But how can I know I should trust the Bible?" "By trusting in the God I read about in the Bible."

And on and on it would go.

There came a point in my life where I didn't want to engage in argument over the authenticity of the Scriptures.
Having to trust that God's word is alive and well.
Circular reasoning, is it not? certainly is.
How do I know about God? Isreal, The Ten Commandments, The life, the death, the resurrection. More importantly; his word (Jesus) now lives in me.
"But how can I know I should trust the Bible?" "By trusting in the life that is lived within God's, commands - that I have read in the Bible." Worked for Jesus?

Why would you not trust in something that engulfs your entire life? You read it, you eat it, you speak it, and you live and breathe the word of God. The word of God has not only been spoken from the lips of man. His words have been written down. It is in writing, a legal document as it were.

How was Adam to know who this God was? If only Adam had trusted in the word of God.

What about unconditional love? Jesus loved, and still loves, us so we can love each other.

We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

Walter, you are still using the approach that you know the Bible is trustworthy because the God you read about in the trustworthy Bible is...trustworthy. Now that works for you and me as Christians, but for the unconverted it would generally be unconvincing. Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.

And that is usually the case. I have a hard enough time convincing myself (mind) to give itself over to my heart. Knowing what to be true and allowing truth to guide me into that life...that life is to be lived out through the Scriptures.

It is one thing to believe. It is another thing to live. We don't live to believe. We die believing.
Where there is no more "we", there is only life...life comes from the being, in the Word of God.

I have a hard enough time convincing myself (mind) to give itself over to my heart. Knowing what to be true and allowing truth to guide me into that life...that life is to be lived out through the Scriptures.I certainly understand what you are saying. Believing can be difficult at times. It's one reason, and I suppose the main one, that I dearly love the study of apologetics. It helps me a lot with my faith to see that the evidence for the reliability of the text of the Bible is so good.

I certainly understand what you are saying. Believing can be difficult at times. It's one reason, and I suppose the main one, that I dearly love the study of apologetics. It helps me a lot with my faith to see that the evidence for the reliability of the text of the Bible is so good.

Apologetics saved my faith. There was a point in my 30's where I was on the verge of chucking it all. I had come to the conclusion that God wasn't YHWH, he was Zeus, with his capricious lightning bolts and all the rest. It was one of the deepest holes I've ever been in. Gary Habermas' defenses of Jesus' resurrection kept me hanging on. I couldn't get around it: it happened. And the implications of it are enormous to the point of being even more immeasurable than the universe. That kept me hanging on and ultimately brought me through the dark period. Thanks to apologetics, not about the Bible etc. but about Jesus being alive, I came out infinitely stronger on the other side. I can now say truthfully that it's a settled issue with me: Jesus lives and I live in Him.

What about unconditional love? That's all you. Same with Trinity; It's all you.
We don't find it in the Scriptures. The point is; You are doing the same thing that you claim others have done when writing (Interpreting) the Bible. The Church did not write the Bible.

At this point, I don't feel the need to carry on with you in this conversation. (Why)? I feel I have discredited your human equation...you Can't let go. You're too deep in this unconditional lovey-dovey thing.

Well said DW. The evidence for the resurrection is substantial.

You're too deep in this unconditional lovey-dovey thing.
That was the entire reason God sent His Son to die for us and rise again.

I can agree that God's love is unconditional, but we must be reminded that His holiness is as great as His love. It is only in the acceptance of the cross that the two can be resolved.

I would agree as well. Just as I'm able to agree with the doctrine of the Trinity.

When it comes to GOD Commanding, man always has something to add. Why do you think that is?
If you read, in Genesis, the very first command God gave to man - man added to said command of God. Was that a good thing? was it bad? It might even seem harmless.
That was the entire reason God sent His Son to die for us and rise again.It appears your entire understanding of God has to do with this unconditional love of God thing. God is love, therefore I believe in unconditional love, and I will unconditionally love others the same as I know God's love - as being unconditional, right?

It appears your entire understanding of God has to do with this unconditional love of God thing. God is love, therefore I believe in unconditional love, and I will unconditionally love others the same as I know God's love - as being unconditional, right?
You disagree?

(P.S. not my ENTIRE understanding of God)

The problem I have seen in the past with WG's understanding of unconditional love is that it seems to equate to unconditional acceptance.

The problem I have seen in the past with WG's understanding of unconditional love is that it seems to equate to unconditional acceptance.
Please explain.

Love = doing what is in the best interest of someone else.

Acceptance = approving of what another person does.

Acceptance = approving of what another person does.
How did "acceptance of what a another person does" get into this???

I accept the person but not necessarily the action taken. That's why I interact with that person, to find out the action.

We're not talking about what you do. We are talking about God and your view of God's love. God, for instance, does not "accept the person" as they are.

God, for instance, does not "accept the person" as they are.
Not a Muslim who loves others and gives from his heart?

Nope. Of course you will refer to the famous verse, "If you will be a really good person, love others, give from your heart, and serve a false god, then you will be accepted!"

You are wrong.

What? You couldn't find that verse???

I don't mean to be ugly to you. You just surprise me sometimes with your suggestion that "good" people are acceptable to God. If you have read your NT, and I suspect you have, then you know that is not true. There really is no such thing as good people.

Your god is too small.

Your god is an invention of your own desires and not the God of the Bible. I would seriously encourage you to have the Bible inform your beliefs and not the other way around.

You have to explain how your "good people" idea fits into the clearest explanation of the Gospel in the Bible, found in Romans 3.


20 For no one will be justified in his sight by the works of the law, because the knowledge of sin comes through the law. 21 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, attested by the Law and the Prophets. 22 The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as the mercy seat by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. 26 God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.Now if you want to put forward a person as being right with God, then you must show how they have expressed their "faith in Jesus Christ".

And unless I miss my mark, this core statement by Paul of the foundation of the Gospel, the grand summation of nearly three chapters, will be referred to here as "cherry-picking".

And unless I miss my mark, this core statement by Paul of the foundation of the Gospel, the grand summation of nearly three chapters, will be referred to here as "cherry-picking".
You read my mind!

It never fails. "I don't like what this text teaches, so I'll just ignore it and foolishly refer to it as 'cherrypicking.' After all, I don't know any way of refuting it, so let's just pretend it doesn't exist."

A day is coming, dear WG. A day is coming.

And I can't wait!!! Oh, the fun we'll have in the celestial kitchen!

The two of you should really stop speaking with each other. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody will ever know.

It has nothing to do with Apologetics. Nothing to do with Unconditional love. Nothing to do with Original Sin. Nothing to do with the Trinity, or anything else you might come up with! None of which is found in the Bible.

The Church did not write the Bible!

I've actually tried to block WG, but she is an admin on this site and thus cannot be blocked. It gets very tiresome.

The Church did not write the Bible!
The church fathers were influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.

The two of you should really stop speaking with each other. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody will ever know.
There are maybe five regulars active on this site. Discussion doesn't have to be inflexible. And no matter what I post, I'm told I'm wrong.

I would agree that the church did not write the Bible. That is plainly true.

WG is correct in that we are down to to faithful few here.


It has nothing to do with Apologetics. Nothing to do with Unconditional love. Nothing to do with Original Sin. Nothing to do with the Trinity, or anything else you might come up with! None of which is found in the Bible.Not sure what your point is here. The doctrine of the trinity is found all over the NT.

