Commonly misquoted bible verses

[Van]

Certainly the passages present the same basic truth..

Certainly, those that discern the truth are to pay attention to erroneous teaching which may deceive and hurt others. They contend for the faith, lest the deceived embrace error.

Key word, “soldier.”

The soldier in 2 Timothy 2 is a _________?

A. unbeliever
B. believer
​

Neither passage is written to or about the lost coming for salvation. They are as I stated above.

That lack of discernment, often motivated by the desire to grasp something in a vain attempt to support what is not truth, is as bad as one thirsty thinking drinking ocean water is healthy.

Of course the passage addresses the lost becoming saved, for God does not desire any to perish, 2 Peter 3:9.

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Here is the bottom line, we could cite each and every text used by Calvinism in support of the bogus TULI doctrines, and demonstrate the verse or passage is being misquoted or misrepresented as above.

 

[agedman]

You can be wrong if you like. 1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:18; Romans 6:14. 1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15.

You give a list of verses, yet do not take the initiative to express each verse in context and how that supports your thinking of both Peter’s letter and the letter from Paul to Timothy.

Until you actually do that work, there is little you have offered in rebuttal.

I took the context of both letters and showed from those letters the thinking of the writer.

The points I made can only be refuted by one showing from those letters how i confused the context and therefore the interpretation.

Have at it. But just don’t through verses out and not attend to the context.

 

[agedman]

Of course the passage addresses the lost becoming saved, for God does not desire any to perish, 2 Peter 3:9.

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Here is the bottom line, we could cite each and every text used by Calvinism in support of the bogus TULI doctrines, and demonstrate the verse or passage is being misquoted or misrepresented as above.

Show in context that the verse is as you are taking it.

No verse can stand outside the context and ever be taken as valid.

The precepts and principles of Scriptures are built upon both context and unity.

No single verse establishes a doctrine or principle.

No single verse taken out of context establishes a principle or doctrine.

There are times we all will refer to a single verse, but that is assumed the verse is taken the light of the context.

You are attempting to select single verses, out of context to support what the verse in context does not.

You may not like that truth, but it is never-the-less the truth.

If in context (as I did) you can show my error, have at it.

 

[Van]

Does anyone remember which number the "you took it out of context" is?

 

[Van]

Note the absence of rebuttal, just the SOP deflection. Plus the smear (I might not like the truth.)

God desires all to be saved. Why do the "Irresistible Grace" advocates deny this truth. Because their doctrine falsely says God saves via compulsion, therefore if God desired all to be saved, then all would be saved. However since God saves via persuasion, choosing those whose faith He credits as righteousness, the idea that God desires all people to be saved is not a problem for those on the side of biblical truth.

And on a different subject, scripture cannot be broken. Therefore doctrine can be presented using a verse or passage (whose authenticity is not under a cloud). However, the presentation must be contextual, and not a misrepresentation.

 

[agedman]

Does anyone remember which number the "you took it out of context" is?

Are you actually agreeing you took part of the verse out of context?

Or are you declaring context is of minor or of no importance?

Or are you admitting that you will grasp any straw to stuff in the scarecrow so bird brains might think you have offered something living?

Perhaps you are merely distracting from the truth which is called “avoidance.”

Not certain really what the post value is other than to mock, and by doing so attempt to rally support for a failed view.

 

[agedman]

Note the absence of rebuttal, just the SOP deflection. Plus the smear (I might not like the truth.)

God desires all to be saved. Why do the "Irresistible Grace" advocates deny this truth. Because their doctrine falsely says God saves via compulsion, therefore if God desired all to be saved, then all would be saved. However since God saves via persuasion, choosing those whose faith He credits as righteousness, the idea that God desires all people to be saved is not a problem for those on the side of biblical truth.

And on a different subject, scripture cannot be broken. Therefore doctrine can be presented using a verse or passage (whose authenticity is not under a cloud). However, the presentation must be contextual, and not a misrepresentation.

