Search results

You reasoning neither shows or proves anything, as you have completely missed what I am saying. You quote from IHM, who was a Calvinist, which means that he has a certain slant on what he says. Let me make myself very clear, and then respond and show where I am in error. the construction of...

These are terms that have been defined by mans understanding, and what a Reformed person takes them to mean, does not mean the same to others. I have used the definitions from the standard lexicons, and if you think they are not right, then it is you who has the problem. "propitiation", has been...

Five Points of Arminianism | CARM.org The Five Points of Calvinism were a response to Arminius' teachings

you fail to understand that there is not only one Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The MT dates from about the 10th century A.D.. The Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Texts are far older, and the LXX Hebrew text is among this. It is this Hebrew text that the NT writers used.

How can you say that the NT writers thought that the LXX was inspired, as it is only a version of the actual Hebrew OT autographs? Unless you suppose that the Inspiration of the Bible also extends to human translations? In which case all can claim their translation is inspired by God. The...

You say that "A true Arminian would accept...", is this what Arminius taught in his 5 points?

some are more than others

Attempted Greek? do you know the language yourself? They are both very wrong as the people who know, do not agree with what they say. Instead of useless remarks, simply prove what I have said to be wrong, citing Scripture evidence. Give examples of where my Hebrew and Greek are wrong.

so why the need to corrupt the text?

you are right, I misread your earlier post which I commented on

and why not from a text that is based on the Hebrew rather than the Greek, as the DSS seems more closely agreed with the LXX than the MT, which means that the NT writers could have used an Hebrew text that has not survived today?

So the Hebrew and Greek scholars, whose works are the standard for millions of Bible students around the world, which you probably used, are wrong, and you right? You think too much of yourself, which is a very dangerous position for any true Christian.

see my comments in #29 and then tell me that my remark is ignorant

This translation is heretical in many places, so I seriously doubt if it is in any way "blessed" by God. The fact that the Lord does use any translation, as He has the Jehovah's Witnesses, NWT, does not mean much!

because all of your posts don't always deal with the OP. I am responding to your comments on the reading in the RSV, which is the topic under discussion, on Isaiah 7:14.

but according to their own theology

your error is a very common one. you are assuming that every use of a word or term must have the same meaning. this is wrong. for example, "all" and "world", does not mean in every instance "the whole number", and can have a limited meaning. Likewise "eternal" does not always mean "without end"...

you have responded to my post, and criticize it. I ask to show where what I have said is not right from the Bible, and your response shows me that you can't

then why don't you show me from Scripture, where I am wrong?

That is why I say to stick to what the Holy Bible, the Word of God teaches, without the need to impose any human speculation on what it says.