I would agree that the church did not write the Bible. That is plainly true.
And I didn't say it did.

And I didn't say it did.True enough, and I never suggested you did, but your reply to the remark certainly seemed to support the idea. "The church fathers were influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity."

Please stop with the maybes and seemed tos and other (deliberate?) misunderstandings.

You mean like you are doing now?

Okay. I'm finished here. Best wishes.

You're a difficult person to exchange with. You will not answer serious questions, you make assertions for which you have no support, and you raise objections that strike me as silly, so it's generally, for me, an exercise in frustration. We probably do better speaking with others. Best wishes to you as well.

The way you two snipe at each other all the time is the main reason I'm not on here more often.

I'm sure it can be frustrating, and I'm also sure I do contribute to it. Trying to carry on a discussion of that sort is a new experience for me.

The way you two snipe at each other all the time is the main reason I'm not on here more often.Ditto!

@WG
Post #45
What about unconditional love? Jesus loved, and still loves, us so we can love each other.
We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19 If you could please show me where you'd like to interject this in either of these posts; 42, 43, 44? I honestly Don't understand what the question is, or if it is even a question.

If it is not a question, maybe you could explain it better by showing me where you'd like to interject God's - "unconditional love," into the Bible.

P.S. I understand It is sometimes hard to understand me. If you'd be willing to help me with proper sentence structuring?
Maybe you could rewrite what it is I am trying to say, in a proper format....missing or misplaced punctuations, etc.

If it is not a question, maybe you could explain it better by showing me where you'd like to interject God's - "unconditional love," into the Bible.I'd say there are quite a number of places. John 3:16, for instance, certainly seems to use "love" in an unconditional sense. The key point, for me, is not to equate "love" with "acceptance". God does not unconditionally accept people. It is a different meaning in a number of ways.

It might be good if everybody defines their terms. What does "accept" mean? What exactly does "love" mean, and what does "unconditional" mean? In the context of Jesus and salvation, it's important to all be talking about the same thing.

Good point.
1. Accept. To welcome into one's presence, especially in the sense of God receiving man into fellowship with him.
2. Love. To do what is in the best interest of the object of my love.
3. Unconditional. Without preconditions.

1. Accept. To welcome into one's presence, especially in the sense of God receiving man into fellowship with him.

John 6:37040

2. Love. To do what is in the best interest of the object of my love.

John 3:16 obviously

3. Unconditional. Without preconditions.

Romans 10:12

John 6:37040Wonderful passage! The one who comes to Christ will indeed be accepted.


John 3:16 obviouslyAgree that it is an obvious choice.


Romans 10:12Not sure what your point is there, but verse 12 should certainly be read in context with verses 11 and 13.

Romans 10:12
Not sure what your point is there, but verse 12 should certainly be read in context with verses 11 and 13.

Where do those say God's love is conditional?

I have not contended that God's love is conditional. I have said that God's acceptance is conditional.


Post 87. John 3:16, for instance, certainly seems to use "love" in an unconditional sense. The key point, for me, is not to equate "love" with "acceptance". God does not unconditionally accept people.

I have said that God's acceptance is conditional.
What (Who?) doesn't He accept?

I would prefer not to discuss this with you for reasons discussed many times in the past. If you will read your Bible, you will readily find the answer. For that matter, just read the passages listed by DW.

I would prefer not to discuss this with you for reasons discussed many times in the past. If you will read your Bible, you will readily find the answer. For that matter, just read the passages listed by DW.
No mention of who isn't accepted and why.

One must call on His name to be accepted, saved. Correct? What if that person has never heard of Him?

It requires a little bit of unbiased thinking. Thankfully, only a little bit.

It is pointed out no fewer than six times here for those willing to read and think just a little bit.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

And those who are unable to come to Him? -- are mentally ill? Have Down's syndrome? Are autistic? Have dementia?

Why do you think they cannot come to Him? Seems to be rather a prejudiced perspective. But I am thankful that you can see the necessity of coming to Him, which is to say "believing in Him".

Luke 18. And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

And those who are unable to come to Him? -- are mentally ill? Have Down's syndrome? Are autistic? Have dementia?

That's when we as believers get involved.

Believers are to be involved with everyone.

Yes, but those populations have special needs that demand special handling.

I would agree with that, but I'd add that most people are part of a "special needs" group. Drug addicts, single moms, military vets, and so many others. We all, I suppose, have special needs.

And one can't merely spout off Bible verses.

I don't know of anyone who has advocated for that. At the drug rehab center, we provide housing, clothing, food, friendship, and counseling. We also "spout off Bible verses", especially the ones about Jesus. On the other had, we cannot replace the Bible with our own personal preferences and ideas.

I don't know of anyone who has advocated for that, but we likewise cannot replace the Bible with our own personal preferences.
That's not what I mean. Merely preaching at people doesn't work. We must get involved with them and become part of their lives.

You missed this. "At the drug rehab center, we provide housing, clothing, food, friendship, and counseling. We also "spout off Bible verses", especially the ones about Jesus. On the other had, we cannot replace the Bible with our own personal preferences and ideas."

I could add that crisis pregnancy centers do a great job of getting involved and meeting needs. Samaritan's Purse does a similarly great job of doing that very thing, and yet they continue to "spout Bible verses". Sounds a lot like the first century church.

Certainly they are NOT "spouting Bible verses"! Horrors! The worst kind of "mission work"!

It is the foundation of the ONLY genuine kind of mission work. To not tell people about the teachings of the Bible is, from the Christian perspective, criminal.

It is the foundation of the ONLY genuine kind of mission work. To not tell people about the teachings of the Bible is, from the Christian perspective, criminal.
There's a way to do that without "spouting"!!! And oh the stories I've heard from those who were disrespected in that way

I would agree that it is possible to do that. It is as great an error as the person who basically ignores the parts of the Bible that don't agree with her/his own personal ideas.

Reminds me of Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" -- an attempt to teach his listeners about the horrors of Hell, the dangers of sin, and the terrors of being lost. Or a street preacher's ravings and threats, tossing specially chosen (negative) Bible verses at the bystanders.

Perfect illustration of this. “The person who basically ignores the parts of the Bible that don’t agree with his/her own personal ideas.”

Perfect illustration of this. “The person who basically ignores the parts of the Bible that don’t agree with his/her own personal ideas.”
No one is posting that parts of the Bible don't agree with that person's personal ideas.

Christians don't (and definitely shouldn't!) convert unbelievers by threatening hellfire.

Edwards did. Finney did. Graham did. Paul did. Peter did. Many others did as well.

They were wrong.

It's a power-grabbing threat. Like, "If you do that one more time, I'm going to _____."

Sorry. I’ll go with that group rather than you.

And your benefit from it?

I’ll be in agreement with apostles.

Spreading fear among your listeners. Was that your m.o. with your own children and schoolchildren?

Sometimes, when it was warranted. "Cross the street without looking and you could get run over." "Smart-off to your mother and you'll deal with me."

Truthfully, I believe the Bible. You don't because it offends you. You disagree with the statements of Jesus in Matthew 25. I think he knows a lot more than you do, so I'm going with him.

To be fair, there is certainly more to the message than judgment and hell, but if it's true then we are being hateful to not tell people. They need to know.