Back up and stay with the contention.

You are again fixated on an area that you want to refute, but the problem is, Van, you are abusing the Scripture by ripping them from the intended contextual meaning.

It is as if I preached that one could steal and used portions of passage by declaring the Bible says, “Steal.” “Work hard with your hands.”

I take two portions that are not even related out of the context of statements and create a doctrine.

Sir, that is exactly what you do using Peter, Timothy, and even Matthew.

Yet you have the audacity to proclaim against some doctrine with which you disagree?

You then “on another matter” you boast, “...Therefore doctrine can be presented using a verse or passage...”.

That is in direct violation of the Scripture. No less than Isaiah states:

9“To whom will he teach knowledge,
and to whom will he explain the message?
Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?
10For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little.”

11For by people of strange lips
and with a foreign tongue
the LORD will speak to this people,
12to whom he has said,
“This is rest;
give rest to the weary;
and this is repose”;
yet they would not hear.
13And the word of the LORD will be to them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little,
that they may go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken.​

 

[Van]

False charge #1, I am abusing scripture. No the one making the charge is describing his own behavior. Deflect, blame, change the subject.

False charge #2, I am taking Peter, Paul, and Matthew out of context. No, I am presenting their contextual views.

False charge #3, I am being audacious to proclaim unbiblical doctrine false. No I am following God's command.

False charge #4, my view that scripture cannot be broken is wrong. No example will be forthcoming. The passage supports my view.

This is all they do, spew falsehoods, disparage those hold differing views, and never stay with the topic, in this case God desires all people to be saved.

 

[agedman]

False charge #1, I am abusing scripture. No the one making the charge is describing his own behavior. Deflect, blame, change the subject.

False charge #2, I am taking Peter, Paul, and Matthew out of context. No, I am presenting their contextual views.

False charge #3, I am being audacious to proclaim unbiblical doctrine false. No I am following God's command.

False charge #4, my view that scripture cannot be broken is wrong. No example will be forthcoming. The passage supports my view.

This is all they do, spew falsehoods, disparage those hold differing views, and never stay with the topic, in this case God desires all people to be saved.

Ok, then prove these are false charges.

Place in context Peter and Timothy and prove they are as you subscribed.

 

[Van]

Why change the subject to your false charges? Why not address the topic, God desires all people to be saved, and those that claim that is a misrepresentation need to offer more than disparagement and absurdity.

Why did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? Because God desires all people to be saved.

Why did Christ become the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Because God desires all people to be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

Why change the subject to your false charges? Why not address the topic, God desires all people to be saved, and those that claim that is a misrepresentation need to offer more than disparagement and absurdity.

Why did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? Because God desires all people to be saved.

Why did Christ become the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Because God desires all people to be saved.

Not really

 

[agedman]

Why change the subject to your false charges? Why not address the topic, God desires all people to be saved, and those that claim that is a misrepresentation need to offer more than disparagement and absurdity.

Why did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all? Because God desires all people to be saved.

Why did Christ become the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Because God desires all people to be saved.

See, here is a great example how you turn a statement by The Christ to support what you want, but in context it does not.

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
​

What is the context?

What is the actual wording compared to your post?

Does not your desire to refute what you perceive error oblige even the very Words of Christ to be misquoted by you?

 

[Jerome]

a ransom for all

What is the actual wording....Does not your desire to refute what you perceive error oblige even the very Words of Christ to be misquoted by you?

The actual wording is:
I Timothy 2:6 "a ransom for all"

 

[Van]

Thanks Jerome.

The effort to deflect using false charges continues unabated. I am charged with the very actions of the false doctrine advocates.

God desires all people to be saved. Those that claim otherwise are misrepresenting scripture, 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4.

BTW, to claim "many" does not represent everyone but Jesus is yet another misrepresentation.

In post 91 we see their favorite response, claiming scripture does not really mean what it says.