I also believe the Bible but accept that it contains poetry, allegories, parables, etc. that help tell the truths within. I don't read the entire Bible literally.

You dismiss what you dislike.


I also believe the Bible but accept that it contains poetry, allegories, parables, etc. that help tell the truths within. I don't read the entire Bible literally.Sorry, but your statement is meaningless. It's like saying, "I read the Bible in English," or "I read the text from left to right." Everyone does what you stated. No one takes every part literally. The key element is, when do we switch from literal to figurative? When you can answer that, then you will have a point that can be discussed.

If I told you that, you'd argue.

Okay. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory. Jesus' death and resurrection are literal.

The key element is, when (why) do we switch from literal to figurative? When you can answer that, then you will have a point that can be discussed.You haven't answered this. I'm asking for your own reason for designating some passages as literal and others as figurative. I'm not asking simply for arbitrary examples.

In the Psalms, the hills clapped their hands. Literal or figurative?

You still haven't answered the question. Perhaps I should rephrase it. What rule do you use to determine when a passage is to be taken literally or when it is to be taken figuratively? Think it through carefully. More tomorrow.

I take the Bible to be literal where its language is meant to be literal, but figurative where the biblical authors intended to be figurative or symbolic. E.g., hills clapping their hands. Jesus as the door? We are sheep gone astray? Definitely not literal.

I take the Bible to be literal where its language is meant to be literal, but figurative where the biblical authors intended to be figurative or symbolic.OK, but how do you make that determination? What criteria do you use to determine what the "biblical authors intended"?

It's usually quite obvious. (I was an English major who had an excellent teacher of literary terminology.) If not, I search the Scriptures.

But again, what criteria do you use? You decided, for instance, that the creation of man was figurative but the resurrection of Christ was literal. What criteria did you use to make that determination?

The creation story of Adam and Eve, not the creation of man.

Criteria? My brain, my excellent Christian education, years of experience as a Bible student and teacher, my willingness to do research and ask questions.

In other words, you don't know. And that's OK. Just asking.

In other words, you don't know. And that's OK. Just asking.
Why the putdown?? I have no idea of what your definition of "criteria" is.

It's not a putdown. You can't state what criteria (a very common, well-known word) you use. I'm simply acknowledging that. I imagine most people cannot.

Not good enough for you? Criteria: principles or standards by which something may be judged or decided:

"Criteria? My brain, my excellent Christian education, years of experience as a Bible student and teacher, my willingness to do research and ask questions."

I'm glad you discovered the meaning of "criteria". Now you need to learn the meaning of these two nouns.
principles or standards

A "brain" is not a principle or a standard, nor is an education or "years of experience" or any willingness to do research. Use those research skills to discover what method should be used to distinguish between a passage meant to be taken literally versus one meant to be taken figuratively.

Aha! The ones you take literally I might take figuratively. Adam and Eve, The Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, Hell.

And without even knowing why!!

And I'm right and you know it and you're trying desperately to make them true or your faith is in vain!

Which brings me to the question of the day...does a Christian have to believe in everything exactly correctly in order to be saved?

A Quora member's answer today (not MY answer!!!):

"The Bible contains a talking snake, a talking bush and a talking donkey. The Bible has a story about humanity being punished over a fruit. The Bible has a saviour who is born of a virgin, and becomes his own son (and a ghost). This saviour does things such as curse fig trees for being out of season.

The Bible contains weird rules about slavery and animal sacrifice, and seems to be disgusted by women’s bodily functions. The Bible has laws prohibiting wearing mixed fabrics. The Bible praises the righteousness of a man who impregnated his daughters after first offering them up for rape. The Bible has a story about an ark that contained two or seven of every animal, the rest perishing in a flood that covered the entire world.

The Bible contains contradictions, false history, inaccurate science and failed prophecies. The Bible extols the virtues of genocidal leaders such as Moses and Joshua. The Bible ends in a series of bizarre prophecies, culminating in a mass slaughter of the human race.

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."Apparently you do not.


And I'm right and you know it and you're trying desperately to make them true or your faith is in vain!Nonsense. I don't even know what you think you are right about. You don't even know why you consider a passage to literal or figurative in meaning.


Which brings me to the question of the day...does a Christian have to believe in everything exactly correctly in order to be saved?What do you mean by, "...believe in everything exactly correctly"?

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."

Apparently you do not.
That's part of the long Quora quote, not my words. Hmm, now I'm wondering about YOUR criteria.

So you posted a quote that you disagree with? Uhm...don't really believe that. When you're trying to make a point, you don't support it with a quote with which you disagree.

To be clear, a person can be a Christian and not consider the creation story or the story of Noah's flood to be literal events. I suppose that person could also consider the Mt. 25 passage to be metaphorical, but it would be foolish to do so. It is clearly not a parable, and it reads like direct teaching on a future event that is certain to come. That understanding would be in harmony with many other passages which teach on the coming judgment day of God stretching all the way back to Genesis 18:25. But even if a person wanted to take it as a metaphor, you would still need to establish what it was pointing towards. After all, metaphors have meaning, so if this passage is an allegory, then it is certainly picturing something of a dreadful and horrible nature that is yet to happen, and that being the case, it doesn't do much to relieve you of your dread of hell.

So you posted a quote that you disagree with? Uhm...don't really believe that. When you're trying to make a point, you don't support it with a quote with which you disagree.
Read the ENTIRE Quora quote!!! Do I have to explain EVERYthing to you???

Our Heavenly Father has richly blessed me. Micah 6:8 (NIV) says it best, "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

I have no fear of hell, jlisenbe.

You do when you have made such a whacky mistake as to post a quote which you then want to claim you don't agree with. Just incredible. I will give you this. You do frequently bring humor to my day. "Hey look. I have posted a quote from an unbeliever who agrees with me on many things!" Well now, what would that tend to say about you?

And then you seem to think we all have some magical ability to look at your quote and discern which parts you like and which parts you discount. As I said, just incredible.

The Quora quote supports the original Quora question. I thought you would be able to figure that out.

UNBELIEVABLE!

Just as Eve added to God's command. The two of you are willing to add to the Bible.

What makes you think John 3:16 is a love verse? Maybe because you understand God's love (being unconditional) better than God

Whereas it may be immediately obvious to us that God will not decide to stop loving us, for some reason it is less obvious that his love is different from our love. We are often less alert to the ways in which the love language is to be interpreted in the light of God’s other descriptions of himself.


When in the history of the Church did John 3:16, profess to be a love verse?

@WG; take post 141; everywhere you see "The Bible," replace it with Humanity.

Example: (post 141) What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes [Humanity] seriously."

waltero, I was quoting someone in #141. Those are NOT my words.

Those are NOT my words.I wouldn't be so sure of that If I were you.
I hear you talking along the same exact lines as that.

I wouldn't be so sure of that If I were you.
I hear you talking along the same exact lines as that.
I'm not sure what you've been drinking. NEVER have I talked like that!

A Protestant pastor told me this yesterday. Has anyone heard this:

"Surprise comment from a colleague today, first time ever for me. Talking about the thief on the cross next to Jesus. While Jesus was dying on the cross, his spatter blood gave the thief baptism. Questioning and answering went on between them, was like private confession and confirmation questioning. And he was allowed
into heaven and given paradise because he confessed the true (Protestant) faith.

NEVER have I talked like that!a most common retort on this site.
You have over 39,000 posts, and you are sure you've "never talked like that?"
Much the same with other members on this site. "I never said that"...quick way to put an end to any further conversation.
Example: JL - "Nobody ever said John 3:16 was a love verse." Somebody else, name I will not mention, Asked a question. I insinuated that it might have been a loaded question, and all Hell broke loose. Then later on in the conversation, he mentioned that it really wasn't a question at all...all the while arguing that it was an honest question.
Instead of trying to fix or explain what it is to have a personal relationship with God, get into a "personal" relationship with God... keyword is Personal, we must have a personal relationship with God...get into personal...keep it personal.



A Protestant pastor told me this yesterday. Has anyone heard this: We hear it coming from you all the time. Quote: "I was raised a ministers Daughter."

What makes you think John 3:16 is a love verse? Uhm...perhaps because the fourth word in the verse is "love", and God's love is presented as being the motivation for all that follows???


Example: JL - "Nobody ever said John 3:16 was a love verse."I have no idea where that quote came from, but it did not come from me, and I know that is true because I know how to search responses on this site. Took about three minutes. You should try it, and then you wouldn't make this mistake. If you don't believe that, then look here for it will show you your mistake. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showpost.php?p=3878621&postcount=128

I responded by saying, "Who pointed out John 3:16 as a love verse?" So you have made the same mistake twice now.

You quoted WG incorrectly. She was referring to a response from another website.


While Jesus was dying on the cross, his spatter blood gave the thief baptism. Questioning and answering went on between them, was like private confession and confirmation questioning. And he was allowed into heaven and given paradise because he confessed the true (Protestant) faith.Complete conjecture supported by nothing in the Bible. Jesus would have had no "splatter blood" on the cross.

@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.
as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.

I'm not going to get into it with the two of you - he said she said...it seems as though that is your guys' main concern.

When it comes to - "Who pointed out John 3:16 as a love verse? When in the history of the Church did this become a love verse?
I will point out, just as Eve added to God's command, here in John 3;16 are the two of you (even the church) adding to God's word... believing "Unconditional love" should be the theme...should be injected into the verse.
A Christian need not argue about such things. Keep it personal.

Post 47, we were talking about trusting the Bible. It might have been presented as having a reason for trusting in the Bible.
I have no reason to trust in the Bible. I came to a conscious decision to trust in the Bible, not through any particular reason (I don't have to prove, nor does the Bible have to prove) other than the fact that I must believe or it would never set right.
None of it makes sense and it doesn't have to make any sense...not to me. I know what I know and thats all that I know. I know the Bible is the living Word of God and I believe every word of it.

@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.If you are going to quote someone, then you should know.

as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.Maybe so, but you claimed it was a quote by her when, in fact, it was not.

I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.


I have no reason to trust in the Bible.I do, and it makes great sense to me, but I'm fine with you having your own position on the subject.

I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.
Have to ask why this verse only became a love verse in the past 200 yrs or so. You read something in the Bible and analyze it, up, down, and sideways. Through that process you are able to decipher what it means, then you go on to explain to others what it means. When in fact you have no idea what it means because you have not experienced it.
A few of you treat it like a textbook, a science book, etc. If somebody were to explain to you that John 3:16 was not a love verse, and you were to understand it differently...would not your lifes work be in question?

Let me reiterate: I need no reason, for me, to trust in the bible, I trust it unconditionally. Your position is vastly different.

If somebody were to explain to you that John 3:16 was not a love verse, and you were to understand it differently...would not your lifes work be in question?
If not a love verse, then what is it?

Let me reiterate: I need no reason, for me, to trust in the bible, I trust it unconditionally. Your position is vastly different.You trust the Bible unconditionally but not other books. Why the Bible only?


Have to ask why this verse only became a love verse in the past 200 yrs or so.How do you know that John 3:16 was not a "love verse" three or four hundred years ago?

Perhaps you are saying that it is not ONLY about love. I would agree with that. John 3:16 is a wonderfully succinct description of the Gospel. People are perishing because of our sins. God's great love inclined Him to send His only Son as our Savior. Those who believe in Him will not perish, but rather will have eternal life. Do you find that to be acceptable?

If you have a relationship with God then you'd have no desire to try and explain that relationship, as if it should solidify said relationship. We should all have a personal, "personal" (get it) relationship with God. God's kind of personal relationship is more complex than we are capable of understanding. the relationship is more personal than we can possibly understand. There is no reason why you or anybody else "try" and explain their relationship with God...yet we do it all the time. we focus on that. Take yourself for instance. You believe in love, unconditional love. you believe in it like no other person I've ever heard. That is fine, Hallelujah!!! That would be more of a personal thing than something that you should be trying to educate others. A person has to experience God's love in order to know God's love. That's why God's love was never preached among the early church.


You trust the Bible unconditionally but not other books. Why the Bible only?Because it is all about the breath of life. God's Breath came to life in the Man Jesus. His word is the truth and the life.
You can see it happening today. People create and claim their own pronouns as if it is truth. making up words, redefining words, Laws, and life.

As soon as God breathed into man, The Word (Jesus) was brought to life. If I believe in Jesus, then I must believe his word to be true. And know that when all of creation is rolled up like a scroll, his word is the only thing we can stand on. I believe because I believe...no rime or reason. I trust in the good word being the true word of all life.

If you have a relationship with God then you'd have no desire to try and explain that relationship.Why not? I would think that telling people about that relationship would be one of the great goals of our lives.


That's why God's love was never preached among the early church.That is an absurdly ridiculous statement. Love is proclaimed all over the NT. Spend a little time in a Strong's Concordance. Gal. 2:20 is a wonderful place to start.


As soon as God breathed into man, The Word (Jesus) was brought to life. There is nothing at all in the Bible to support such an idea. Nothing...at...all.


If I believe in Jesus, then I must believe his word to be true. And know that when all of creation is rolled up like a scroll, his word is the only thing we can stand on. I believe because I believe...no rime or reason. Can you not see that your first sentence is the "rime or reason" for your belief???

Much the same reasoning, why God loves you? It goes beyond reasoning.
God's breath gives birth to life...That life is the breath of his word. We have breath, we have word. Do we use God's breath to speak God's word, or do we use the breath of life to speak our own word? The word of God is in the breath of life. His word (breath) brings life.

If you tell people about your personal relationship, then it is no longer personal. When you talk of your relationship with God, that is all you. it belongs to you, it comes from you. Your "personal relationship" with God has nothing to do with anybody else. It's like giving testimony. It doesn't matter if people understand what you are talking about. It's similar to when Moses scolded Aaron, for not making a sacrifice. To you, John 3:16 might mean something totally different than what it means to me. It's not a matter of who's right or who's wrong. When you are willing to add (unconditional love) to God's word, only then does it become a matter of wanting to be right...in manipulating the interpretation of his word. Just as Eve had done in the Garden, just as the Pharisees had done with the Law of the Sabbath Day. Just as WG and others have claimed the Scribes and the different translations have done.

The truth is not gained by reading the Bible, it is gained by speaking and living the Word. Every word we speak should be filled with that same breath that came out of the mouth of God.