 

[agedman]

Thanks Jerome.

The effort to deflect using false charges continues unabated. I am charged with the very actions of the false doctrine advocates.

God desires all people to be saved. Those that claim otherwise are misrepresenting scripture, 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4.

BTW, to claim "many" does not represent everyone but Jesus is yet another misrepresentation.

In post 91 we see their favorite response, claiming scripture does not really mean what it says.

So you assume that Timothy refutes what Christ stated and is reported in multiple gospels?

Or is it the fact that Christ’s statement is the priority in which Timothy’s statement must be considered.

Therefore, again, Van, context!

Who is being addressed, in what setting, where, to what purpose.

Timothy does not override the statement of Christ.

Christ said, “... life for many...”. And in another place “... all that come to me....”. Then in another place “...unless the Father draws ....”

In Context, Timothy is not disputing the statements of Christ.

You are!

 

[agedman]

The actual wording is:
I Timothy 2:6 "a ransom for all"

See post 95.

Are folks taught context clues in schools anymore?

 

[Van]

On and on they post charges and falsehoods. God desires all people to be saved. This is the truth they are trying to misrepresent.

 

[agedman]

On and on they post charges and falsehoods. God desires all people to be saved. This is the truth they are trying to misrepresent.

Really? Misrepresent truth? You post a verse and then make grand pronouncements and that is truth?

What have I repeatedly sought from you?

I will remind you.

What I specifically want, is you to reconcile the statement made to Timothy by Paul in comparison and contrast to that made by The Lord Jesus Christ. I want you to demonstrate how “many” became “all.”

If you can, then perhaps you will be obliged to agree with what you so often state is disagreeable.

You puff that I post charges and falsehoods. Then prove your claim by bringing reconciliation.

Does Paul supersede Christ?

If not, is Paul wrong?

If not, then how does one see the formation that brings unity in comparing and contrasting Christ’s statement to the letter from Paul?

Do you disagree that the shed blood was for all sin of all the “kosmos” (creation) that sin no longer stands as the condemnation, but eternity is based upon belief?

Do you disagree that the death and resurrection of the Christ only benefit those given to believe?

Do you disagree that only a subset of all humankind and not unfettered all created are given by God the authority to believe?

Do you disagree that God has no sense of unfulfilled desire or wish, but designs and commands according to His purpose?

Do you disagree that God has made His final and best offer to all humankind?

Surly, a person, who claims others present what is error and false, can rightly present the Scriptures!

 

[Van]

On and on the absurdity continues, now it is claimed when many is contrasted with one, the many does not mean all the rest. I kid you not.

God desires all people to be saved. This is the truth from scripture. And note this is the topic the opponents of this truth want changed.

 

[agedman]

On and on the absurdity continues, now it is claimed when many is contrasted with one, the many does not mean all the rest. I kid you not.

God desires all people to be saved. This is the truth from scripture. And note this is the topic the opponents of this truth want changed.

Avoidance - an attempt to escape that which brings discomfort, anxiety, ...

The appeals using such words as “absurdity” do nothing to garner support for your view.

When urged to present edification, even given guidance by providing a series of questions, the response is avoidance?


I attempted to lead you into an understanding concerning God.

I give it here more plainly that the casual reader may understand.

Here is a principle concerning the nature and character of God.

God is not needy or desirous as humankind consider. Within the capacity to display His love, it does not come from motives relating to need.

Because God is all knowing, there is no capacity for Him to:

“wish for, want, long for, yearn for, crave, set one's heart on, hanker after/for, pine for/after, thirst for, itch for, be desperate for, be bent on, have a need for, covet, aspire to; have a fancy for, fancy, feel like, feel in need of;
informal: have a yen for, yen for, be dying for”
(list taken from here )​

Rather, God always puts forth the best offer.

That you stumble over this insight allows for a misalignment of the truth and impugns the Biblical God by presenting a lesser authority.