If you tell people about your personal relationship, then it is no longer personal. Jesus told us about His relationship with His Father, so I guess it was no longer personal? Paul wrote about his personal relationship with the Corinthian church, so was that no longer personal? Paul wrote this to Timothy. "2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.3 I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy." Having made that personal relationship public, was it no longer personal?

Perhaps you mean it would no longer be a PRIVATE relationship. I would sure agree with that.


The truth is not gained by reading the Bible.Oh? "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."

I will give you one thing. This idea of yours about "truth" certainly does not come from the Bible.


To you, John 3:16 might mean something totally different than what it means to me. It's not a matter of who's right or who's wrong. When you are willing to add (unconditional love) to God's word, only then does it become a matter of wanting to be right...in manipulating the interpretation of his word. Just as Eve had done in the Garden, just as the Pharisees had done with the Law of the Sabbath Day. Just as WG and others have claimed the Scribes and the different translations have done.Please show me where I have suggested that "love" in the Bible should be rendered as "unconditional love". That idea came from DW and WG, and not from me, so you're shooting at the wrong target. At any rate, you have already said that you don't get truth from the Bible, so why would you care what the Bible says?

Please show me where I have suggested that "love" in the Bible should be rendered as "unconditional love". That idea came from DW and WG
What's the definition of unconditional love?

I would say it is love with no conditions attached.

Having a "personal relationship" with God doesn't involve telling others about that relationship. It's like having a pastor that can't stop talking about himself and His relationship with his God. It's like having sex and then telling others about it, or taking a selfie after doing the deed.
Having a "personal relationship with God would come out in song. In praise. In word and deed...not trying to explain to others how far your relationship with God has advanced.

I asked if you could interject Unconditional love into the scriptures, where would you place it? You said it belongs in John 3:16.

How does steadfast love differ from unconditional love? I think I'll stick with steadfast love. The prophets of old lived and breathed the word of God...Every breath!

What you fail to realize is; You are nothing. You are just an empty clay jar. You can't explain or convince anybody of anything. It is not you or your understanding of the Scriptures. It's not how you understand the scriptures, it's how you live the scriptures and having the Word of God live in you. In the end (end of all time) there will be no "You." There will only be God and his Word...AKA Jesus...One Word, one God, one Man.

Having a "personal relationship" with God doesn't involve telling others about that relationship.
I agree. It's not telling; instead, it's doing.

Having a "personal relationship with God would come out in song. In praise. In word and deed...not trying to explain to others how far your relationship with God has advanced.It's a shame you weren't around to tell that to Paul and John.


I asked if you could interject Unconditional love into the scriptures, where would you place it? You said it belongs in John 3:16.I believe the question was, "Is John 3:16 a love scripture?" It most certainly is. I don't recall being asked about UC love.


How does steadfast love differ from unconditional love? I think I'll stick with steadfast love.Sounds good to me.


What you fail to realize is; You are nothing. You are just an empty clay jar.I am a clay jar for sure. I am not empty. Christ is in me as He is in all genuine Christians.


You can't explain or convince anybody of anything. It is not you or your understanding of the Scriptures. It's not how you understand the scriptures, it's how you live the scriptures and having the Word of God live in you.That's a little tricky. We certainly need the Word living in us, and yet to say we cannot explain anything makes no sense. You are trying to explain something in your post and you do so repeatedly. Much of the NT is an explanation of the Gospel and how we are to live, act, and speak, so I can't agree with that observation despite the fact that I would agree it has some partial truth in it.


In the end (end of all time) there will be no "You." There will only be God and his Word...AKA Jesus...One Word, one God, one Man.Another statement for which there is no support in the Bible. Even worse, it is flatly contradicted in Rev. 21. "“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

It's not telling? Really??? Jesus would not agree with that assessment. "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops." So please explain to me why we would not both speak and live? And if we are not to speak, then why do you two speak regularly on this site?

So please explain to me why we would not both speak and live? And if we are not to speak, then why do you two speak regularly on this site?
First, we do the loving thing. Then, if asked, we tell why.

First, we do the loving thing. Then, if asked, we tell why.If a person claims to love people, but then neglects to tell them the Gospel, then that person has become decidedly both unloving and disobedient. Read the great commission.

If a person claims to love people, but then neglects to tell them the Gospel, then that person has become decidedly both unloving and disobedient. Read the great commission.
So we do a loving thing, then immediately preach the Gospel?

PREACHING the Gospel reminds me (and very likely the unchurched) of those sidewalk preachers shouting out (with the help of a bullhorn) Bible verses and even threats of hellfire.

So we do a loving thing, then immediately preach the Gospel?I get your point. It can be situational. I don't share the Gospel with everyone I come in contact with, but I do bear in mind that I cannot do anything more loving than telling someone about Jesus, and to neglect to do so when the opportunity is there is to be unloving in the extreme.


PREACHING the Gospel reminds me (and very likely the unchurched) of those sidewalk preachers shouting out (with the help of a bullhorn) Bible verses and even threats of hellfire.I'm not a big fan of that type of preaching, but warning people about an upcoming day of judgment is a very significant act of love.

I get your point. It can be situational. I don't share the Gospel with everyone I come in contact with, but I do bear in mind that I cannot do anything more loving than telling someone about Jesus, and to neglect to do so when the opportunity is there is to be unloving in the extreme.
We agree!

I'm not a big fan of that type of preaching, but warning people about an upcoming day of judgment is a very significant act of love.
I'd rave about the glories and joys of heaven rather than threaten with hellfire (and I agree with Athos that the after-death situation may not be at all what we believe now).

(I finally heard from Athos today for the first time -- with the clearest message he could possibly send me.)

We agreeMiracle!!


I'd rave about the glories and joys of heaven rather than threaten with hellfire (and I agree with Athos that the after-death situation may not be at all what we believe now).I would prefer to see you agree with Jesus.


(I finally heard from Athos today for the first time -- with the clearest message he could possibly send me.)Pretty sure you didn't.

I would prefer to see you agree with Jesus.
Jesus used words and ideas that people of His time could understand.

Pretty sure you didn't.
It was unmistakable!

Jesus used words and ideas that people of His time could understand.His words are straightforward and easy to understand. People don't reject them because they cannot understand them. They reject them because they DO understand them and just don't like the meaning.


It was unmistakable!Have it your way.

His words are straightforward and easy to understand. People don't reject them because they cannot understand them. They reject them because they DO understand them and just don't like the meaning.
Nope. In church on Sunday, ask the person sitting next to you where Gehenna is.

Have it your way.
It was so perfectly done, so beautifully coordinated. I'm still reeling. Just like the first time my son Jeremy reached out to me after he died so unexpectedly, so suddenly.

Anyone can clearly understand the Matthew 25 passage unless she simply doesn’t like it. “Gehenna” is not spoken of in that passage.

Anyone can clearly understand the Matthew 25 passage unless she simply doesn’t like it. “Gehenna” is not spoken of in that passage.
Gehenna — a dark, fiery, evil place of refuse and pain, filled with gnashing of teeth and agony beyond all comprehension.

Jesus referred to it nearly a dozen times in the Gospel accounts, and today, the word is often synonymous with hell, a terrible, vile place that evokes violent images of anguish, unrelenting misery, and destruction.

Matt. 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

As I said, He did not mention Gehenna in the Mt. 25 passage. He gave a graphic description of a day of judgment yet to come. It is a description in harmony with many other NT passages. There is no reason to assign any meaning to it other than a literal one unless, of course, one simply doesn't like what he/she is reading.

Hellfire is the description that has come down to us today. It started in the NT.

Hellfire is the description that has come down to us today. It started in the NT.And so? In what way does that diminish at all what Jesus and the apostles said about the subject repeatedly?

Hellfire is the description that has come down to us today. It started in the NT.

I don't see anybody asking "why is that?" My take: he's using something everybody fears - raging fire - to describe the indescribable. Peter referred to the same place as chains in outer darkness, I believe it was he who used the word "tartarus", they are all expressions for the same thing: something so far beyond terrifying there's no way to describe it to finite minds. We have to use illustrations, euphemisms, and metaphors.

Fire is just the most common one. Any images of "hell" beyond that usually come from Dante, not Jesus.

And I have questions. Will there be babies and young children in heaven? Will our pets who are supposedly waiting for us at the Rainbow Bridge be in heaven with us? And with all those people in heaven, how will I find my two grandmas and grandpas? What will we be doing? I've heard we'll be singing praises all the time, but certainly God has more productive activities in mind for us.

@JL; post 87.
I would think that telling people about that relationship would be one of the great goals of our lives.
Similar to Casting pearl before swine.
I believe the question was, "Is John 3:16 a love scripture?" It most certainly is.“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Main Points For/so : These are link words expanding or explaining something that was said earlier. Context : We need to look at the preceeding verses 14 and 15. “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” This refers to an event in Numbers 21:4-9. God was angry with the Israelites because of their sin of ingratitude. So God sent poisonous snakes which killed many of them. So they cried out to God. God refused to take the snakes away but told Moses to erect a bronze snake on a pole so that when the people who had been bitten looked at the snake they would not die. God provided a way of escape. Thus, in the same way . . . . . . v 16. Loved : past tense. (Not “loves”) Agape love – a love of action, that responds to a need.
Jesus told us about His relationship with His FatherIn as much as he told us about our relationship with the Father...still, nobody ever understood. and many still don't understand...just the same as sinners not understanding their relationship with Satan and hell...We need not understand, we need just believe!

When I first posted John 3:16 as not being a love verse, somebody spoke as if I was crazy, and making his life's work meaningless. Do you not understand? What does "your" life's work have to do with anything? We are empty vessels, the work has already been done. it is not us that does anything.



the "rime or reason" for your belief???THere is no rime or reason. It was not I that chose. God apparently chose me.


How many Christians would believe God loves Lucifer (of course God loves Lucifer, how could he Not love)?

I am a clay jar for sure. I am not emptyYou'd be better off if you were empty. Being filled with your Idea of Jesus or the holy spirit is still you. You need not Argue the truth. You need not try to convince by arguing. It's much like prophecy, you are speaking but it is not you, being that you don't even know what your saying. I am an empty vessel, not knowing what I am doing or where I am going. I know nothing of truth but I know the Truth lives in me and I will allow it to guide me.

The discussion seems to always flow in the direction of Hell. Just like this world and the kingdoms of this world. We need not be concerned with this world or the kingdoms of this world. We need to focus on the Kindom of Heaven that is within us. Don't become distracted by the World and the things of this world...the world that provides for us and the world that we live and love.

I don't see anybody asking "why is that?" My take: he's using something everybody fears - raging fire - to describe the indescribable. Peter referred to the same place as chains in outer darkness, I believe it was he who used the word "tartarus", they are all expressions for the same thing: something so far beyond terrifying there's no way to describe it to finite minds. We have to use illustrations, euphemisms, and metaphors.While I don't completely agree with that, I can live with it. The primary point is, as you said, the indescribable, meaning a terrible, eternal place which you would not wish to spend eternity in.


Fire is just the most common one. Any images of "hell" beyond that usually come from Dante, not Jesus.The expression "fire" came directly from Jesus and no one else, so I don't really see why that would be compared to what Dante might have said.

In as much as he told us about our relationship with the Father...still, nobody ever understood. and many still don't understand...just the same as sinners not understanding their relationship with Satan and hell...We need not understand, we need just believe!

When I first posted John 3:16 as not being a love verse, somebody spoke as if I was crazy, and making his life's work meaningless. Do you not understand? What does "your" life's work have to do with anything? We are empty vessels, the work has already been done. it is not us that does anything.FOR..GOD...SO...LOVED. It explains the motive for the remainder of the verse. To say it is not a love verse is foolish.


You'd be better off if you were empty.Sorry Walter, but that is just a foolish, foolish statement that is completely apart from NT teaching. Paul said, "But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that the extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us." You can also look at Gal. 2:20. You are simply posting your own ideas which came from who knows where.


I am an empty vessel, not knowing what I am doing or where I am going. I know nothing of truth but I know the Truth lives in me and I will allow it to guide me.If the truth is in you, then you are not an empty vessel. Make up your mind.


In as much as he told us about our relationship with the FatherSo then it is no longer, according to you, a "personal relationship". You really believe that?

I can live with that. The primary point is, as you said, the indescribable, meaning a terrible, eternal place which you would not wish to spend eternity in.
And who qualifies for this terrible, eternal place? The mentally ill? People who were raised with few if any boundaries? People who believe in another religion, not Christianity? People who have never heard of Jesus? Who else?

Who qualifies? Everyone.

Who qualifies? Everyone.
If that's true, there will be lots of room in heaven.

All have sinned and fall short…

Read between the lines. You argue as if it is all about theology. it's more than doctrine and theology. it's more than the written word...it is life.
If some Jews of yesterday were saved, would you not think that some Jews of today would be saved as well? It's more than a name, it's more than a word, act, or anything else you are able to think up.
You act as if the scriptures is a science book. a piece of literature that must be argued and sought after before it is able to bring any real meaning.

A person need Die before entering into life. Jesus didn't teach us how to live, he taught us how to Die. We don't desire to live, in order to preach the Gospel. That's why the Scriptures are not something that can be taught (so stop trying).

It’s just all your own unsupported opinion. I don’t accept an idea as being true simply because someone claims to have read between the lines. Such observations are common with people whose thinking lies outside of the Bible. He cannot appeal to any Bible teaching, so he instead goes down the road of “reading between the lines” which can take a person just about anywhere.

Nobodies asking you to accept an idea as being - True to you. Hey look, "WE DON'T KNOW THOSE GUYS," they are using the Name Jesus...leave them alone! Simply because you don't understand it (formulate it in your mind) doesn't mean it is false. Gaining an understanding by simply reading is not going to affect you in the same way as gaining an understanding through experience. Everybody experiences different things in different ways.
Yours is not to decide whether it is true or false. Have you ever heard of somebody speaking in tongues (not knowing what they are saying) and going to the country of the tongues that they speak? how about that? wandering aimlessly, speaking a language they have no understanding, and simply speaking the voice of the Spirit. Does your heart flutter when God speaks to you? We are in the "time of Creation." Time is it. This is the time (in all of eternity) that God has spoken. We are still in the creation part of eternity. God's Word is all there is...His Word is creating all things. There is no other Word, there is no other life...no other word/life that will enter eternity. Your words, your life is just for now, it will die and pass away along with everything else.

How does God love Jesus? What does it mean for God to love Jesus? AKA, God to love himself???
Through all of creation is God able to love his SON, Jesus.

We are God's Love. Not because we love, but because God loves Jesus. DOn't you get it? None of this is for us, it is all for Jesus. All of Creation is meant for Jesus...it really has nothing to do with us. We sing, worship, and praise all to his glory...that is us for all eternity - Praise, worship... that's it.

More unsupported opinion which stands apart from the Bible. I would really suggest you read and accept the teaching of Scripture.

I would really suggest you read and accept the teaching of Scripture. You mean Just like the Apostle Paul? Paul did not teach the Scriptures...Paul brought the Scriptures to life.
You don't need to understand a word I'm saying. you don't even have to believe it. I pray that one day you will believe for yourself. Do you know what the learned believed before Christ's first coming? You might find yourself (and the Church) having those same beliefs/understandings.
Sorry - the Church is in trouble (according to Scripture)...do you understand? Pay no mind, Go on as if nothing is wrong.

How is -"the Church in trouble (according to Scripture)"?

You meant to add the word "only". "Just like the Apostle Paul? Paul did not only teach the Scriptures...Paul brought the Scriptures to life."

Paul did not teach the Scriptures.Oh brother. From Acts 2. "They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship..." There are literally dozens of others. As I have said, your ideas do NOT come from the Bible. They come from your own thoughts.

Fire is just the most common one. Any images of "hell" beyond that usually come from Dante, not Jesus.
The expression "fire" came directly from Jesus and no one else, so I don't really see why that would be compared to what Dante might have said.

Please notice that I said "fire" is a common one and anything *beyond* that comes from Dante.
That annoying word "beyond".

You meant to add the word "only". "Just like the Apostle Paul? Paul did not only teach the Scriptures...Paul brought the Scriptures to life."




Good insight, WG. The additional "only" would make a lot of difference.

The Pharisees taught the scriptures.
The apostles’ teachingNot at all the same thing. I hope one day you will know the difference.
How is -"the Church in trouble (according to Scripture)"? You don't believe the scriptures so you will never see it, even if it was pointed out to you. You need Aks God to reveal.

Not at all the same thing. I hope one day you will know the difference.Jesus taught the Scriptures. John the Baptist taught the Scriptures. Paul taught the Scriptures. Peter taught the Scriptures. James taught the Scriptures. John taught the Scriptures. Apollos taught the Scriptures. The entire first century church taught and believed the Scriptures, so it would be good for Walter to simply acknowledge he posted yet another non-Biblical idea.

As to the Pharisees, their problem was in not realizing WHO the scriptures they were teaching pointed to. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." The Bible acts a giant signpost pointing to the very source of life, and that is Christ Himself.

I am suggesting that, with a kind of worldly wisdom, we have been approaching the World on the grounds of apologetics instead of (which the apostle Paul), determining not to know anything "save Crist crucified".
We assert him, we proclaim him, we start with him because he is the center of the whole of our position.

I think we have become too familiar with the bible.

You do realize you are teaching the scriptures? At any rate, we most certainly should be proclaiming Christ. That was well said. But as to the rest, please read and consider Titus 1:9.

Too familiar with the Bible? Our problem is unfamiliarity.

Our problem is unfamiliarity. Not according to apologetics.

When I said I had to come to a conscious decision to simply believe in a Rock (Bible) for no other reason; I know and I Believe.

Others have stated that Apologetics (what we have studied and learned to know) Has saved them.
Who has become more familiar? Who's an idiot that has no reason?

Only those of us who have become too familiar...will always present itself having issue.

We assert him, we proclaim him, we start with him because he is the center of the whole of our position.
And please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible. The one thing that is needed in this world is love. God loves us, and we are to gladly share that love, in Jesus' name, with others.

please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible.Tell me about it.

Tell me about it.
Knowledge won't get you anywhere. It's what you do with that knowledge that matters.

An answer to a question on Quora:

The Bible is a mix of myths, parables, poetry, allegories, wisdom literature, oratory, epistles, and stories with a moral. It's a beautiful interpretation of human experience from a divine perspective -- man does wrong, repents, and God forgives. Is it true? It definitely isn't a science or history textbook! The most useful life-changing instruction and truth to take from it are Jesus' words, "Love one another." Or, in other words, the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The most useful life-changing instruction and truth to take from it are Jesus' words, "Love one another." Or, in other words, the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


The question then becomes what does it mean to, "Love one another."

I always find it interesting when someone says, "And please don't hang your hat on how well you know the Bible," but then claims to know that, "The Bible is a mix of myths, parables, poetry, allegories, wisdom literature, oratory, epistles, and stories with a moral." You can't have it both ways. And I can add that at no place in the NT is any part of the OT said to be mythical. Hmmm.

I would agree that simply knowing the Bible well is not enough, but when a person chooses to ignore large portions of the Bible simply because he/she doesn't like the message, or presents a message that is at variance with Bible teaching, then you have a serious problem.




Others have stated that Apologetics (what we have studied and learned to know) Has saved them.No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect.


Only those of us who have become too familiar...will always present itself having issue.What??

We assert him, we proclaim him, we start with him because he is the center of the whole of our position.I like that statement. That's a great comment.

No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect. You might want to look again.

That is one of the main reasons why you have no comprehension of what it is I'm telling you.

Just like some of the earlier statements/quotes. You quoted somebody. I read the quote, followed by much of your response. After which I responded, thinking it was a quote from you. How could one make such a mistake? Maybe because you are living the Quote that you just posted. from much (all) of your responses, this topic (quote) might as well originated from you. And it doesn't help your case when - Of course, you are always saying one thing while claiming to mean another.
Similar to a previous discussion that took place here. Somebody Asked a Question regarding authority, only to say his question had nothing to do with authority??? Not to mention another issue He had with said Question even being a question. I happen to mention that I didn't think this was a (honest) question, Only for the questioner to come back and say it was an honest question. then when we got down to the matter, he said, it's not even a question??? I pointed these facts out and you were all so enraged that you couldn't see beyond your own anger and frustration.

Earlier in this post I mentioned we (some) have become too familar with the Bible. You can take that to mean what ever you like or don't like. What I think I mean by it is; Those of us (when I say us, I mean you) who speak Apologetics.

Earlier in this post I mentioned we (some) have become too familar with the Bible. You can take that to mean what ever you like or don't like. What I think I mean by it is; Those of us (when I say us, I mean you) who speak Apologetics.So when you said "we", you didn't include yourself, and when you say "us", you only mean me. Do you wonder why your posts are difficult to follow?

As to the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you can point to something specific, then we can discuss it, but a long statement about a quote followed by my response and then you thought the quote was from me? There is no way to answer that since there is no way to know what you are referring to.

I don't think that a Christian can become too familiar with the Bible. It's like suggesting that a mathematician can become too familiar with math, or a librarian can become too familiar with books.

I posted, "No one here has stated that or said anything to that effect." Your reply was, "You might want to look again." So you want me to find support for a statement you made for which you have no support? Uhmmm...think I'll pass on that.

Honestly Walter, I have no clue as to what it is that you are objecting to. Perhaps you can state it plainly.

Okay, let us go back.
Post 156



Why do I Trust the Bible

Because I trust God.

Circular reasoning, is it not?

Sertainly is

Does that not work for you?

To convince the unconverted is going to take much more than you could ever know of the Bible.


Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.If you go by this you are going about it the wrong way.

This is post 156.
@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.
If you are going to quote someone, then you should know.

as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.


Maybe so, but you claimed it was a quote by her when, in fact, it was not.

I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.


I have no reason to trust in the Bible.


I do, and it makes great sense to me, but I'm fine with you having your own position on the subject.It does not contain any of the quotes you have above as supposedly coming from post 156, so no, that does not work for me.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=850797&page=8&p=3892278#post3892278


Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.I also don't know why you would object to this.

This is Peter's first sermon to a Gentile. I have underlined the portions where Peter makes an appeal to the historical truth of his message, thus engaging in apologetics. It is not a new idea.


37 You know the events that took place throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were under the tyranny of the devil, because God was with him. 39 We ourselves are witnesses of everything he did in both the Judean country and in Jerusalem, and yet they killed him by hanging him on a tree. 40 God raised up this man on the third day and caused him to be seen, 41 not by all the people, but by us whom God appointed as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.”You can readily see that nearly all of it was pointing out the historical truth of the Gospel message. "You know the events," "We ourselves are witnesses," and pointing out that God "caused him to be seen," are all appeals to known history.

Happily, the textual and historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is really good.

If you go by this you are going about it the wrong way.

waltero, what is the right way?

waltero, what is the right way?Great question.

Sorry, my mistake. I think it was post --

Regardless, I posted some quotes. If you were to have gone with that (that should have been enough for you to know what was going on.

Regardless, I posted some quotes. If you were to have gone with that (that should have been enough for you to know what was going on.You posted quotes but you can't even say who wrote them and are unable to give the context of the quotes, and yet that is "enough for you to know"? Walter, my friend, we are not mind-readers here.

Maybe you are trying to make the point that you believe the Bible because you trust in God? If so, then that's fine with me.

I think you meant post 44 where you posted this. "You read it, you eat it, you speak it, and you live and breathe the word of God. The word of God has not only been spoken from the lips of man. His words have been written down. It is in writing, a legal document as it were."

I think that's a good comment. I guess I just don't know why you think I would not agree with it.

I had mentioned that I made a continuous decision to trust that the Bible is it. To the point that It makes no sense, sounds so ridiculous. There is no more that need be said. I don't need to explain...there is no explanation. Just as there is no explanation for why God loves you. There is no explanation why I believe the Bible to be accurate and true. I simply made a conscious decision to believe. Listening to you guys argue and fight and discuss whether the bible is a proper and accurate translation of the living God made me realize that I, here and Now (back when) had to make a conscious decision to trust that God is capable of keeping "His" world whole. So at that time, such as now, I believe. I know for a fact that the Bible is the accurate transition...why would I want to think any other way? why would I think God would speak and have his word in writing and then throw a monkey wrench in?

And that's fine. It is sufficient for you. There are many others who, before they trust their lives to the text of a book, want to be do some checking first. In my case, I trusted the Bible from my childhood, but it has been reassuring and a great joy to discover that the text of the Bible is very reliable from the perspective of history (look back at the post concerning Peter preaching to Cornelius) and has been faithfully transmitted and preserved over the many centuries. It has enriched my confidence and gives me even more solid reasons to preach the Bible and to recommend the teachings of the Bible to others.

I might add that I don't recall anyone here suggesting that your view you stated above, "makes no sense, sounds so ridiculous." I know I haven't, so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

If you read the conversation starting at post #46 you might better understand what it is I talking about.


Walter, you are still using the approach that you know the Bible is trustworthy because the God you read about in the trustworthy Bible is...trustworthy. Now that works for you and me as Christians, but for the unconverted, it would generally be unconvincing.It's not about trying to convince the unconverted.

This is similar to the response I get when I use to tell people (mainly Christians); I am not required to do anything, all I am required to do is believe in the Name of Jesus. that statement always got a response yah, but, but, but its not that easy...my retort was; that's what I read, that's the way I read it, and that's what I believe...just believing in his name is all I am required to do.
That never went well, I suppose cuz it sounds too easy...this has never been enough for Christians...while it's all I ever needed.

Post #49

threw me for a loop. it was not at all what I was talking about. and that is what I meant when I said "We have become too familiar with the Bible."

I said; once I made a conscious decision on trusting the Bible unconditionally, I never ever have any doubts. no confusion, no debate, no convincing. Once I made a conscious decision, to believe in the name of Jesus, I was Golden.

..my retort was; that's what I read, that's the way I read it, and that's what I believe...just believing in his name is all I am required to do.Can you be specific as to where you read that?


It's not about trying to convince the unconverted.Perhaps it isn't for you, but I assure you it very much is for me. It was for Peter as well. "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you."

Perhaps I mistook your meaning.

I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with you. nothing to do with "your" convincing anybody of anything.

Can you be specific as to where you read that?I guess not. Perhaps that's why your statements are unconvincing?


nothing to do with "your" convincing anybody of anything.It is, of course, the Holy Spirit who does the convincing, but to think that I can therefore be lazy and empty in my thinking and knowledge is far from the truth. Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2, or the first several chapters of Romans, and see how God used men who were well-prepared to be used. Uninformed, strictly personal comments won't be effective.

Sometimes it seems you are unmoved by scripture, but I keep trying regardless.

Ezra 7:10. For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it.
2 Timothy 2:15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

your statements are unconvincing? That's good enough for me.

That's good enough for me.So for your ideas to be foundationless and thus unconvincing is good enough? Well, so be it. But I can't believe that's really how you look at this.

((I am convinced)) The fact that you continue to exclaim; "not very convincing." Shows that you are still trying to convince yourself.
As I mentioned earlier. I am not about convincing anybody...and here you are, telling me it's not very convincing?

Believing the Bible (as it is today) is the living Word, will take faith...you can't convince a person into believing. Example: how many years have you and WG been going at this? It would be like; trying to convince somebody that a Rock can speak.

“I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Luke 19:37-40. Are you convinced, now that rocks speak?

Believing the Bible (as it is today) is the living Word, will take faith...you can't convince a person into believing. Example: how many years have you and WG been going at this? It would be like; trying to convince somebody that a Rock can speak.You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you would not spend so much time here trying to convince us that your ideas are correct. If you really believed that, you would never discuss religion with anyone since, after all, "you can't convince a person into believing." So why do you carry on these discussions???

Your text does not say that rocks speak.

Yes, I spend so much time here, trying to convince you. I'm simply quoting Scripture as it means to me. You are wanting to be convinced. Similar to when the Jews asked for a sign...then they would believe.

What gets me is when the two of you go off on some cockamamy discussions about God married Mary, Adom was non-binary.
Your text does not say that rocks speak My text doesn't have to. It's straight out of the Bible. It's right there in the Book!

Yes, I spend so much time here, trying to convince you.But you just said you can't convince a person into believing, so why are you trying to do the very thing you claim can't be done?

"As I mentioned earlier. I am not about convincing anybody."
"...you can't convince a person into believing."


I'm simply quoting Scripture as it means to me.The primary issue is what the scripture means, and not simply what you might think it means.


My text doesn't have to. It's straight out of the Bible. It's right there in the Book!So you think you can apply any meaning you want to any scripture?


discussions about God married Mary, Adom was non-binary.No one here has ever claimed either of those to be the case, so I have no idea where you got that from.